Peter Abelard

Dialectician, philosopher, and theologian, born 1079; died 1142. Peter Abelard (also spelled Abeillard, Abailard, etc., while the best manuscripts have Abaelardus) was born in the little village of Pallet, about ten miles east of Nantes in Brittany. His father, Berengar, was lord of the village, his mother's name was Lucia; both afterwards entered the monastic state. Peter, the oldest of their children, was intended for a military career, but, as he himself tells us, he abandoned Mars for Minerva, the profession of arms for that of learning. Accordingly, at an early age, he left his father's castle and sought instruction as a wandering scholar at the schools of the most renowned teachers of those days. Among these teachers was Roscelin the Nominalist, at whose school at Locmenach, near Vannes, Abelard certainly spent some time before he proceeded to Paris. Although the University of Paris did not exist as a corporate institution until more than half a century after Abelard's death, there flourished at Paris in his time the Cathedral School, the School of Ste. Geneviève, and that of St. Germain des Pré, the forerunners of the university schools of the following century. The Cathedral School was undoubtedly the most important of these, and thither the young Abelard directed his steps in order to study dialectic under the renowned master (scholasticus) William of Champeaux. Soon, however, the youth from the province, for whom the prestige of a great name was far from awe-inspiring, not only ventured to object to the teaching of the Parisian master, but attempted to set up as a rival teacher. Finding that this was not an easy matter in Paris, he established his school first at Melun and later at Corbeil. This was, probably, in the year 1101. The next couple of years Abelard spent in his native place “almost cut off from France”, as he says. The reason of this enforced retreat from the dialectical fray was failing health. On returning to Paris, he became once more a pupil of William of Champeaux for the purpose of studying rhetoric. When William retired to the monastery of St. Victor, Abelard, who meantime had resumed his teaching at Melun, hastened to Paris to secure the chair of the Cathedral School. Having failed in this, he set up his school in Mt. Ste. Genevieve (1108). There and at the Cathedral School, in which in 1113 he finally succeeded in obtaining a chair, he enjoyed the greatest renown as a teacher of rhetoric and dialectic. Before taking up the duty of teaching theology at the Cathedral School, he went to Laon where he presented himself to the venerable Anselm of Laon as a student of theology. Soon, however, his petulant restiveness under restraint once more asserted itself, and he was not content until he had as completely discomfited the teacher of theology at Laon as he had successfully harassed the teacher of rhetoric and dialectic at Paris. Taking Abelard's own account of the incident, it is impossible not to blame him for the temerity which made him such enemies as Alberic and Lotulph, pupils of Anselm, who, later on, appeared against Abelard. The “theological studies” pursued by Abelard at Laon were what we would nowadays call the study of exegesis.

There can be no doubt that Abelard's career as a teacher at Paris, from 1108 to 1118, was an exceptionally brilliant one. In his “Story of My Calamities” (Historia Calamitatum) he tells us how pupils flocked to him from every country in Europe, a statement which is more than corroborated by Ihe authority of his contemporaries. He was, In fact, the idol of Paris; eloquent, vivacious, handsome, possessed of an unusually rich voice, full of confidence in his own power to please, he had, as he tells us, the whole world at his feet. That Abelard was unduly conscious of these advantages is admitted by his most ardent admirers; indeed, in the “Story of My Calamities,” he confesses that at that period of his life he was filled with vanity and pride. To these faults he attributes his downfall, which was as swift and tragic as was everything, seemingly, in his meteoric career. He tells us in graphic language the tale which has become part of the classic literature of the love-theme, how he fell in love with Heloise, niece of Canon Fulbert; he spares us none of the details of the story, recounts all the circumstances of its tragic ending, the brutal vengeance of the Canon, the flight of Heloise to Pallet, where their son, whom he named Astrolabius, was born, the secret wedding, the retirement of Heloise to the nunnery of Argenteuil, and his abandonment of his academic career. He was at the time a cleric in minor orders, and had naturally looked forward to a distinguished career as an ecclesiastical teacher. After his downfall, he retired to the Abbey of St. Denis, and, Heloise having taken the veil at Argenteuil, he assumed the habit of a Benedictine monk at the royal Abbey of St. Denis. He who had considered himself “the only surviving philosopher in the whole world” was willing to hide himself — definitely, as he thought — in monastic solitude. But whatever dreams he may have had of final peace in his monastic retreat were soon shattered. He quarrelled with the monks of St. Denis, the occasion being his irreverent criticism of the legend of their patron saint, and was sent to a branch institution, a priory or cella, where, once more, he soon attracted unfavourable attention by the spirit of the teaching which he gave in philosophy and theology. “More subtle and more learned than ever”, as a contemporary (Otto of Freising) describes him, he took up the former quarrel with Anselm's pupils. Through their influence, his orthodoxy, especially on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, was impeached, and he was summoned to appear before a council at Soissons, in 1121, presided over by the papal legate, Kuno, Bishop of Praneste. While it is not easy to determine exactly what took place at the Council, it is clear that there was no formal condemnation of Abelard's doctrines, but that he was nevertheless condemned to recite the Athanasian Creed, and to burn his book on the Trinity. Besides, he was sentenced to imprisonment in the Abbey of St. Médard, at the instance apparently, of the monks of St. Denis, whose enmity, especially that of their Abbot Adam, was unrelenting. In his despair, he fled to a desert place in the neighbourhood of Troyes. Thither pupils soon began to flock, huts and tents for their reception were built, and an oratory erected, under the title “The Paraclete”, and there his former success as a teacher was renewed.

After the death of Adam, Abbot of St. Denis, his successor, Suger, absolved Abelard from censure, and thus restored him to his rank as a monk. The Abbey of St. Gildas de Rhuys, near Vannes, on the coast of Brittany, having lost its Abbot in 1125, elected Abelard to fill his place. At the same time, the community of Argenteuil was dispersed, and Heloise gladly accepted the Oratory of the Paraclete, where she became Abbess. As Abbot of St. Gildas, Abelard had, according to his own account, a very troublesome time. The monks, considering him too strict, endeavoured in various ways to rid themselves of his rule, and even attempted to poison him. They finally drove him from the monastery. Retaining the title of Abbot, he resided for some time in the neighbourhood of Nantes and later (probably in 1136) resumed his career as teacher at Paris and revived, to some extent, the renown of the days when, twenty years earlier, he gathered “all Europe” to hear his lectures. Among his pupils at this time were Arnold of Brescia and John of Salisbury. Now begins the last act in the tragedy of Abelard's life, in which St. Bernard plays a conspicuous part. The monk of Clairvaux, the most powerful man in the Church in those days, was alarmed at the heterodoxy of Abelard's teaching, and questioned the Trinitarian doctrine contained in Abelard's writings. There were admonitions on the one side and defiances on the other; St. Bernard, having first warned Abelard in private, proceeded to denounce him to the bishops of France; Abelard, underestimating the ability and influence of his adversary, requested a meeting, or council, of bishops, before whom Bernard and he should discuss the points in dispute. Accordingly, a council was held at Sens (the metropolitan see to which Paris was then suffragan) in 1141. On the eve of the council a meeting of bishops was held, at which Bernard was present, but not Abelard, and in that meeting a number of propositions were selected from Abelard's writings, and condemned. When, on the following morning, these propositions were read in solemn council, Abelard, informed, so it seems, of the proceedings of the evening before, refused to defend himself, declaring that he appealed to Rome. Accordingly, the propositions were condemned, but Abelard was allowed his freedom. St. Bernard now wrote to the members of the Roman Curia, with the result that Abelard had proceeded only as far as Cluny on his way to Rome when the decree of Innocent II confirming the sentence of the Council of Sens reached him. The Venerable Peter of Cluny now took up his case, obtained from Rome a mitigation of the sentence reconciled him with St. Bernard, and gave him honourable and friendly hospitality at Cluny. There Abelard spent the last years of his life, and there at last he found the peace which he had elsewhere sought in vain. He donned the habit of the monks of Cluny and became a teacher in the school of the monastery. He died at Chalôn-sur-Saône in 1142, and was buried at the Paraclete. In 1817 his remains and those of Heloise were transferred to the cemetery of Père la Chaise, in Paris, where they now rest. For our knowledge of the life of Abelard we rely chiefly on the “Story of My Calamities”, an autobiography written as a letter to a friend, and evidently intended for publication. To this may be added the letters of Abelard and Heloise, which were also intended for circulation among Abelard's friends. The “Story” was written about the year 1130, and the letters during the following five or six years. In both the personal element must of course, be taken into account. Besides these we have very scanty material; a letter from Roscelin to Abelard, a letter of Fulco of Deuil, the chronicle of Otto of Freising, the letters of St. Bernard, and a few allusions in the writings of John of Salisbury. Abelard's philosophical works are “Dialectica,” a logical treatise consisting of four books (of which the first is missing); “Liber Divisionum et Definitionum” (edited by Cousin as a fifth book of the “Dialectica”); Glosses on Porphyry, Boëius, and the Aristotelian “Categories”; “Glossulae in Porphyrium” (hitherto unpublished except in a French paraphrase by Rémusat); the fragment “De Generibus et Speciebus”, ascribed to Abelard by Cousin; a moral treatise “Scito Teipsum, seu Ethica”, first published by Pez in “Thes. Anecd. Noviss”. All of these, with the exception of the “Glossulae” and the “Ethica”, are to be found in Cousin's “Ouvrages inédits d'Abélard” (Paris, 1836). Abelard's theological works (published by Cousin, “Petri Abselardi Opera”, in 2 vols., Paris, 1849-59, also by Migne, “Patr. Lat.”, CLXXVIII) include “Sic et Non”, consisting of scriptural and patristic passages arranged for and against various theological opinions, without any attempt to decide whether the affirmative or the negative opinion is correct or orthodox; “Tractatus de Unitate et Trinitate Divinâ”, which was condemned at the Council of Sens (discovered and edited by Stölzle, Freiburg, 1891); “Theologia Christiana,” a second and enlarged edition of the “Tractatus” (first published by Durand and Martène “Thes. Nov.,” 1717); “Introductio in Theologiam' (more correctly, “Theologia”), of which the first part was published by Duchesne in 1616; “Dialogus inter Philosophum, Judaeum, et Christianum”; “Sententiae Petri Abaelardi”, otherwise called “Epitomi Theologiae Christianae”, which is seemingly a compilation by Abelard's pupils (first published by Rheinwald, Berlin, 1535); and several exegetical works hymns, sequences, etc. In philosophy Abelard deserves consideration primarily as a dialectician. For him, as for all the scholastic philosophers before the thirteenth century, philosophical inquiry meant almost exclusively the discussion and elucidation of the problems suggested by the logical treatises of Aristotle and the commentaries thereon, chiefly the commentaries of Porphyry and Boëtius. Perhaps his most important contribution to philosophy and theology is the method which he developed in his “Sic et Non” (Yea and Nay), a method germinally contained in the teaching of his predecessors, and afterwards brought to more definite form by Alexander of Hales and St. Thomas Aquinas. It consisted in placing before the student the reasons pro and contra, on the principle that truth is to be attained only by a dialectical discussion of apparently contradictory arguments and authorities. In the problem of Universals, which occupied so much of the attention of dialecticians in those days, Abelard took a position of uncompromising hostility to the crude nominalism of Roscelin on the one side, and to the exaggerated realism of William of Champeaux on the other. What, precisely, was his own doctrine on the question is a matter which cannot with accuracy be determined. However, from the statements of his pupil, John of Salisbury, it is clear that Abelard's doctrine, while expressed in terms of a modified Nominalism, was very similar to the moderate Realism which began to be official in the schools about half a century after Abelard's death. In ethics Abelard laid such great stress on the morality of the intention as apparently to do away with the objective distinction between good and evil acts. It is not the physical action itself, he said, nor any imaginary injury to God, that constitutes sin, but rather the psychological element in the action, the intention of sinning, which is formal contempt of God. With regard to the relation between reason and revelation, between the sciences — including philosophy — and theology, Abelard incurred in his own day the censure of mystic theologians like St. Bernard, whose tendency was to disinherit reason in favour of contemplation and ecstatic vision. And it is true that if the principles “Reason aids Faith” and “Faith aids Reason” are to be taken as the inspiration of scholastic theology, Abelard was constitutionally inclined to emphasize the former, and not lay stress on the latter. Besides, he adopted a tone, and employed a phraseology, when speaking of sacred subjects, which gave offence, and rightly, to the more conservative of his contemporaries. Still, Abelard had good precedent for his use of dialectic in the elucidation of the mysteries of faith; he was by no means an innovator in this respect; and though the thirteenth century, the golden age of scholasticism, knew little of Abelard, it took up his method, and with fearlessness equal to his, though without any of his flippancy or irreverence, gave full scope to reason in the effort to expound and defend the mysteries of the Christian Faith. St. Bernard sums up the charges against Abelard when he writes (Ep. cxcii) “Cum de Trinitate loquitur, sapit Arium; cum do gratiâ, sapit Pelagium; cum de personâ Christi, sapit Nestorium”, and there is no doubt that on these several heads Abelard wrote and said many things which were open to objection from the point of view of orthodoxy. That is to say, while combating the opposite errors, he fell inadvertently into mistakes which he himself did not recognize as Arianism, Pelagianism, and Nestonanism, and which even his enemies could characterize merely as savouring of Arianism, Pelagianism, and Nestorianism. Abelard's influence on his immediate successors was not very great, owing partly to his conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, and partly to his personal defects, more especially his vanity and pride, which must have given the impression that he valued truth less than victory.

His influence on the philosophers and theologians of the thirteenth century was, however, very great. It was exercised chiefly through Peter Lombard, his pupil, and other framers of the “Sentences.” Indeed, while one must be careful to discount the exaggerated encomiums of Compayré, Cousin, and others, who represent Abelard as the first modern, the founder of the University of Paris, etc., one is justified in regarding him, in spite of his faults of character and mistakes of judgment, as an important contributor to scholastic method, an enlightened opponent of obscurantism, and a continuator of that revival of learning which occurred in the Carolingian age, and of which whatever there is of science, literature, and speculation in the early Middie Ages is the historical development.

WILLIAM TURNER

Saint Agnes of Rome

Of all the virgin martyrs of Rome none was held in such high honour by the primitive church, since the fourth century, as St. Agnes. In the ancient Roman calendar of the feasts of the martyrs (Depositio Martyrum), incorporated into the collection of Furius Dionysius Philocalus, dating from 354 and often reprinted, e.g. in Ruinart [ Acta Sincera Martyrum (ed. Ratisbon, 1859), 63 sqq.], her feast is assigned to 21 January, to which is added a detail as to the name of the road (Via Nomentana) near which her grave was located. The earliest sacramentaries give the same date for her feast, and it is on this day that the Latin Church even now keeps her memory sacred. Since the close of the fourth century the Fathers of the Church and Christian poets have sung her praises and extolled her virginity and heroism under torture. It is clear, however, from the diversity in the earliest accounts that there was extant at the end of the fourth century no accurate and reliable narrative, at least in writing, concerning the details of her martyrdom. On one point only is there mutual agreement, viz., the youth of the Christian heroine. St. Ambrose gives her age as twelve (De Virginibus, I, 2; P.L., XVI, 200-202: Haec duodecim annorum martyrium fecisse traditur ), St. Augustine as thirteen ( Agnes puella tredecim annorum ; Sermo cclxxiii, 6, P.L., XXXVIII, 1251), which harmonizes well with the words of Prudentius: Aiunt jugali vix habilem toro ( Peristephanon, Hymn xiv, 10 in Ruinart, Act. Sinc., ed cit. 486). Damasus depicts her as hastening to martyrdom from the lap of her mother or nurse ( Nutricis gremium subito liquisse puella ; in St. Agneten, 3, ed. Ihm, Damasi epigrammata, Leipzig, 1895, 43, n. 40). We have no reason whatever for doubting this tradition. It indeed explains very well the renown of the youthful martyr. We have already cited the testimony of the three oldest witnesses to the martyrdom of St. Agnes: (1) St. Ambrose, De Virginibus, I, 2; (2) the inscription of Pope Damasus engraved on marble, the original of which may yet be seen at the foot of the stairs leading to the sepulchre and church of St. Agnes (Sant' Agnese fuori le muri); (3) Prudentius, Peristephanon , Hymn 14. The rhetorical narrative of St. Ambrose, in addition to the martyr's age, gives nothing except her execution by the sword.

The metrical panegyric of Pope Damasus tells us that immediately after the promulgation of the imperial edict against the Christians Agnes voluntarily declared herself a Christian, and suffered very steadfastly the martyrdom of fire, giving scarcely a thought to the frightful torments she had to endure, and concerned only with veiling, by means of her flowing hair, her chaste body which had been exposed to the gaze of the heathen multitude (Nudaque profusum crinem per membra dedisse, Ne domini templum facies peritura videret). Prudentius, in his description of the martyrdom, adheres rather to the account of St. Ambrose, but adds a new episode: The judge threatened to give over her virginity to a house of prostitution, and even executed this final threat; but when a young man turned a lascivious look upon the virgin, he fell to the ground stricken with blindness, and lay as one dead. Possible this is what Damasus and Ambrose refer to, in saying that the purity of St. Agnes was endangered; the latter in particular says (loc. cit.): Habetis igitur in una hostiâ duplex martyrium, pudoris et religionis: et virgo permansit et martyrium obtinuit (Behold therefore in the same victim a double martyrdom, one of modesty, the other of religion. She remained a virgin, and obtained the crown of martyrdom). Prudentius, therefore, may have drawn at least the substance of this episode from a trustworthy popular legend. Still another source of information, earlier than the Acts of her martyrdom, is the glorious hymn: Agnes beatae virginis , which, though probably not from the pen of St. Ambrose (since the poet s narrative clings more closely to the account of Damasus), still betrays a certain use of the text of St. Ambrose, and was composed not long after the latter work. (See the text in Dreves, Aur. Ambrosius der Vater des Kirchengesanges, 135 Freiburg, 1893.) The Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Agnes belong to a somewhat later period, and are met with in three recensions, two Greek and one Latin. The oldest of them is the shorter of the two Greeks texts, on which the Latin text was based, though it was at the same time quite freely enlarged. The longer Greek text is a translation of this Latin enlargement (Pio Franchi de Cavalieri, St. Agnese nella tradizione e nella legenda , in Römische Quartalschrift, Supplement X, Rome, 1899; cf. Acta SS., Jan. II, 350 sqq). The Latin, and consequently, the shorter Greek text date back to the first half of the fifth century, when St. Maximus, Bishop of Turin (c. 450-470), evidently used the Latin Acts in a sermon (P.L., LVII, 643 sqq.).

In these Acts the brothel episode is still further elaborated, and the virgin is decapitated after remaining untouched by the flames. We do not know with certainty in which persecution the courageous virgin won the martyr s crown. Formerly it was customary to assign her death to the persecution of Diocletian (c. 304), but arguments are now brought forward, based on the inscription of Damasus, to prove that it occurred during one of the third-century persecutions subsequent to that of Decius. The body of the virgin martyr was placed in a separate sepulchre on the Via Nomentana, and around her tomb there grew up a larger catacomb that bore her name. The original slab which covered her remains, with the inscriptions Agne sanctissima , is probably the same one which is now preserved in the Museum at Naples. During the reign of Constantine, through the efforts of his daughter Constantina, a basilica was erected over the grave of St. Agnes, which was later entirely remodelled by Pope Honorius (625-638), and has since remained unaltered. In the apse is a mosaic showing the martyr amid flames, with a sword at her feet. A beautiful relief of the saint is found on a marble slab that dates from the fourth century and was originally a part of the altar of her church. Since the Middle Ages St. Agnes has been represented with a lamb, the symbol of her virginal innocence. On her feast two lambs are solemnly blessed, and from their wool are made the palliums sent by the Pope to archbishops.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. Albertus Magnus

Known as Albert the Great; scientist, philosopher, and theologian, born c. 1206; died at Cologne, 15 November 1280. He is called “the Great”, and “ Doctor Universalis” (Universal Doctor), in recognition of his extraordinary genius and extensive knowledge, for he was proficient in every branch of learning cultivated in his day, and surpassed all his contemporaries, except perhaps Roger Bacon (1214-94), in the knowledge of nature. Ulrich Engelbert, a contemporary, calls him the wonder and the miracle of his age: “Vir in omni scientia adeo divinus, ut nostri temporis stupor et miraculum congrue vocari possit” (De summo bono, tr. III, iv).

I. LIFE

Albert, eldest son of the Count of Bollstädt, was born at Lauingen, Swabia, in the year 1205 or 1206, though many historians give it as 1193. Nothing certain is known of his primary or preparatory education, which was received either under the paternal roof or in a school of the neighbourhood. As a youth he was sent to pursue his studies at the University of Padua; that city being chosen either because his uncle resided there, or because Padua was famous for its culture of the liberal arts, for which the young Swabian had a special predilection. The date of this journey to Padua cannot be accurately determined. In the year 1223 he joined the Order of St. Dominic, being attracted by the preaching of Blessed Jordan of Saxony second Master General of the Order. Historians do not tell us whether Albert's studies were continued at Padua, Bologna, Paris, or Cologne. After completing his studies he taught theology at Hildesheim, Freiburg (Breisgau), Ratisbon, Strasburg, and Cologne. He was in the convent of Cologne, interpreting Peter Lombard's “Book of the Sentences”, when, in 1245, he was ordered to repair to Paris. There he received the Doctor's degree in the university which, above all others, was celebrated as a school of theology. It was during this period of reaching at Cologne and Paris that he counted amongst his hearers St. Thomas Aquinas, then a silent, thoughtful youth, whose genius he recognized and whose future greatness he foretold. The disciple accompanied his master to Paris in 1245, and returned with him, in 1248, to the new Studium Generale of Cologne, in which Albert was appointed Regent, whilst Thomas became second professor and Magister Studentium (Master of Students). In 1254 Albert was elected Provincial of his Order in Germany. He journeyed to Rome in 1256, to defend the Mendicant Orders against the attacks of William of St. Amour, whose book, “De novissimis temporum periculis”, was condemned by Pope Alexander IV, on 5 October, 1256. During his sojourn in Rome Albert filled the office of Master of the Sacred Palace (instituted in the time of St. Dominic), and preached on the Gospel of St. John and the Canonical Epistles. He resigned the office of Provincial in 1257 in order to devote himself to study and to teaching. At the General Chapter of the Dominicans held at Valenciennes in 1250, with St. Thomas Aquinas and Peter of Tarentasia (afterwards Pope Innocent V), he drew up rules for the direction of studies, and for determining the system of graduation, in the Order. In the year 1260 he was appointed Bishop of Ratisbon. Humbert de Romanis, Master General of the Dominicans, being loath to lose the services of the great Master, endeavoured to prevent the nomination, but was unsuccessful. Albert governed the diocese until 1262, when, upon the acceptance of his resignation, he voluntarily resumed the duties of a professor in the Studium at Cologne. In the year 1270 he sent a memoir to Paris to aid St. Thomas in combating Siger de Brabant and the Averroists. This was his second special treatise against the Arabian commentator, the first having been written in 1256, under the title “De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroem”. He was called by Pope Gregory X to attend the Council of Lyons (1274) in the deliberations of which he took an active part. The announcement of the death of St. Thomas at Fossa Nuova, as he was proceeding to the Council, was a heavy blow to Albert, and he declared that “The Light of the Church” had been extinguished. It was but natural that he should have grown to love his distinguished, saintly pupil, and it is said that ever afterwards he could not restrain his tears whenever the name of St. Thomas was mentioned. Something of his old vigour and spirit returned in 1277 when it was announced that Stephen Tempier and others wished to condemn the writings of St. Thomas, on the plea that they were too favourable to the unbelieving philosophers, and he journeyed to Paris to defend the memory of his disciple. Some time after 1278 (in which year he drew up his testament) he suffered a lapse of memory; his strong mind gradually became clouded; his body, weakened by vigils, austerities, and manifold labours, sank under the weight of years. He was beatified by Pope Gregory XV in 1622; his feast is celebrated on the 15th of November. The Bishops of Germany, assembled at Fulda in September, 1872, sent to the Holy See a petition for his canonization; he was finally canonized in 1931.

II. WORKS

Two editions of Albert's complete works (Opera Omnia) have been published; one at Lyons in 1651, in twenty-one folio volumes, edited by Father Peter Jammy, O.P., the other at Paris (Louis Vivès), 1890-99, in thirty-eight quarto volumes, published under the direction of the Abbé Auguste Borgnet, of the diocese of Reims. Paul von Loë gives the chronology of Albert's writings the “Analecta Bollandiada” (De Vita et scriptis B. Alb. Mag., XIX, XX, and XXI). The logical order is given by P. Mandonnet, O.P., in Vacant's “Dictionnaire de théologie catholique”. The following list indicates the subjects of the various treatises, the numbers referring to the volumes of Borgnet's edition. Logic: seven treatises (I. 2). Physical Sciences: “Physicorum” (3); “De Coelo et Mundo”, “De Generatione et Corruptione”. “Meteororum” (4); “Mineralium” (5); “De Natura locorum”, “ De passionibus aeris” (9). Biological: “De vegetabilibus et plantis” (10) “ De animalibus” (11-12); “De motibus animalium”, “De nutrimento et nutribili”, “De aetate”, “De morte et vita”, “De spiritu et respiratione” (9). Psychological: “De Anima” (5); “De sensu et sensato”, “De Memoria, et reminiscentia”, “De somno et vigilia”, “De natura et origine animae”, “De intellectu et intelligibili”, “De unitate intellectus” (9). The foregoing subjects, with the exception of Logic, are treated compendiously in the “Philosophia pauperum” (5). Moral and Political: “Ethicorum” (7); “Politocorum (8). Metaphysical: “Metaphysicorum” (6); “De causis et processu universitatis” (10). Theological: “Commentary on the works of Denis the Aereopagite” (14); “Commentary on the Sentences of the Lombard” (25-30); “Summa Theologiae” (31-33); “Summa de creaturis” (34-35); “De sacramento Eucharistiae” (38); “Super evangelium missus est” (37). Exegetical: “Commentaries on the Psalms and Prophets” (15-19); “Commentaries on the Gospels” (20-24); “On the Apocalypse” (38). Sermons (13). The “Quindecim problemata contra Averroistas” was edited by Mandonnet in his “Siger de Brabant” (Freiburg, 1899). The authenticity of the following works is not established: “De apprehensione” (5); “Speculum astronomicum” (5); “De alchimia” (38); Scriptum super arborem Aristotelis” (38); “Paradisus animae” (37); “Liber de Adhaerendo Deo” (37); “De Laudibus B. Virginis” (36); “Biblia Mariana” (37).

III. INFLUENCE

The influence exerted by Albert on the scholars of his own day and on those of subsequent ages was naturally great. His fame is due in part to the fact that he was the forerunner, the guide and master of St. Thomas Aquinas, but he was great in his own name, his claim to distinction being recognized by his contemporaries and by posterity. It is remarkable that this friar of the Middle Ages, in the midst of his many duties as a religious, as provincial of his order, as bishop and papal legate, as preacher of a crusade, and while making many laborious journeys from Cologne to Paris and Rome, and frequent excursions into different parts of Germany, should have been able to compose a veritable encyclopedia, containing scientific treatises on almost every subject, and displaying an insight into nature and a knowledge of theology which surprised his contemporaries and still excites the admiration of learned men in our own times. He was, in truth, a Doctor Universalis. Of him it in justly be said: Nil tetigit quod non ornavit; and there is no exaggeration in the praises of the modern critic who wrote: “Whether we consider him as a theologian or as a philosopher, Albert was undoubtedly one of the most extraordinary men of his age; I might say, one of the most wonderful men of genius who appeared in past times” (Jourdain, Recherches Critiques). Philosophy, in the days of Albert, was a general science embracing everything that could be known by the natural powers of the mind; physics, mathematics, and metaphysics. In his writings we do not, it is true, find the distinction between the sciences and philosophy which recent usage makes. It will, however, be convenient to consider his skill in the experimental sciences, his influence on scholastic philosophy, his theology.

IV. ALBERT AND THE EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCES

It is not surprising that Albert should have drawn upon the sources of information which his time afforded, and especially upon the scientific writings of Aristotle. Yet he says: “The aim of natural science is not simply to accept the statements [narrata] of others, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature” (De Miner., lib. II, tr. ii, i). In his treatise on plants he lays down the principle: Experimentum solum certificat in talibus (Experiment is the only safe guide in such investigations). (De Veg., VI, tr. ii, i). Deeply versed as he was in theology, he declares: “In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power: we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass” (De Coelo et Mundo, I, tr. iv, x). And though, in questions of natural science, he would prefer Aristotle to St. Augustine (In 2, Sent. dist. 13, C art. 2), he does not hesitate to criticize the Greek philosopher. “Whoever believes that Aristotle was a god, must also believe that he never erred. But if one believe that Aristotle was a man, then doubtless he was liable to error just as we are.” (Physic. lib. VIII, tr. 1, xiv). In fact Albert devotes a lengthy chapter to what he calls “the errors of Aristotle” (Sum. Theol. P. II, tr. i, quaest. iv). In a word, his appreciation of Aristotle is critical. He deserves credit not only for bringing the scientific teaching of the Stagirite to the attention of medieval scholars, but also for indicating the method and the spirit in which that teaching was to be received. Like his contemporary, Roger Bacon (1214-94), Albert was an indefatigable student of nature, and applied himself energetically to the experimental sciences with such remarkable success that he has been accused of neglecting the sacred sciences (Henry of Ghent, De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, II, x). Indeed, many legends have been circulated which attribute to him the power of a magician or sorcerer. Dr. Sighart (Albertus Magnus) examined these legends, and endeavoured to sift the truth from false or exaggerated stories. Other biographers content themselves with noting the fact that Albert's proficiency in the physical sciences was the foundation on which the fables were constructed. The truth lies between the two extremes. Albert was assiduous in cultivating the natural sciences; he was an authority on physics, geography, astronomy, mineralogy, chemistry (alchimia), zoölogy, physiology, and even phrenology. On all these subjects his erudition was vast, and many of his observations are of permanent value. Humboldt pays a high tribute to his knowledge of physical geography (Cosmos, II, vi). Meyer writes (Gesch. der Botanik): “No botanist who lived before Albert can be compared with him, unless it be Theophrastus, with whom he was not acquainted; and after him none has painted nature in such living colours, or studied it so profoundly, until the time of Conrad, Gesner, and Cesalpini. All bonour, then, to the man who made such astonishing progress in the science of nature as to find no one, I will not say to surpass, but even to equal him for the space of three centuries.” The list of his published works is sufficient vindication from the charge of neglecting theology and the Sacred Scriptures. On the other hand, he expressed contempt for everything that savoured of enchantment or the art of magic: “Non approbo dictum Avicennae et Algazel de fascinatione, quia credo quod non nocet fascinatio, nec nocere potest ars magica, nec facit aliquid ex his quae timentur de talibus” (See Quétif, I, 167). That he did not admit the possibility of making gold by alchemy or the use of the philosopher's stone, is evident from his own words: “Art alone cannot produce a substantial form”. (Non est probatum hoc quod educitur de plumbo esse aurum, eo quod sola ars non potest dare formam substantialem — De Mineral., lib. II, dist. 3).

Roger Bacon and Albert proved to the world that the Church is not opposed to the study of nature, that faith and science may go hand in hand; their lives and their writings emphasize the importance of experiment and investigation. Bacon was indefatigable and bold in investigating; at times, too, his criticism was sharp. But of Albert he said: “Studiosissimus erat, et vidit infinita, et habuit expensum, et ideo multa potuit colligere in pelago auctorum infinito” (Opera, ed. Brewer, 327). Albert respected authority and traditions, was prudent in proposing the results of his investigations, and hence “contributed far more than Bacon did to the advancement of science in the thirteenth century” (Turner, Hist. of Phil.). His method of treating the sciences was historical and critical. He gathered into one vast encyclopedia all that was known in his day, and then expressed his own opinions, principally in the form of commentaries on the works of Aristotle. Sometimes, however, he hesitates, and does not express his own opinion, probably because he feared that his theories, which were “advanced” for those times, would excite surprise and occasion unfavourable comment. “Dicta peripateticorum, prout melius potui exposui: nec aliquis in eo potest deprehendere quid ego ipse sentiam in philosophia naturali” (De Animalibus, circa finem). In Augusta Theodosia Drane's excellent work on “Christian Schools and Scholars” (419 sqq.) there are some interesting remarks on “a few scientific views of Albert, which show how much he owed to his own sagacious observation of natural phenomena, and how far he was in advance of his age. . . .” In speaking of the British Isles, he alluded to the commonly received idea that another Island — Tile, or Thule — existed in the Western Ocean, uninhabitable by reason of its frightful clime, “but which”, he says, has perhaps not yet been visited by man”. Albert gives an elaborate demonstration of the sphericity of the earth; and it has been pointed out that his views on this subject led eventually to the discovery of America (cf. Mandonnet, in “Revue Thomiste”, I, 1893; 46-64, 200-221).

V. ALBERT AND SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY

More important than Albert's development of the physical sciences was his influence on the study of philosophy and theology. He, more than any one of the great scholastics preceding St. Thomas, gave to Christian philosophy and theology the form and method which, substantially, they retain to this day. In this respect he was the forerunner and master of St. Thomas, who excelled him, however, in many qualities required in a perfect Christian Doctor. In marking out the course which other followed, Albert shared the glory of being a pioneer with Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), whose “Summa Theologiae” was the first written after all the works of Aristotle had become generally known at Paris. Their application of Aristotelean methods and principles to the study of revealed doctrine gave to the world the scholastic system which embodies the reconciliation of reason and Orthodox faith. After the unorthodox Averroes, Albert was the chief commentator on the works of, Aristotle, whose writings he studied most assiduously, and whose principles he adopted, in order to systematize theology, by which was meant a scientific exposition and defence of Christian doctrine. The choice of Aristotle as a master excited strong opposition. Jewish and Arabic commentaries on the works of the Stagirite had given rise to so many errors in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries that for several years (1210-25) the study of Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics was forbidden at Paris. Albert, however, knew that Averroes, Abelard, Amalric, and others had drawn false doctrines from the writings of the Philosopher; he knew, moreover, that it would have been impossible to stem the tide of enthusiasm in favour of philosophical studies; and so he resolved to purify the works of Aristotle from Rationalism, Averroism, Pantheism, and other errors, and thus compel pagan philosophy to do service in the cause of revealed truth. In this he followed the canon laid down by St. Augustine (II De Doct. Christ., xl), who declared that truths found in the writings of pagan philosophers were to be adopted by the defenders of the true faith, while their erroneous opinions were to be abandoned, or explained in a Christian sense. (See St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, Q. lxxxiv, a. 5.) All inferior (natural) sciences should be the servants (ancillae) of Theology, which is the superior and the mistress (ibid., 1 P., tr. 1, quaest. 6). Against the rationalism of Abelard and his followers Albert pointed out the distinction between truths naturally knowable and mysteries (e.g. the Trinity and the Incarnation) which cannot known without revelation (ibid., 1 P., tr. III, quaest. 13). We have seen that he wrote two treatises against Averroism, which destroyed individual immortality and individual responsibility, by teaching that there is but one rational soul for all men. Pantheism was refuted along with Averroism when the true doctrine on Universals, the system known as moderate Realism, was accepted by the scholastic philosophers. This doctrine Albert based upon the Distinction of the universal ante rem (an idea or archetype in the mind of God), in re (existing or capable of existing in many individuals), and post rem (as a concept abstracted by the mind, and compared with the individuals of which it can be predicated). “Universale duobus constituitur, natura, scilicet cui accidit universalitas, et respectu ad multa. qui complet illam in natura universalis” (Met., lib. V, tr. vi, cc. v, vi). A.T. Drane (Mother Raphael, O.S.D.) gives a remarkable explanation of these doctrines (op. cit. 344-429). Though follower of Aristotle, Albert did not neglect Plato. “Scias quod non perficitur homo in philosophia, nisi scientia duarum philosophiarum, Aristotelis et Platonis (Met., lib. I, tr. v, c. xv). It is erroneous to say that he was merely the “Ape” (simius) of Aristotle. In the knowledge of Divine things faith precedes the understanding of Divine truth, authority precedes reason (I Sent., dist. II, a. 10); but in matters that can be naturally known a philosopher should not hold an opinion which he is not prepared to defend by reason ibid., XII; Periherm., 1, I, tr. l, c. i). Logic, according to Albert, was a preparation for philosophy teaching how we should use reason in order to pass from the known to the unknown: “Docens qualiter et per quae devenitur per notum ad ignoti notitiam” (De praedicabilibus, tr. I, c. iv). Philosophy is either contemplative or practical. Contemplative philosophy embraces physics, mathematics, and metaphysics; practical (moral) plilosophy is monastic (for the individual), domestic (for the family), or political (for the state, or society). Excluding physics, now a special study, authors in our times still retain the old scholastic division of philosophy into logic, metaphysics (general and special), and ethics.

VI. ALBERT'S THEOLOGY

In theology Albert occupies a place between Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, and St. Thomas Aquinas. In systematic order, in accuracy and clearness he surpasses the former, but is inferior to his own illustrious disciple. His “Summa Theologiae” marks an advance beyond the custom of his time in the scientific order observed, in the elimination of useless questions, in the limitation of arguments and objections; there still remain, however, many of the impedimenta, hindrances, or stumbling blocks, which St. Thomas considered serious enough to call for a new manual of theology for the use of beginners — ad eruditionem incipientium, as the Angelic Doctor modestly remarks in the prologue of his immortal “Summa”. The mind of the Doctor Universalis was so filled with the knowledge of many things that he could not always adapt his expositions of the truth to the capacity of novices in the science of theology. He trained and directed a pupil who gave the world a concise, clear, and perfect scientific exposition and defence of Christian Doctrine; under God, therefore, we owe to Albertus Magnus the “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas.

D.J. KENNEDY

Alexander, name of seven men

(1) ALEXANDER THE GREAT

King of Macedon, 336-323 B. c. He is mentioned in 1 Mach., i, 1-10; vi, 2. He is also supposed to be spoken of in Dan., ii,39; vii, 6; viii,5-7; xi 3,4.

(2) ALEXANDER BALAS

Eleventh King of Syria, 150-145 B. C. His struggle for the throne, his promises to Jonathan, his pro-Jewish policy may be learned from I Mach., x, 1-89. He was vanquished by his father-in-law, Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt, and Syria thus passed into the hands of Demetrius II (1 Mach., xi, 1-19).

(3) ALEXANDER

A son of Simon of Cyrene mentioned by St. Mark (xv, 21) who carried the Cross after Jesus.

(4) ALEXANDER

A member of the court that tried Peter and John (Acts, iv, 6); some identify him with Alexander Lysimachus the brother of Philo and friend of Claudius before he ascended the throne.

(5) ALEXANDER

A Jew or a Jewish Christian (Acts, xix, 33,34) who attempted to defend St. Paul in his Ephesian difficulty- some identify him with the son of Simon of Cyrene.

(6) ALEXANDER

An Ephesian Christian who apostatized (1 Tim., i, 20), and who together vith Hymeneus was delivered up to Satan by the Apostles.

(7) ALEXANDER

A coppersmith of Ephesus (2 Tim., iv, 14,15), who did much evil to St. Paulsome identify him with the Alexander mentioned under the preceding number.

A. J. MAAS

Alexander, name of several bishops in the early Christian period

ALEXANDER OF ANTIOCH

Thirty-eighth bishop of that see (413-421), praised by Theodoret (Hist. Eccl. V, 35) “for the holiness and austerity of his life, his contempt of riches, his love of wisdom, and powerful eloquence.” He healed the last remnants of the Meletian schism at Antioch, and obtained at Constantinople the restitution of the name of St. John Chrysostom to the ecclesiastical diptychs (registers).

ALEXANDER OF APAMEA

A Syrian bishop at the Council of Ephesus (431), and one of the eight bishops deputed by the party of John of Antioch to the Emperor Theodosius.

ALEXANDER OF BASILINOPOLIS

In Bithynia, a friend of St. John Chrysostom, to whom he owed his appointment as bishop; after the fall of his patron he retired (c. 410) to his native Ptolemais in Egypt, where he experienced the hatred of Theophilus of Antioch and the private friendship of Synesius (Epp. 61,67).

ALEXANDER OF BYZANTIUM

As Constantinople was then called, bishop of that see during the original Arian troubles. He was 73 years old when appointed (313 or 317), and governed the see for 23 years. He supported his namesake of Alexandria against Arius, took part in the Council of Nicaea (325) and refused to admit the arch-heretic to communion, though threatened with deposition and exile. The sudden death of Arius was looked on by contemporary Catholics as an answer to the prayers of the good bishop, whom Theodoret (Hist. Eccl., I, 3) calls an “apostolic” man. He did not long survive this tragic event.

ALEXANDER OF HIERAPOLIS (EUPHRATENSIS)

An unbending opponent of St. Cyril in the Council of Ephesus (431), and an equally stanch advocate of Nestorius. Even when John of Antioch and most of the Oriental bishops yielded, and a general reconciliation was effected, Alexander stood out against “the abomination of Egypt “. His character is vividly portrayed in the correspondence of his friend and admirer, the historian Theodoret, as that of a grave, holy, pious man, beloved by his people, but hopelessly stubborn along the line of what seemed to him the orthodox faith. After the exhaustion of all measures to overcome his resistance, he was banished by imperial decree to the mines of Phamuthin in Egypt, where he died (Tillemont, Mem., XIV, XV).

ALEXANDER OF JERUSALEM

The friend of Origen, and his fellow student at Alexandria under Pantaenus and Clement. He became bishop of a see in Cappadocia (or Cilicia?) early in the third century, entertained for a time his master Clement, and himself suffered imprisonment for the Faith (204-212). On his release, he visited Jerusalem, and was chosen coadjutor to Narcissus, the elderly occupant of that see. This was the first case of an episcopal translation and coadjutorship. and had to be ratified by the hierarchy of Palestine assembled at Jerusalem (Valesius in Eus., Hist Eccl., VI, 11; Socrates, Hist. Eccl., VII, 36). The first Christian theological library was formed by him at Jerusalem (Eus., Hist. Eccl., V, 20). He defended Origen against his bishop, Demetrius, when the latter had taken offence at the permission accorded Origen to expound the scriptures publicly in the church of Caesarea in the presence of bishops, the latter being the only authoritative exponents of the sacred text. Alexander and Theoctistus (Bishop of Caesarea) wrote a joint letter to Demetrius, in which they pleaded the ecclesiastical usage of other places (Eus., Hist. Eccl., VI, 19). In the end Origen was ordained a priest by his two protectors (c. 230). He bears personal testimony at the beginning of his first homily on the Books of Kings, to the amiable character of Alexander. The latter died in prison at Caesarea (251) during the Decian persecution. Some fragments of his letters are preserved in the sixth book of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pope St. Alexander I

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in the latter quarter of the second century, reckons him as the fifth pope in succession from the Apostles, though he says nothing of his martyrdom. His pontificate is variously dated by critics, e. g. 106-115 (Duchesne) or 109-116 (Lightfoot). In Christian antiquity he was credited with a pontificate of about ten years (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV, i,) and there is no reason to doubt that he was on the “catalogue of bishops” drawn up at Rome by Hegesippus (Eusebius, IV, xxii, 3) before the death of Pope Eleutherius (c. 189). According to a tradition extant in the Roman Church at the end of the fifth century, and recorded in the Liber Pontificalis he suffered a martyr's death by decapitation on the Via Nomentana in Rome, 3 May. The same tradition declares him to have been a Roman by birth and to have ruled the Church in the reign of Trajan (98-117). It likewise attributes to him, but scarcely with accuracy, the insertion in the canon of the Qui Pridie, or words commemorative of the institution of the Eucharist, such being certainly primitive and original in the Mass. He is also said to have introduced the use of blessing water mixed with salt for the purification of Christian homes from evil influences (constituit aquam sparsionis cum sale benedici in habitaculis hominum). Duchesne (Lib. Pont., I, 127) calls attention to the persistence of this early Roman custom by way of a blessing in the Gelasian Sacramentary that recalls very forcibly the actual Asperges prayer at the beginning of Mass. In 1855, a semi-subteranean cemetery of the holy martyrs Sts. Alexander, Eventulus, and Theodulus was discovered near Rome, at the spot where the above mentioned tradition declares the Pope to have been martyred. According to some archaeologists, this Alexander is identical with the Pope, and this ancient and important tomb marks the actual site of the Pope's martyrdom. Duchesne, however (op. cit., I, xci-ii) denies the identity of the martyr and the pope, while admitting that the confusion of both personages is of ancient date, probably anterior to the beginning of the sixth century when the Liber Pontificalis was first compiled [Dufourcq, Gesta Martyrum Romains (Paris, 1900), 210-211]. The difficulties raised in recent times by Richard Lipsius (Chronologie der romischen Bischofe, Kiel, 1869) and Adolph Harnack (Die Zeit des Ignatius u. die Chronologie der antiochenischen Bischofe, 1878) concerning the earliest successors of St. Peter are ably discussed and answered by F. S. (Cardinal Francesco Segna) in his “De successione priorum Romanorum Pontificum “ (Rome 1897); with moderation and learning by Bishop Lightfoot, in his “Apostolic Fathers: St. Clement ' (London, 1890) I, 201-345- especially by Duchesne in the introduction to his edition of the “Liber Pontificalis” (Paris, 1886) I, i-xlviii and lxviii-lxxiii. The letters ascribed to Alexander I by PseudoIsidore may be seen in P. G., V, 1057 sq., and in Hinschius, “ Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae “ (Leipzig, 1863) 94-105. His remains are said to have been transferred to Freising in Bavaria in 834 (Dummler, Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini, Berlin, 1884, II, 120). His so-called “ Acts “ are not genuine, and were compiled at a much later date (Tillemont, Mem. II, 590 sqq; Dufourcq, op. cit., 210-211).

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

Pope Alexander II

Reigned 1061-1073

As Anselm of Lucca, he had been recognized for a number of years as one of the leaders of the reform party, especially in the Milanese territory, where he was born at Baggio, of noble parentage. Together with Hildebrand, he had imbibed in Cluny (q. v.) the zeal for reformation. The first theatre of his activity was Milan, where he was one of the founders of the Pataria, and lent to that great agitation against simony and clerical incontinency the weight of his eloquence and noble birth. The device of silencing him, contrived by Archbishop Guido and other episcopal foes of reform in Lombardy, viz. sending him to the court of the Emperor Henry III, had the contrary effect of enabling him to spread the propaganda in Germany. In 1057 the Emperor appointed him to the bishopric of Lucca. With increased prestige, he reappeared twice in Milan as legate of the Holy See, in 1057 in the company of Hildebrand, and in 1059 with St. Peter Damiani. Under the able generalship of this saintly triumvirate the reform forces were held well in hand, in preparation for the inevitable conflict. The decree of Nicholas II (1059) by which the right of papal elections was virtually vested in the College of Cardinals, formed the issue to be fought and decided at the next vacancy of the Apostolic Throne. The death of Pope Nicholas two years later found both parties in battle array. The candidate of the Hildebrandists, endorsed by the cardinals, was the Bishop of Lucca- the other side put forward the name of Cadalus, Bishop of Parma, a protector and example of the prevailing vices of the age. The cardinals met in legal form and elected Anselm, who took the name of Alexander II. Before proceeding to his enthronization, the Sacred College notified the German Court of their action. The Germans were considered to have forfeited the privilege of confirming the election. reserved to their king with studied vagueness in the decree of Nicholas II, when they contemptuously dismissed the ambassador of the cardinals without a hearing. Foreseeing a civil war, the cardinals on 30 September completed the election by the ceremony of enthronization. Meanwhile a deputation of the Roman nobles, who were enraged at their elimination as a dominant factor in the papal elections, joined by deputies of the unreformed episcopate of Lombardy, had proceeded to the German Court with a request for the royal sanction to a new election. The Empress Agnes, as regent for her ten-year-old son, Henry IV, convoked an assembly of lay and clerical magnates at Basle; and here, without any legal right, and without the presence of a single cardinal, the Bishop of Parma was declared Pope, and took the name of Honorius II (28 October). In the contest which ensued, Pope Alexander was supported by the consciousness of the sanctity of his cause, by public opinion clamouring for reform, by the aid of the allied Normans of southern Italy, and by the benevolence of Beatrice and Matilda of Tuscany. Even in Germany things took a favourable turn for him, when Anno of Cologne seized the regency, and the repentant Empress withdrew to a convent. In a new diet, at Augsburg (Oct., 1062), it was decided that Burchard, Bishop of Halberstadt should proceed to Rome and, after investigating the election of Alexander on the spot, make a report to a later assemblage of the bishops of Germany and Italy. Burchard's report was entirely in favour of Alexander. The latter defended his cause with eloquence and spirit in a council held at Mantua, at Pentecost, 1064 (C. Wile, Benzos Panegyricus, Marburg, 1856), and was formally recognized as legitimate Pope. His rival was excommunicated, but kept up the contest with dwindling prospects till his death in l 072. During the darkest hours of the schism Alexander and his chancellor, Cardinal Hildebrand, never for a moment relaxed their hold upon the reins of government. In striking contrast to his helplessness amidst the Roman factions is his lofty attitude towards the potentates lay and clerical, of Europe. Under banners blessed by him Roger advanced to the conquest of Sicily, and William to the conquest of England. His Regesta fill eleven pages of Jaffe (Regesta Rom. Pontif., 2d ed., 4, nos. 445, 4770). He was omnipresent, through his legates, Punishing simoniacal bishops and incontinent clerics. He did not spare even his protector, Anno of Cologne whom he twice summoned to Rome, once in 1068 to do penance, barefoot, for holding relations with the antipope, and again in 1070 to purge himself of the charge of simony. A similar discipline was administered to Sigfried of Mainz, Hermann of Bamberg, and Werner of Strasburg. In his name his legate, St. Peter Damiani, at the Diet of Frankfurt in 1089, under threat of excommunication and exclusion from the imperial throne, deterred Henry IV from the project of divorcing his queen, Bertha of Turin, though instigated thereto by several German bishops. His completest triumph was that of compelling Bishop Charles of Constance and Abbot Robert of Reichenau to return to the King the croziers and rings they had obtained through simony. One serious quarrel with Henry was left to be decided by his successor. In 1069 the Pope had rejected as a simonist the subdeacon Godfrey, whom Henry had appointed Archbishop of Milan- Henry failing to acquiesce, the Pope confirmed Atto, the choice of the reform party. Upon the king's ordering his appointee to be consecrated, Alexander fulminated an anathema against the royal advisers. The death of the Pope, 21 April, 1073, left Hildebrand, his faithful chancellor, heir to his triumphs and difficulties. Alexander deserved well of the English Church by elevating his ancient teacher, Lanfranc of Bec (q. v.), to the See of Canterbury and appointing him Primate of England.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Alexander III

Pope from 1159-81 (Orlando Bandinelli), born of a distinguished Sienese family; died 3 August, 1181. As professor in Bologna he acquired a great reputation as a canonist, which he increased by the publication of his commentary on the “Decretum” of Gratian, popularly known as “Summa Magistri Rolandi” (ed. Thaner, Innsbruck, 1874). Called to Rome by Eugene III in the year 1150, his advancement was rapid. He was created Cardinal Deacon, then Cardinal-Priest of the title of St. Mark, and Papal Chancellor. He was the trusted adviser of Adrian IV and was regarded as the soul of the party of independence among the cardinals, which sought to escape the German yoke by alliance with the Normans of Naples. For openly asserting before Barbarossa at the Diet of Besancon (1167) that the imperial dignity was a papal beneficium (in the general sense of favour, not feudal sense of fief), he incurred the wrath of the German princes, and would have fallen on the spot under the battle-axe of his life-long foe, Otto of Wittelsbach had Frederick not intervened (Hergenröther-Kirsch, Kircheng., Freiburg 1904, II, 451). For the purpose of securing a submissive pontiff at the next vacancy, the Emperor despatched into Italy two able emissaries who were to work upon the weaknesses and fears of the cardinals and the Romans, the aforesaid Otto and the Archbishop-elect of Cologne, Rainald von Dassel, whose anti-Papal attitude was largely owing to the fact that the Holy See refused to confirm his appointment. The fruits of their activity became patent after the death of Pope Adrian IV (1 September, 1159). Of the twenty-two cardinals assembled, 7 September, to elect a successor all but three voted for Orlando. The contention made later, that the imperialist cardinals numbered nine, may be explained by the surmise that in the earlier ballotings six of the faithful cardinals voted for a less prominent and obnoxious candidate. In opposition to Cardinal Orlando, who took the immortal name of Alexander III, the three imperialist members chose one of their number, Cardinal Octavian, who assumed the title of Victor IV. A mob hired by the Count of Wittelsbach broke up the conclave. Alexander retreated towards the Norman south and was consecrated and crowned, 20 September, at the little Volscian town of Nympha. Octavian's consecration took place 4 October, at the monastery of Farfa. The Emperor now interposed to settle a disturbance entirely caused by his own agents, and summoned both claimants before a packed assembly at Pavia. He betrayed his animus by addressing Octavian as Victor IV and the true Pope as Cardinal Orlando. Pope Alexander refused to submit his clear right to this iniquitous tribunal, which, as was foreseen, declared for the usurper (11 February, 1160). Alexander promptly responded, from the ill-fated Anagni, by solemnly excommunicating the Emperor and releasing his subjects from their oaths of allegiance. The ensuing schism, far more disastrous to the Empire than to the Papacy, lasted for seventeen years and ended after the battle of Legnano (1176) with the unconditional surrender of the haughty Barbarossa in Venice, 1177. (See FREDERICK I.) The childish legend that the Pope placed his foot on the neck of the prostrate Emperor has done valiant service to Protestant tradition since the days of Luther. [See the dissertation of George Remus, Nuremberg, 1625; Lyons, 1728; and Gosselin, “The Power of the Pope during the Middle Ages “(tr. London, 1853) II, 133.] Alexander's enforced exile (1162-65) in France contributed greatly to enhance the dignity of the papacy, never so popular as when in distress. It also brought him into direct contact with the most powerful monarch of the West, Henry II of England. The cautious manner in which he defended the rights of the Church during the quarrel between the two impetuous Normans, King Henry and St. Thomas Becket, though many a time exciting the displeasure of both contestants, and often since denounced as “shifty”, was the strategy of an able commander who, by marches and countermarches succeeds in keeping the field against overwhelming odds. It is no disparagement of the Martyr of Canterbury to say that the Pope equalled him in firmness and excelled him in the arts of diplomacy. After Becket's murder the Pope succeeded, without actual recourse to ban or interdict, in obtaining from the penitent monarch every right for which the martyr had fought and bled.

To crown and seal the triumph of religion, Alexander convoked and presided over the Third Lateran Council (Eleventh Oecumenical), in 1179. Surrounded by over 300 bishops, the much-tried Pontiff issued many salutary decrees, notably the ordinance which vested the exclusive right of papal elections in a two-thirds vote of the cardinals. Throughout all the vicissitudes of his chequered career Alexander remained a canonist. A glance at the Decretals shows that, as an ecclesiastical legislator, he was scarcely second to Innocent III. Worn out by trials, he died at Civita Castellana. When we are told that “the Romans” pursued his remains with curses and stones, the remembrance of a similar scene at the burial of Pius IX teaches us what value to attach to such a demonstration. In the estimation of Rome, Italy, and Christendom, Alexander III's epitaph expresses the truth, when it calls him “ the Light of the Clergy, the Ornament of the Church, the Father of his City and of the World “. He was friendly to the new academical movement that led to the establishment of the great medieval universities (Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, Oxford, 1895, I, 283, 292, II, 138, 724). His own reputation as a teacher and a canonist has been greatly enhanced through the discovery by Father Denifle in the public library of Nuremberg of the “ Sententiae Rolandi Bononiensis “, edited (Freiburg, 1891) by Father Ambrosius Gietl. The collection of his letters (Jaffé, Regesta RR. Pontif., Nos. 10,584-14,424) was enriched by Löwenfeld's publication of many hitherto unknown (Epistolae Pontif. Rom. ineditae, Leipzig, 1885). Even Voltaire regards him as the man who in medieval times deserved best from the human race, for abolishing slavery, for overcoming the violence of the Emperor Barbarossa, for compelling Henry II of England to ask pardon for the murder of Thomas Becket, for restoring to men their rights, and giving splendour to many cities (Oeuvres, Paris, 1817, X, 998).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Alexander IV

Pope from 1254-61 (Rinaldo Conti), of the house of Segni, which had already given two illustrious sons to the Papacy, Innocent III and Gregory IX, date of birth uncertain; died 25 May, 1261, at Viterbo. He was created Cardinal-Deacon, in 1227, by his uncle Gregory IX, and four years later Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia. Gregory also bequeathed to him his solicitude for the Franciscan Order, which he had 80 well befriended. On the death of Innocent IV, at Naples, 7 December, 1254, the aged Cardinal was unanimously chosen to succeed him. We may well believe his protestation that he yielded very reluctantly to the importunities of the Sacred College. Matthew of Paris has depicted him as “kind and religious, assiduous in prayer and strict in abstinence, but easily led away by the whispering of flatterers, and inclined to listen to the wicked suggetions of avaricious persons”. The “flatterers” and “avaricious persons” referred to were those who induced the new Pontiff to continue Innocent's policy of a war of extermination against the progeny of Frederick II. now reduced to the infant Conradin in Germany and the formidable Manfred in Apulia. Many an historian at the present day agrees with the shrewd chronicler, that it would have been far more statesmanlike and might have averted the disasters that were in destiny for the Church, the Empire, and Italy, had Alexander firmly espoused the cause of Conradin. Deterred by the precedent of the infant Frederick, the “viper” that the Roman Church had nourished to become its destroyer, and persuaded that iniquity was hereditary. in the whole brood of the Hohenstaufens, he continued Innocent's dubious policy of calling in French or English Beelzebubs to cast out the German Lucifers. On 25 March, 1255, he fulminated an excommunication against Manfred and a few days afterwards concluded a treaty with the envoys of Henry III of England by which he made over the vassal kingdom of the Two Sicilies to Edmund of Lancaster, Henry's second son. In the contest for the German crown which followed on the death of William of Holland (1256) the Pope supported the claims of Richard of Cornwall against Alfonso of Castile. The pecuniary assistance which these measures brought him was dearly bought by the embitterment of the English clergy and people against the exactions of the Roman See. Manfred's power grew from day to day. In August, 1258, in consequence of a rumour spread by himself, that Conradin had died in Germany, the usurper was crowned king in Palermo and became the acknowledged head of the Ghibelline party in Italy. Alexander lived to see the victor of Montaperti (1260) supreme ruler of Central as well as Southern Italy. In the north of Italy he was more successful, for his crusaders finally crushed the odious tyrant Ezzelino. In Rome, which was under the rule of hostile magistrates and in alliance with Manfred, the papal authority was all but forgotten. Meanwhile the Pope was making futile efforts to unite the powers of the Christian world against the threatening invasion of the Tartars. The crusading spirit had departed. The unity of Christendom was a thing of the past. Whether the result would have been different had a great statesman occupied the Papal Chair during these seven critical years, we can only surmise. Alexander IV ruled the spiritual affairs of the Church with dignity and prudence. As Pope, he continued to show great favour to the children of St. Francis. One of his first official acts was to canonize St. Clare. In a diploma he asserted the truth of the impression of the stigmata. St. Bonaventure informs us that the Pope affirmed in a sermon that he had seen them. In the violent controversies excited at the University of Paris by William of St. Amour, Alexander IV took the friars under his protection. He died, deeply afflicted by the sense of his powerlessness to stem the evils of the age.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Alexander V

Pietro Philarghi, born c. 1339, on the island of Crete (Candia), whence his appellation, Peter of Candia; elected 26 June, 1409; died at Bologna, 3 May, 1410. A homeless beggar-boy in a Cretan city, knowing neither parents nor relations, he became the protégé of a discerning Capuchin friar, from whom he received an elementary education and under whose guidance he became a Franciscan in a Cretan monastery. The youth gave promise of extraordinary ability, and was sent to enjoy the superior educational advantages of Italy. He studied later at Oxford and finally at Paris where he distinguished himself as professor, preacher, and writer. He Is the author of a good commentary on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard. During his stay at Paris the Great Schism (1378-1417) rent the Church, and Philarghi was ranged among the partisans of Urban VI (1375-89). Returning to Italy, he found a place in the court of Giovanni Galeazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan, where he acted as tutor to his sons and ambassador on important missions. Through the favour of the Visconti he was made successively Bishop of Piacenza, in 1386; of Vicenza, in 1387; of Navoya, in 1389; and finally Archbishop of Milan, in 1402. In 1405 Pope Innocent VII made him Cardinal, and turned his ability and his friendship with the Visconti to advantage by confirming him as papal legate to Lombardy. Henceforth his history becomes a part of that of the Schism. The Cardinal of Milan was foremost among the advocates of a council. To this end he approved of the withdrawal of the cardinals of Gregory XII from their obedience, sanctioned the agreement of the rival colleges of cardinals to join in a common effort for unity, and negotiated with Henry IV of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury to secure England's neutrality. He thus incurred the displeasure of Gregory XII, who deprived him of the archbishopric of Milan, and even declared him to be shorn of the cardinalitial dignity. At the Council of Pisa (25 March, 1409) Cardinal Philarghi was the leading spirit. He preached the opening sermon, a scathing condemnation of the tenacity of the rival popes and presided at the deliberations of the theologians who declared these popes heretics and schismatics.

On 26 June, 1409, he was the unanimous choice of the cardinals to fill the presumably vacant Papal Chair. His stainless character, vast erudition, world-wide experience, and tried administrative ability, together with the fact that he had neither country nor relations in the riven Catholic world to favour, gave promise of glory to the Papacy and peace to the Church. Alexander V soon found all nations in sympathy with him, save Spain and Scotland and some Italian cities whose interests were bound up in the legitimacy of the stubborn Benedict XIII. He was destined, however, to rule but ten months. His pontificate was marked by unsuccessful efforts to reach Rome, then in control of King Ladislas of Naples, whom Alexander deprived of his kingdom m favour of Louis II of Anjou. Detained by Cardinal Cossa in Bologna, the stronghold of that self-seeking adviser, he died there under circumstances which led the enemies of Cossa, who succeeded Alexander V as John XXIII, to bring before the Council of Constance the now discredited charge that he had poisoned the Pisan pope. Alexander lived long enough to disappoint the hopes his election inspired. His legitimacy was soon questioned and the world was chagrined to find that instead of two popes it now had three. His ardour for reform diminished. Generous to a fault, he scattered favours with undiscriminating munificence. The mendicant orders were unduly favoured by being confirmed in privileges which parish priests and the theological faculties resented as encroaching on their rights. Whether or not Alexander was a true pope is a question which canonists and historians of the Schism still discuss. The Church has not pronounced a definite opinion nor is it at all likely that she will. The Roman “Gerarchia Cattolica”, not an authoritative work, which prior to 1906 contained a chronological list of the popes, designated Alexander V as the 211th pope, succeeding Gregory XII, resigned. (See PAPACY.) His remains are interred in the church of St. Francis at Bologna in a tomb magnificently restored in 1889 under the direction of Leo XIII. (See SCHISM, WESTERN; PISA, COUNCIL OF.)

J. B. PETERSON

Pope Alexander VI

Rodrigo Borgia, born at Xativa, near Valencia, in Spain, 1 January, 1431; died in Rome, 18 August, 1503. His parents were Jofre Lançol and Isabella Borja, sister of Cardinal Alfonso Borja, later Pope Callixtus III. The young Rodrigo had not yet definitely chosen his profession when the elevation of his uncle to the papacy (1455) opened up new prospects to his ambition. He was adopted into the immediate family of Callixtus and was known henceforward to the Italians as Rodrigo Borgia. Like so many other princely cadets, he was obtruded upon the Church, the a,question of a clerical vocation being left completely out of consideration. , After conferring several rich benefices on him, his uncle sent him for a short year to study law at the University of Bologna. In 1456, at the age of twenty-five, he was made Cardinal Deacon of St. Nicolo in Carcere, and held that title until 1471, when he became Cardinal-Bishop of Albano; in 1476 he was made Cardinal-Bishop of Porto and Dean of the Sacred College (Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica, II, 12). His official position in the Curia after 1457 was that of Vice-Chancellor of the Roman Church, and though many envied him this lucrative office he seems in his long administration of the Papal Chancery to have given general satisfaction. Even Guicciardini admits that “ in him were combined rare prudence and vigilance mature reflection, marvellous power of persuasion, skill and capacity for the conduct of the most difficult affairs”. On the other hand, the list of archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbacies, and other dignities held by him, as enumerated by the Bishop of Modena in a letter to the Duchess of Ferrara (Pastor) History of the Popes, V, 533, English tr.) reads like the famous catalogue of Leparello; and since, notwithstanding the magnificence of his household and his passion for card-playing, he was strictly abstemious in eating and drinking, and a careful administrator, he became one of the wealthiest men of his time. In his twenty-ninth year he drew a scathing letter of reproof from Pope Pius II for misconduct in Sienna which had been so notorious as to shock the whole town and court (Raynaldus Ann. eccl. ad. an. 1460, n. 31). Even after his ordination to the priesthood, in 1468, he continued his evil ways. His contemporaries praise his handsome and imposing figure, his cheerful countenance, persuasive manner, brilliant conversation, and intimate mastery of the ways of polite society. The best portrait of him is said to be that painted by Pinturicchio in the Appartimento Borgia at the Vatican; Yriarte (Autour des Borgia, 79) praises its general air of grandeur incontestable. Towards 1470 began his relations with the Roman lady, Vanozza Catanei, the mother of his four children: Juan, Caesar, Lucrezia and Jofre, born, respectively according to Gregorovius (Lucrezia Borgia 13) in 1474, 1476, 1480, and 1482.

Borgia, by a bare two-thirds majority secured by his own vote, was proclaimed Pope on the morning of 11 Aug.,1492, and took the name of Alexander VI. [For details of the conclave see Pastor, “ Hist. of the Popes”, (German ed., Freiburg, 1895), III, 275-278; also Am. Cath. Quart. Review, April, 1900.] That he obtained the papacy through simony was the general belief (Pastor, loc. cit.) and is not improbable (Raynaldus, Ann. eccl. ad an. 1492, n. 26), though it would be difficult to prove it juridically, at any rate, as the law then stood the election was valid. There is no irresistible evidence that Borgia paid anyone a ducat for his vote, Infessura's tale of mule-loads of silver has long since been discredited. Pastor's indictment, on closer inspection, needs some revision, for he states (III, 277) that eight of the twenty-three electors, viz. della Rovere, Piccolomini, Medici, Caraffa, Costa, Basso, Zeno, and Cibò, held out to the end against Borgia. If that were true, Borgia could not have secured a two-thirds majority. All we can affirm with certainty is that the determining factor of this election was the accession to Borgia of Cardinal Ascanio Sforza's vote and influence, it is almost equally certain that Sforza's course was dictated not by silver, but by the desire to be the future Pontiff's chief adviser.

The elevation to the papacy of one who for thirty-five years had conducted the affairs of the Roman chancery with rare ability and industry met with general approbation, we find no evidence of the “alarm and horror” of which Guicciardini speaks. To the Romans especially, who had come to regard Borgia as one of themselves, and who predicted a pontificate at once splendid and energetic, the choice was most acceptable; and they manifested their joy in bonfires torchlight processions, garlands of flowers, and the erection of triumphal arches with extravagant inscriptions. At his coronation in St. Peter's (26 Aug.), and during his progress to St. John Lateran, he was greeted with an ovation, “greater”, says the diarist, “than any Pontiff had ever received”. He proceeded at once to justify this good opinion of the Romans by putting an end to the lawlessness which reigned m the city, the extent of which we can infer from the statement of Infessura that within a few months over two hundred and twenty assassinations had taken place. Alexander ordered investigations to be made, every culprit discovered to be hanged on the spot and his house to be razed to the ground. He divided the city into four districts, placing over each a magistrate with plenary powers for the maintenance of order; in addition, he reserved the Tuesday of each week as a day on which any man or woman could lay his or her grievances before himself personally; “ and”, says the diarist, “ he set about dispensing justice in an admirable manner. “ This vigorous method of administering justice soon changed the face of the city, and was ascribed by the grateful populace to “ the interposition of God”. Alexander next turned his attention to the defence and embellishment of the Eternal City. He changed the Mausoleum of Adrian into a veritable fortress capable of sustaining a siege. By the fortification of Torre di Nona, he secured the city from naval attacks. He deserves to be called the founder of the Leonine City, which he transformed into the most fashionable quarter of Rome. His magnificent Via Alessandrina, now called Borgo Nuovo, remains to the present day the grand approach to St. Peter's. Under his direction, Pinturicchio adorned the Appartimento Borgia in the Vatican, pointing the way to his immortal disciple, Raphael. In addition to the structures erected by himself, his memory is associated with the many others built by monarchs and cardinals at his instigation. During his reign Bramante designed for Ferdinand and Isabella that exquisite architectural gem, the Tempietto, on the traditional site of St. Peter's martyrdom. If not Bramante, some other great architect, equally attracted to Rome by the report of the Pope's liberality, built for Cardinal Riario the magnificent palace of the Cancellaria. In 1500, the ambassador of Emperor Maximilian laid the cornerstone of the handsome national church of the Germans, Santa Maria dell' Anima. Not to be outdone, the French Cardinal Briconnet erected SS. Trinità dei Monti, and the Spaniards Santa Maria di Monserrato. To Alexander we owe the beautiful ceiling of Santa Maria Maggiore, in the decoration of which tradition says he employed the first gold brought from America by Columbus.

Although he laid no great claim to learning, he fostered literature and science. As cardinal he had written two treatises on canonical subjects and a defence of the Christian faith. He rebuilt the Roman University and made generous provision for the support of the professors. He surrounded himself with learned men and had a special predilection for jurists. His fondness for theatrical performances encouraged the development of the drama. He loved pontifical ceremonies, to which his majestic figure lent grace and dignity. He listened to good sermons with a critical ear, and admired fine music. In 1497, Alexander decreed that the “ Praefectus Sacrarii Pontificii”, commonly called “Sacristan of the Pope”, but virtually parish-priest of the Vatican and keeper of the Pope's conscience, should be permanently and exclusively a prelate chosen from the Augustinian Order, an arrangement that still endures. Alexander earned the enmity of Spain, the obloquy of many narrow minded contemporaries, and the gratitude of posterity, by his tolerant policy towards the Jews, whom he could not be coerced into banishing or molesting. The concourse of pilgrims to Rome in the Jubilee year, 1500, was a magnificent demonstration of the depth and universality of the popular faith. The capacity of the city to house and feed so many thousands of visitors from all parts of Europe was taxed to the utmost, but Alexander spared no expense or pains to provide for the security and comfort of his guests. To maintain peace among Christians and to form a coalition of the European Powers against the Turks was the policy he had inherited from his uncle. One of the first of his public acts was to prevent a collision between Spain and Portugal over their newly-discovered territories, by drawing his line of demarcation, an act of truly peaceful import, and not of usurpation and ambition [Civiltà Cattolica (1865), I, 665-680]. He did his best to dissuade Charles VIII of France from his projected invasion of Italy; if he was unsuccessful, the blame is in no slight degree due to the unpatriotic course of that same Giuliano della Rovere who later, as Julius II, made futile efforts to expel the “barbarians” whom he himself had invited. Alexander issued a wise decree concerning the censorship of books, and sent the first missionaries to the New World.

Notwithstanding these and similar actions, which might seem to entitle him to no mean place in the annals of the papacy, Alexander continued as Pope the manner of life that had disgraced his cardinalate (Pastor, op. cit., III, 449 152). A stern Nemesis pursued him till death in the shape of a strong parental affection for his children. The report of the Ferrarese ambassador, that the new Pope had resolved to keep them at a distance from Rome, is quite credible, for all his earlier measures for their advancement pointed towards Spain. While still a cardinal, he had married one daughter, Girolama, to a Spanish nobleman. He had bought for a son, Pedro Luis, from the Spanish monarch the Duchy of Gandia, and when Pedro died soon after he procured it for Juan, his oldest surviving son by Vanozza. This ill-starred young man was married to a cousin of the King of Spain, and became grandfather to St. Francis Borgia, whose virtues went a great way towards atoning for the vices of his kin. The fond father made a great mistake when he selected his boy Caesar as the ecclesiastical representative of the Borgias. In 1480, Pope Innocent VIII made the child eligible for Orders by absolving him from the ecclesiastical irregularity that followed his birth de episcopo cardinali et conjugatâ, and conferred several Spanish benefices on him, the last being the Bishopric of Pampeluna, in the neighbourhood of which, by a strange fatality, he eventually met his death. A week after Alexander's coronation he appointed Caesar, now eighteen years old, to the Archbishopric of Valencia; but Caesar neither went to Spain nor ever took Orders. The youngest son, Jofre, was also to be inflicted upon the Church of Spain. A further evidence that the Pope had determined to keep his children at a distance from court is that his daughter Lucrezia was betrothed to a Spanish gentleman, the marriage, however, never took place. It had already become the settled policy of the popes to have a personal representative in the Sacred College, and so Alexander chose for this confidential position Cardinal Giovanni Borgia, his sister's son. The subsequent abandonment of his good resolutions concerning his children may safely be ascribed to the evil counsels of Ascanio Sforza, whom Borgia had rewarded with the vice-chancellorship, and who was virtually his prime minister. The main purpose of Ascanio's residence at the papal court was to advance the interests of his brother, Lodovico il Moro, who had been regent of Milan for so many years, during the minority of their nephew Gian Galeazzo, that he now refused to surrender the reins of government, though the rightful duke had attained his majority. Gian Galeazzo was powerless to assert his rights; but his more energetic wife was granddaughter to King Ferrante of Naples, and her incessant appeals to her family for aid left Lodovico in constant dread of Neapolitan invasion. Alexander had many real grievances against Ferrante, the latest of which was the financial aid the King had given to the Pope's vassal, Virginio Orsini, in the purchase of Cervetri and Anguillara, without Alexander's consent. In addition to the contempt of the papal authority involved in the transaction, this accession of strength to a baronial family already too powerful could not but be highly displeasing. Alexander was, therefore, easily induced to enter a defensive alliance with Milan and Venice; the league was solemnly proclaimed, 25 April, 1493. It was cemented by the first of Lucrezia's marriages. Her first husband was a cousin of Ascanio, Giovanni Sforza, Lord of Pesaro. The wedding was celebrated in the Vatican in the presence of the Pope, ten cardinals, and the chief nobles of Rome with their ladies, the revelries of the occasion, even when exaggerations and rumours are dismissed, remain a blot upon the character of Alexander. Ferrante talked of war, but, through the mediation of Spain, he came to terms with the Pope and, as a pledge of reconciliation, gave his granddaughter, Sancia, in marriage to Alexander's youngest son Jofre, with the principality of Squillace as dower. Caesar Borgia was created Cardinal 20 September. Ferrante's reconciliation with the Pope came none too soon.

A few days after peace had been concluded, an envoy of King Charles VIII arrived in Rome to demand the investiture of Naples for his master. Alexander returned a positive refusal, and when Ferrante died, January, 1494, neglecting French protests and threats, he confirmed the succession of Ferrante's son, Alfonso II, and sent his nephew, Cardinal Giovanni Borgia, to Naples to crown him. The policy of Alexander was dictated not only by a laudable desire to maintain the peace of Italy, but also because he was aware that a strong faction of his cardinals, with the resolute della Rovere at their head, was promoting the invasion of Charles as a means towards deposing him on the twofold charge of simony and immorality. In September, 1494, the French crossed the Alps; on the last day of that year they made their entry into Rome, needing no other weapon in their march through the peninsula, as Alexander wittily remarked (Commines vii, 15), than the chalk with which they marked out the lodgings of the troops. The barons of the Pope deserted him one after the other. Colonna and Savelli were traitors from the beginning, but he felt most keenly the defection of Virginio Orsini, the commander of his army. Many a saintlier pope than Alexander VI would have made the fatal mistake of yielding to brute force and surrendering unconditionally to the conqueror of Italy; the most heroic of the popes could not have sustained the stability of the Holy See at this crucial moment with greater firmness. From the crumbling ramparts of St. Angelo, the defences of which were still incomplete, he looked calmly into the mouth of the French cannon; with equal intrepidity he faced the cabal of della Rovere's cardinals, clamorous for his deposition. At the end of a fortnight it was Charles who capitulated. He acknowledged Alexander as true Pope, greatly to the disgust of della Rovere, and “did his filial obedience”, says Commines, “with all imaginable humility”; but he could not extort from the Pontiff an acknowledgment of his claims to Naples. Charles entered Naples, 22 February, 1495, without striking a blow. At his approach the unpopular Alfonso abdicated in favour of his son Ferrantino, the latter, failing to receive support, retired to seek the protection of Spain. Whilst Charles wasted over two months in fruitless attempts to induce the Pope by promises and threats to sanction his usurpation, a powerful league, consisting of Venice, Milan, the Empire, Spain, and the Holy See, was formed against him. Finally, on 12 May, he crowned himself, but in the following July he was cutting his way home through the ranks of the allied Italians. By the end of the year the French had re-crossed into France. No one wished for their return, except the restless della Rovere, and the adherents of Savonarola. The story of the Florentine friar will be related elsewhere, here it suffices to note that Alexander's treatment of him was marked by extreme patience and forbearance.

The French invasion was the turning point in the political career of Alexander VI. It had taught him that if he would be safe in Rome and be really master in the States of the Church, he must curb the insolent and disloyal barons who had betrayed him in his hour of danger. Unfortunately, this laudable purpose became more and more identified in his mind with schemes for the aggrandizement of his family. There was no place in his programme for a reform of abuses. Quite the contrary; in order to obtain money for his military operations he disposed of civil and spiritual privileges and offices in a scandalous' manner. He resolved to begin with the Orsini, whose treason at the most critical moment had reduced him to desperate straits. The time seemed opportune; for Virginio, the head of the house, was a prisoner in the hands of Ferrantino. As commander of his troops he selected his youthful son Juan, Duke of Gandia. The struggle dragged on for months. The minor castles of the Orsini surrendered, but Bracciano, their main fortress, resisted all the efforts of the pontifical troops. They were finally obliged to raise the siege, and on 25 January, 1497, they were completely routed at Soriano. Both sides were now disposed to peace. On Payment of 50,000 golden florins the Orsini received back all their castles except Cervetri and Anguillara, which had been the original cause of their quarrel with the Pope. In order to reduce the strong fortress of Ostia, held by French troops for Cardinal della Rovere, Alexander wisely invoked the aid of Gonsalvo de Cordova and his Spanish veterans. It surrendered to the “ Great Captain” within two weeks. Unsuccessful in obtaining for his family the possessions of the Orsini, the Pope now demanded the consent of his cardinals to the erection of Benevento, Terracina, and Pontecorvo into a duchy for the Duke of Gandia. Cardinal Piccolomini was the only member who dared protest against this improper alienation of the property of the Church. A more powerful protest than that of the Cardinal of Sienna reverberated through the world a week later when, on the sixteenth of June, the body of the young Duke was fished out of the Tiber, with the throat cut and many gaping wounds. Historians have laboured in vain to discover who perpetrated the foul deed, but that it was a warning from Heaven to repent, no one felt more keenly than the Pope himself. In the first wild paroxysm of grief he spoke of resigning the tiara. Then, after three days and nights passed without food or sleep, he appeared in consistory and proclaimed his determination to set about that reform of the Church “in head and members” for which the world had so long been clamouring. A commission of cardinals and canonists began industriously to frame ordinances which foreshadowed the disciplinary decrees of Trent. But they were never promulgated. Time gradually assuaged the sorrow and extinguished the contrition of Alexander. From now on Caesar's iron will was supreme law. That he aimed high from the start is evident from his resolve, opposed at first by the Pope, to resign his cardinalate and other ecclesiastical dignities, and to become a secular prince. The condition of Naples was alluring. The gallant Ferrantino had died childless and was succeeded by his uncle Federigo, whose coronation was one of Caesar's last, possibly also one of his first, ecclesiastical acts. By securing the hand of Federigo's daughter, Carlotta, Princess of Tarento, he would become one of the most powerful barons of the kingdom, with ulterior prospects of wearing the crown. Carlotta's repugnance, however, could not be overcome. But in the course of the suit, another marriage was concluded which gave much scandal. Lucrezia's marriage with Sforza was declared null on the ground of the latter's impotence, and she was given as wife to Alfonso of Biseglia, an illegitimate son of Alfonso II.

Meanwhile, affairs in France took an unexpected turn which deeply modified the course of Italian history and the career of the Borgias. Charles VIII died in April, 1498, preceded to the tomb by his only son, and left the throne to his cousin, the Duke of Orleans, King Louis XII, who stood now in need of two papal favours. In his youth he had been coerced into marrying Jane of Valois, the saintly but deformed daughter of Louis XI. Moreover, in order to retain Brittany, it was essential that he should marry his deceased cousin's widow, Queen Anne. No blame attaches to Alexander for issuing the desired decree annulling the King's marriage or for granting him a dispensation from the impediment of affinity. The commission of investigation appointed by him established the two fundamental facts that the marriage with Jane was invalid, from lack of consent, and that it never had been consummated. It was the political use made by the Borgias of their opportunity, and the prospective alliance of France and the Holy See, which now drove several of the Powers of Europe to the verge of schism. Threats of a council and of deposition had no terrors for Alexander, whose control of the Sacred College was absolute. Della Rovere was now his agent in France. Ascanio Sforza was soon to retire permanently from Rome. Louis had inherited from his grandmother, Valentina Visconti, strong claims to the Duchy of Milan, usurped by the Sforzas, and he made no secret of his intention to enforce them. Alexander cannot be held responsible for the second “barbarian” invasion of Italy, but he was quick to take advantage of it for the consolidation of his temporal power and the aggrandizement of his family. On 1 October, 1498, Caesar, no longer a cardinal, but designated Duke of Valentinois and Peer of France set outs from Rome to bring the papal dispensation to King Louis, a cardinal's hat to his minister D'Amboise, and to find for himself a wife of high degree. He still longed for the hand of Carlotta, who resided in France, but since that princess persisted in her refusal, he received instead the hand of a niece of King Louis, the sister of the King of Navarre, Charlotte D'Albret. On 8 October, 1499, King Louis, accompanied by Duke Caesar and Cardinal della Rovere made his triumphal entry into Milan. It was the signal to begin operations against the petty tyrants who were devastating the States of the Church. Alexander would have merited great credit for this muchneeded work, had he not spoiled it by substituting his own family in their place. What his ultimate intentions were we cannot fathom. However, the tyrants who were expelled never returned, whilst the Borgian dynasty came to a speedy end in the pontificate of Julius II. In the meantime Caesar had carried on his campaign 80 successfully that by the year 1501 he was master of all the usurped papal territory and was made Duke of Romagna by the Pope, whose affection for the brilliant young general was manifested in still other ways. During the war, however, and in the midst of the Jubilee of 1500 there occurred another domestic murder. On 15 July of that year the Duke of Biseglia, Lucretia's husband was attacked by five masked assassins, who grievousiy wounded him. Convinced that Caesar was the instigator of the deed, he made an unsuccessful attempt, on his recovery, to kill his supposed enemy, and was instantly dispatched by Caesar's bodyguard. The latter, having completed, in April, 1501, the conquest of the Romagna, no v aspired to the conquest of Tuscany; but he was soon recalled to Rome to take part in a different enterprise. On 27 June of that year the Pope deposed his chief vassal, Federigo of Naples, on the plea of an alleged alliance with the Turks to the detriment of Christendom, and approved the secret Treaty of Granada, by the terms of which the Kingdom of Na ples was partitioned between Spain and France.

Alexander's motive in thus reversing his formerpolicy with respect to foreign interference was patent. The Colonna, the Savelli, the Gaetani and other barons of the Patrimony had always been supported in their opposition to the popes by the favour of the Aragonese dynasty, deprived of which they felt themselves powerless. Excommunicated by the Pontiff as rebels, they offered to surrender the keys of their castles to the Sacred College, but Alexander demanded them for himself. The Orsini, who might have known that their turn would come next, were so shortsighted as to assist the Pope in the ruin of their hereditary foes. One after another, the castles were surrendered. On 27 July, Alexander left Rome to survey his conquest; at the same time he left the widowed Lucrezia in the Vatican with authority to open his correspondence and conduct the routine business of the Holy See. He also erected the confiscated Possessions of the aforesaid families into two duchies, bestowing one on Rodrigo, the infant son of Lucrezia, the other on Juan Borgia, born to him a short while after the murder of Gandia, and to whom was given the latter's baptismal name (Pastor, op. cit., III 449). Lucrezia, now in her twenty-third year, did not long remain a widow; her father destined her to be the bride of another Alfonso, son and heir of Duke Ercole of Ferrara. Although both father and son at first spurned the notion of a matrimonial alliance between the proud house of Este and the Pope's illegitimate daughter, they were favourably influenced by the King of France. The third marriage of Lucrezia, celebrated by proxy in the Vatican (30 December, 1501), far exceeded the first in splendour and extravagance. If her father meant her as an instrument in her new position for the advancement of his political combinations, he was mistaken. She is known henceforth, and till her death in 1519, as a model wife and princess, lauded by all for her amiability, her virtue, and her charity. Nothing could well be more different from the fiendish Lucrezia Borgia of the drama and the opera than the historical Duchess of Ferrara. Caesar, however, continued his infamous career of simony, extortion, and treachery, and by the end of 1502 had rounded out his possessions by the capture of Camerino and Sinigaglia. In October of that year the Orsini conspired with his generals to destroy him. With coolness and skill Caesar decoyed the conspirators into his power and put them to death. The Pope followed up the blow by proceeding against the Orsini with greater success than formerly. Cardinal Orsini the soul of the conspiracy, was committed to Castle St. Angelo- twelve days later he was a corpse. Whether he died a natural death or was privately executed, is uncertain Losing no time, Caesar returned towards Rome, and so great was the terror he inspired that the frightened barons fled before him, says Villari (I, 356), “as from the face of a hydra”. By April nothing remained to the Orsini except the fortress of Bracciano and they begged for an armistice. The humiliation of the Roman aristocracy was complete; for the first time in the history of the papacy the Pope was, in the fullest sense, ruler of his States.

Alexander, still hale and vigorous in his seventy-third year, and looking forward to many mere years of reign, proceeded to strengthen his position by repleting his treasury in ways that were more than dubious. The Sacred College now contained so many of his adherents and countrymen that he had nothing to fear from that quarter. He enjoyed and laughed at the scurrilous lampoons that were in circulation in which he was accused of incredible crimes, and took no steps to shield his reputation. War had broken out in Naples between France and Spain over the division of the spoils. Alexander was still in doubt which side he could most advantageously support, when his career came to an abrupt close. On 6 August, 1503, the Pope, with Caesar and others, dined with Cardinal Adriano da Corneto in a villa belonging to the Cardinal and very imprudently remained in the open air after nightfall. The entire company paid the penalty by contracting the pernicious Roman fever. On the twelfth the Pope took to his bed. On the eighteenth his life was despaired of; he made his confession, received the last sacraments, and expired towards evening. The rapid decomposition and swollen appearance of his corpse gave rise to the familiar suspicion of poison. Later the tale ran that he had drunk by mistake a poisoned cup of wine which he had prepared for his host. Nothing is more certain than that the poison which killed him was the deadly microbe of the Roman campagna [Pastor, op. cit., III, 469-472; Creighton, Hist. of the Papacy (London 1887), IV, 44]. His remains lie in the Spanish national church of Santa Maria di Monserrato.

An impartial appreciation of the career of this extraordinary person must at once distinguish between the man and the office. “An imperfect setting”, says Dr. Pastor (op. cit., III, 475), “ does not affect the intrinsic worth of the jewel, nor does the golden coin lose its value when it passes through impure hands. In so far as the priest is a public officer of a holy Church, a blameless life is expected from him, both because he is by his office the model of virtue to whom the laity look up, and because his life, when virtuous, inspires in onlookers respect for the society of which he is an ornament. But the treasures of the Church, her Divine character, her holiness, Divine revelation, the grace of God, spiritual authority, it is well known, are not dependent on the moral character of the agents and officers of the Church. The foremost of her priests cannot diminish by an iota the intrinsic value of the spiritual treasures confided to him.” There have been at all times wicked men in the ecclesiastical ranks. Our Lord foretold, as one of its severest trials, the presence in His Church not only of false brethren, but of rulers who would offend, by various forms of selfishness, both the children of the household and “those who are without”. Similarly, Ho compared His beloved spouse, the Church, to a threshing floor, on which fall both chaff and grain until the time of separation. The most severe arraignments of Alexander, because in a sense official, are those of his Catholic contemporaries, Pope Julius II (Gregorovius, VII, 494) and the Augustinian cardinal and reformer, Aegidius of Viterbo, in his manuscript “ Historia XX Saeculorum”, preserved at Rome in the Bibliotheca Angelica. The Oratorian Raynaldus (d. 1677), who continued the semi-official Annals of Baronius, gave to the world at Rome (ad an. 1460, no. 41) the above-mentioned paternal but severe reproof of the youthful Cardinal by Pius II, and stated elsewhere (ad an. 1495, no. 26) that it was in his time the opinion of historians that Alexander had obtained the papacy partly through money and partly through promises and the persuasion that ho would not interfere with the lives of his electors. Mansi, the scholarly Archbishop of Lucca editor and annotator of Raynaldus, says (XI, 4155) that it is easier to keep silence than to write write moderation about this Pope. The severe judgment of the late Cardinal Hergenroether, in his “ Kirchengeschichte “, or Manual of Church History (4th. ed., Freiburg, 1904, II, 982-983) is too well known to need more than mention.

So little have Catholic historians defended him that in the middle of the nineteenth century Cesare Cantu could write that Alexander VI was the only Pope who had never found an apologist. However, since that time some Catholic writers, both in books and periodicals, have attempted to defend him from the most grievous accusations of his contemporaries. Two in particular may be mentioned: the Dominican Ollivier, “Le Pape Alexandre VI et les Borgia” (Paris, 1870), of whose work only one volume appeared, dealing with the Pope's cardinalate; and Leonetti “Papa Alessandro VI secondo documenti e carteggi del tempo “ (3 vols., Bologna, 1880). These and other works were occasioned, partly by a laudable desire to remove a stigma from the good repute of the Catholic Church, and partly by the gross exaggerations of Victor Hugo and others who permitted themselves all licence in dealing with a name so helpless and detested. It cannot be said, however, that these works have corresponded to their authors' zeal. Dr. Pastor ranks them all as failures. Such is the opinion of Henri de l'Epinois in the “Revue des questions historiques” (1881), XXIX, 147, a study that even Thuasne, the hostile editor of the Diary of Burchard, calls “ the indispensable guide of all students of Borgia history”. It is also the opinion of the Bollandist Matagne, in the same review for 1870 and 1872 (IX, 466-475; XI, 181-198), and of Von Reumont, the Catholic historian of medieval Rome, in Bonn. Theol. Lit. Blatt (1870), V. 686. Dr. Pastor considers that the publication of the documents in the supplement to the third volume of Thuasne's edition of the Diary of Burchard (Paris, 1883) renders “forever impossible “ any attempts to save the reputation of Alexander VI. There is all the less reason, therefore, says Cardinal Hergenroether (op. cit., II, 583), for the false charges that have been added to his account, e. g. his attempt to poison Cardinal Adriano da Corneto and his incestuous relations with Lucrezia (Pastor, op. cit., III, 375, 450-451, 475). Other accusations, says the same writer, have been dealt with, not unsuccessfully, by Roscoe in his “Life of Leo the Tenth”; by Capefigue in his “Eglise pendant les quatre derniers siecles” (I, 41-46), and by Chantrel, “Le Pape Alexandro VI” (Paris, 1864). On the other hand, while immoral writers have made only too much capital out of the salacious paragraphs scattered through Burchard and Infessura, there is no more reason now than in the days of Raynaldus and Mansi for concealing or perverting the facts of history. “I am a Catholic”, says M. de l'Epinois (loc. cit.), “and a disciple of the God who hath a horror of lies. I seek the truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth Although our weak eyes do not see at once the uses of it, or rather see damage and peril, we must proclaim it fearlessly.” The same good principle is set forth by Leo XIII in his Letter of 8 September, 1889, to Cardinals De Luca, Pitra, and Hergenroether on the study of Church History: “The historian of the Church has the duty to dissimulate none of the trials that the Church has had to suffer from the faults of her children, and even at times from those of her own ministers.” Long ago Leo the Great (440-461) declared, in his third homily for Christmas Day, that “the dignity of Peter suffers no diminution even in an unworthy successor” (cujus dignitas etiam in indigno haerede non deficit). The very indignation that the evil life of a great ecclesiastic rouses at all times (nobly expressed by Pius II in the above-mentioned letter to Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia) is itself a tribute to the high spiritual ideal which for so long and on so broad a scale the Church has presented to the world in so many holy examples, and has therefore accustomed the latter to demand from priests. “The latter are forgiven nothing”, says De Maistre in his great work, “Du Pape”, “because everything is expected from them, wherefore the vices lightly passed over in a Louis XIV become most offensive and scandalous in an Alexander VI” (II, c. xiv).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Pope Alexander VII

Fabio Chigi, born at Sienna, 13 February, 1599; elected 7 April, 1655; died at Rome, 22 May, 1667. The Chigi of Sienna were among the most illustrious and powerful of Italian families. In the Rome of Renaissance times, an ancestor of Alexander VII was known as the “Magnificent”. The future Pope's father, Flavio Chigi, nephew of Pope Paul V, though not as prosperous as his forebears, gave his son a suitable training. The latter owed much also to his mother, a woman of singular power and skill in the formation of youth. The youth of Fabio was marked by continued ill-health, consequent upon an attack of apoplexy in infancy. Unable to attend school, he was taught first by his mother, and later by able tutors, and displayed remarkable precocity and love of reading. In his twenty-seventh year, he obtained the doctorates of philosophy, law, and theology in the University of Sienna, and in December, 1626, he entered upon his ecclesiastical career at Rome. In 1627 he was appointed by Urban VIII Vice-Legate of Ferrara, and he served five years under the Cardinals Sacchetti and Pallotta, whose commendations won for him the important post of Inquisitor of Malta, together with the episcopal consecration. In 1639 he was promoted to the nunciature of Cologne; and in 1644 was made envoy extraordinary of Innocent X to the conference of Münster, in which post he energetically defended papal interests during the negotiations that led, in 1648, to the Peace of Westphalia. (See THIRTY-YEARS WAR.) Innocent X called him to Rome in 1651 to be his secretary of state, and in February, 1652, made him Cardinal In the conclave of 1655, famous for its duration of eighty days, and for the clash of national and factional interests, Cardinal Chigi was unanimously elected Pope. The choice was considered providential. At a time when churchmen were being forced to realize the deplorable consequences, moral and financial, of nepotism, there was needed a pope who would rule without the aid of relatives. For a year the hopes of Christendom seemed to be realized. Alexander forbade his relatives to come to Rome. His own sanctity of life, severity of morals, and aversion to luxury made more resplendent his virtues and talents. But in the consistory of 24 April, 1656, influenced by those who feared the weakness of a papal court unsustained by ties of family interest, he proposed to bring his brother and nephews to assist him. With their advent came a marked change in the manner of life of the pontiff. The administration was given largely into the hands of his relatives, and nepotic abuses came to weigh as heavily as ever upon the papacy. The endeavours of the Chigi to enrich their family were too indulgently regarded by the Pope; but, ever pious and devout, he was far from having a share in the excesses of his luxury-loving nephews. His burden being in this way lightened, he passed much of his time in literary pursuits and in the society of the learned; but the friends whom he favoured were those who could be best relied on as counsellors.

The pontificate of Alexander VII was shadowed by continual difficulties with the young and illadvised Louis XIV of France, whose representatives were a constant source of annoyance to the Pope. The French prime minister, Cardinal Mazarin, had not forgiven the legate who resolutely opposed him at the conferences of Munster and Osnabrueck, or the papal secretary of state who stood in the way of his anti-Roman policy. During the conclave he had been bitterly hostile to Chigi, but was in the end compelled to accept his election as a compromise. However, he prevented Louis XIV from sending the usual embassy of obedience to Alexander VII, and, while he lived, hindered the appointment of a French ambassador to Rome, diplomatic affairs being meantime conducted by cardinal protectors, generally personal enemies of the Pope. In 1662 the equally hostile Duc de Crequi was made ambassador. By his high-handed abuse of the traditional right of asylum granted to ambassadorial precincts in Rome, he precipitated a quarrel between France and the papacy, which resulted in the Pope's temporary loss of Avignon and his forced acceptance of the humiliating treaty of Pisa in 1664. (See LOUIS XIV.) Emboldened by these triumphs, the French Jansenists, who recognized in Alexander an old enemy, became insolently assertive, professing that the propositions condemned in 1653 were not to be found in the “Augustinus” of Cornelius Jansen. (See JANSENIUS.) Alexander VII, who as adviser of Innocent X had vigorously advocated the condemnation, confirmed it in 1665 by the Bull “Ad Sacram” declaring that it applied to the aforesaid work of Jansen and to the very meaning intended by him; he also sent to France his famous “formulary”, to be signed by all the clergy as a means of detecting and extirpating Jansenism (q. v.). His reign is memorable in the annals of moral theology for the condemnation of a number of erroneous propositions. Cardinal Hergenröther praises (Kirchengesch. III,414) his moderation in the heated dogmatic controversies of the period. During his reign occurred the conversion of Queen Christina of Sweden, who, after her abdication, came to reside in Rome, where on Christmas Day, 1655, she was confirmed by the Pope, in whom she found a generous friend and benefactor. He assisted the Venetians in combating the Turks who had gained a foothold in Crete, nd obtained in return the restoration of the Jesuits, exiled from Venice since 1606. (See SARPI, VENICE, JESUITS.) The inimical relations between Spain and Portugal occasioned by the latter's establishment of independence (1640) were a source of grave trials for Alexander, as for other popes before and after him. Alexander VII did much to beautify Rome. Houses were levelled to make way for straighter streets and broad piazzas, the Collegio Romano. The decorations of the church of Sta. Maria del Popolo, titular church of more than one of the Chigi cardinals, the Scala Regia, the Chair of St. Peter in the Vatican Basilica, and the great colonnade before that edifice bespeak alike the genius of Bernini and the munificence of his papal patron. He was also a patron of learning, modernized the Roman University, known as Sapienza, and enriched it with a magnificent library. He also made extensive additions to the Vatican library. His tomb by Bernini is one of the most beautiful monuments in St. Peter's.

J. B. PETERSON

Pope Alexander VIII

Pietro Ottoboni, born at Venice, April, 1610; elected 5 October, 1689; died at Rome, 1 February, 1691. He was the son of Marco Ottoboni, chancellor of the Republic of Venice, and a descendant of a noble family of that city. The future pope enjoyed ail that wealth and social position could contribute towards a perfect education. His early studies were made with marked brilliancy at the University of Padua (q. v.), where, in 1627, he secured the doctorate in canon and civil law. He went to Rome, during the pontificate of Urban VIII (1623-44), and was made governor of Terni, Rieti, and Spoleto. For fourteen years he served as auditor of the Rota (q. v.). At the request of the Republic this favoured son was made Cardinal by Innocent X (19 February, 1652), and was later given the Bishopric of Brescia, in Venetian territory? where he quietly spent the best years of middle life. Clement IX made him Cardinal-Datary. He was already an octogenarian when elected to the papacy, and lived but sixteen months, during which time little of importance was done. Louis XIV of France whose political situation was now critical, profited by the peaceful dispositions of the new Pope, restored to him Avignon, and renounced the longabused right of asylum for the French Embassy. (See ALEXANDER VII.) But the king's conciliatory spirit did not dissuade the resolute Pope from declaring (4 August, 1690) that the Declaration of Gallican Liberties (q. v.), drawn up in 1682, was null and invalid. He assisted his native Venice by generous subsidies in the war against the Turks, and he purchased for the Vatican library the books and manuscripts owned by Queen Christina of Sweden. He condemned the doctrine of a number of variously erroneous propositions, among them (24 August, 1690) the doctrine of “philosophical sin” (see SIN); cf. Denzinger, “Enchiridion Symb. et Defin.” (9th ed., Freiburg, 1900), 274-278; and Vacant “Dict. de théol. cath.” (Paris, 1903), I, 748-763. Alexander was an upright man, generous, peace-loving, and indulgent. Out of compassion for the poor of well-nigh impoverished Italy, he sought to succour them by reducing the taxes. But this same generous nature led him to bestow on his relations the riches they were eager to accumulate; in their behalf, and to the discredit of his pontificate, he revived sinecure offices which had been suppressed by his predecessor.

J. B. PETERSON

Frances Allen

The first woman of New England birth to become a nun, born 13 November, 1784, at Sunderland, Vermont; died 10 September, 1819, at Montreal. Her origin, education, and environment were calculated to make her the least likely woman in the United States to take such a step. Her father was Ethan Allen the patriot, soldier of the Revolution, and pioneer of the state of Vermont, and an atheist. He married as his third wife a widow, Frances Montressor, 16 February, 1784, and Frances was born 13 November, of the same year. After Ethan Allen's death, 12 February, 1789, Mrs. Allen, five years later, married Dr. Jabez Penniman. While not an atheist, like Allen, Dr. Penniman was sufficiently averse to religion to exclude every thought of it, as far as possible, from his stepdaughter's mind. Notwithstanding this, her keen and inquiring intellect led to her acquiring such a knowledge of the Catholic religion that when she was twenty-one she asked leave of her parents to go to Montreal ostensibly to learn French, but in reality to become more familiar in a convent school with the belief and practices of Catholics. They consented, but first required her to be baptized by the Rev. Daniel Barber, a Protestant minister of Claremont, New Hampshire. She became a pupil of the Sisters of the Congregation of Notre Dame, at Montreal, in 1807. One day, a Sister requested her to place some flowers on the altar, recommending her also to make an act of adoration of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the tabernacle. When the young woman attempted to step into the sanctuary she found herself unable to do so. After three futile attempts, she was filled with conviction of the Real Presence, and fell upon her knees in humble adoration.

She was instructed and received baptism, her lack of proper disposition having rendered that conferred by Mr. Barber invalid. At her first Communion she felt within her an unmistakable vocation to the religious life. Her parents promptly withdrew her from the convent and sought by bestowing on the young girl every worldly pleasure and social enjoyment to obliterate the religious sentiments with which she was imbued. The pleasure and excitement of such a life did not distract her from the desire of a religious life, and as soon as the year, which she had consented to pass with her parents before taking any step in the matter, was at an end, she returned to Montreal and entered the Hôtel-Dieu, making her religious profession in 1810. The convent chapel was thronged, many American friends coming to witness the strange spectacle of Ethan Allen's daughter becoming a Catholic nun. After eleven years of zealous life in religion, Frances Allen died at the Hôtel-Dieu, of lung trouble, 10 December, 1819.

JOHN J. A'BECKET

Pope St. Anacletus

The second successor of St. Peter. Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the “ Catalogus Liberianus”, the “Carmen contra Marcionem” and the “Liber Pontificalis”, all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the “Catalogus Felicianus” even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman. Among the moderns, Hergenroether (Hist. de l'église, I 542, note) pronounces for their identity. So also the Bollandist De Smedt (Dissert. vii, 1). Dëllinger (Christenth. u K., 315) declares that “they are, without doubt, the same person”and that “the 'Catalogue of Liberius' merits little confidence before 230.” Duchesne, “ Origines chretiennes “, ranges himself on that side also but Jungmann (Dissert. Hist. Eccl., I, 123) leaves the question in doubt. The chronology is, of course, in consequence of all this, very undetermined, but Duchesne, in his “Origines”, says “we are far from the day when the years, months, and days of the Pontifical Catalogue can be given with any guarantee of exactness. But is it necessary to be exact about popes of whom we know so little? We can accept the list of Irenaeus, Linus, Anacletus, Clement Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. Anicetus reigned certainly in 154. That is all we can say with assurance about primitive pontifical chronology.” That he ordained a certain number of priests is nearly all we have of positive record about him, but we know he died a martyr, perhaps about 91.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Anacletus II

The title which was taken by Cardinal Pietro Pierleone at the contested papal election of the year 1130. The date of his birth is uncertain; d. 25 January, 1138. Though the Pierleoni were conceded to be one of the wealthiest and most powerful senatorial families of Rome, and though they had staunchly supported the Popes throughout the fifty years' war for reform and freedom, yet it was never forgotten that they were of Jewish extraction, and had risen to wealth and power by usury. The Cardinal's grandfather, named Leo after Pope Leo IX, who baptized him, was a faithful adherent of Gregory VII; Leo's son, Peter, from whom the family acquired the appellation of Pierleoni, became leader of the faction of the Roman nobility which was at enmity with the Frangipani. His marble coffin may still be seen in the cloisters of St. Paul's, with its pompous inscription extolling his wealth and numerous offspring. His attempt to install his son as Prefect of Rome in 1116, though favoured by the Pope, had been resisted by the opposite party with riot and bloodshed. His second son, the future Antipope, was destined for the Church. After finishing his education at Paris, he became a monk in the monastery of Cluny, but before long he was summoned to Rome by Pope Paschal II and created Cardinal-Deacon of SS. Cosmas and Damian. He accompanied Pope Gelasius on his flight to France, and was employed by successive pontiffs in important affairs, including legations to France and England. If we can believe his enemies, he disgraced his high office by gross immorality and by his greed in the accumulation of lucre. Whatever exaggeration there may be as to other charges, there can be no doubt that he was determined to buy or force his way into the Papal Chair. When Honorius lay on his deathbed Pierleone could count upon the votes of thirty cardinals, backed by the support of the mercenary populace and of every noble family in Rome, except the Corsi and the Frangipani. The pars sanior of the Sacred College numbered only sixteen, headed by the energetic Chancellor, Haymaric, and the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia. These squadronisti, as they would have been called in later days, resolved to rescue the papacy from unworthy hands by a coup d'état. Though in a hopeless minority, they had the advantage that four of their number were cardinal bishops, to whom the legislation of Nicholas II had entrusted the leading part in the election. Moreover, of the commission of eight cardinals, to which, in apprehension of a schism, it was decided to leave the election, one of them being Pierleone, five were opposed to the ambitious aspirant. To secure liberty of action, they removed the sick Pontiff from the Lateran to St. Gregory's, near the towers of the Frangipani. Honorius dying on the night of 13 February, they buried him hurriedly the next morning, and compelled the reluctant Cardinal of San Giorgio, Gregory Papareschi, under threat of excommunication, to accept the pontifical mantle. He took the name of Innocent II. Later in the day the party of Pierleone assembled in the Church of St. Mark and proclaimed him Pope, with the name of Anacletus II. Both claimants were consecrated on the same day, 23 February, Anacletus in St. Peter's and Innocent in Sta. Maria Nuova. How this schism would have been healed, had the decision been left to the canonists, is hard to say. Anacletus had a strong title in law and fact. The majority of the cardinals with the Bishop of Porto, the Dean of the Sacred College, at their head, stood at his side. Almost the whole populace of Rome rallied around him. His victory seemed complete, when, shortly after, the Frangipani, abandoning what appeared to be a lost cause, went over to him. Innocent sought safety in flight. No sooner had he arrived in France than his affairs took a favourable turn. “Expelled from the City, he was welcomed by the world”, says St. Bernard, whose influence and exertions secured for him the adhesion of practically the entire Christian world. The Saint states his reasons for deciding in favour of Innocent in a letter to the Bishops of Aquitaine (Op= cxxvi). They may not be canonically cogent; but they satisfied his contemporaries. “The life and character of our Pope Innocent are above any attack, even of his rival; while the other's are not safe even from his friends= In the second place, if you compare the elections, that of our candidate at once has the advantage over the other as being purer in motive, more regular in form, and earlier in time. The last point is out of all doubt; the other two are proved by the merit and the dignity of the electors. You will find, if I mistake not, that this election was made by the more discreet part of those to whom the election of the Supreme Pontiff belongs. There were cardinals, bishops, priests, and deacons, in sufficient number, according to the decrees of the Fathers, to make a valid election. The consecration was performed by the Bishop of Ostia, to whom that function specially belongs.” Meanwhile Anacletus maintained his popularity in Rome by the lavish expenditure of -his accumulated wealth and the plundered treasures of the churches. His letters and those of the Romans to Lothair of Germany remaining unanswered, he secured a valuable confederate in Duke Roger of Apulia, whose ambition he satisfied by the gift of royalty; on Christmas Day, 1130, a cardinal-legate of Anacletus anointed at Palermo. the first King of the Two Sicilies, a momentous event in the history of Italy. In the spring of 1133, the German King conducted Innocent, whom two great synods, Reims and Piacenza, had proclaimed the legitimate Pope, to Rome; but as he came accompanied by only 2,000 horse, the Antipope, safe within the walls of Castle St. Angelo, looked on undismayed. Unable to open the way to St. Peter's, Lothair and his queen Rlchenza, on 4 June; received the imperial crown in the Lateran. Upon the Emperor's departure Innocent was compelled to retire to Pisa, and for four years his rival remained in undisturbed possession of the Eternal City. In 1137 Lothair, having finally vanquished the insurgent Hohenstaufens, returned to Italy at the head of a formidable army; but since the main purpose of the expedition was to punish Roger, the conquest of Rome was entrusted to the missionary labours of St. Bernard. The Saint's eloquence was more effective than the imperial weapons. When Anacletus died, the preference of the Romans for Innocent was so pronounced that the Antipope, Victor IV, whom the party chose as his successor, soon came as a penitent to St. Bernard and by him was led to the feet of the Pope. Thus ended, after eight years of duration, a schism which threatened serious disaster to the Church.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

St. Anthony

Founder of Christian monasticism. The chief source of information on St. Anthony is a Greek Life attributed to St. Athanasius, to be found in any edition of his works. A note of the controversy concerning this Life is given at the end of this article; here it will suffice to say that now it is received with practical unanimity by scholars as a substantially historical record, and as a probably authentic work of St. Athanasius. Valuable subsidiary information is supplied by secondary sources: the “Apophthegmata”, chiefly those collected under Anthony's name (at the head of Cotelier's alphabetical collection, P.G. LXV, 7]); Cassian, especially Coll. II; Palladius, “Historica Lausiaca”, 3,4,21,22 (ed. Butler). All this matter may probably be accepted as substantially authentic, whereas what is related concerning St. Anthony in St. Jerome's Life of St. Paul the Hermit” cannot be used for historical purposes.

Anthony was born at Coma, near Heracleopolis Magna in Fayum, about the middle of the third century. He was the son of well-to-do parents, and on their death, in his twentieth year, he inherited their possessions. He had a desire to imitate the life of the Apostles and the early Christians, and one day, on hearing in the church the Gospel words, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all thou hast”, he received them as spoken to himself, disposed of all his property and goods, and devoted himself exclusively to religious exercises. Long before this it had been usual for Christians to practice asceticism, abstainfrom marriage and exercising themselves in self-denial, fasting, prayer, and works of piety; but this they had done in the midst of their families, and without leaving house or home. Later on, in Egypt. such ascetics lived in huts, in the outskirts of the towns amd villaged, and thid was the common peactice about 270, when Anthony withdrew from the world. He began his career by practising the ascetical life in this fashion without leaving his native place. He used to visit the various ascetics, study their lives, and try to learn from each of them the virtue in which he seemed to excel. Then he took up his abode in one of the tombs, near his native village, and there it was that the Life records those strange conflicts with demons in the shape of wild beasts, who inflicted blows upon him, and sometimes left him nearly dead. After fifteen years of this life, at the age of thirty-five, Anthony determined to withdraw from the habitations of men and retire in absolute solitude. He crossed the Nile, and on a mountain near the east bank, then called Pispir, now Der el Memum, he found an old fort into which he shut himself, and lived there for twenty years without seeing the face of man, food being thrown to him over the wall. He was at times visited by pilgrims, whom he refused to see; but gradually a number of would-be disciples established themselves in caves and in huts around the mountain, Thus a colony of ascetics was formed, who begged Anthony to come forth and be their guide in the spiritual life. At length, about the year 305, he yielded to their importunities an emerged from his retreat, and, to the surprise of all, he appeared to be as when he had gone in, not emaciated, but vigorous in body and mind. For five or six years he devoted himself to the instruction and organization of the great body of monks that had grown up around him; but hen he once again withdrew into the inner desert that lay between the Nile and the Red Sea, near the shore of which he fixed his abode on a mountain where still stands the monastery that bears his name, Der Mar Antonios. Here he spent the last forty-five years of his life, in a seclusion, not so strict as Pispir, for he freely saw those who came to visit him, and he used to cross the desert to Pispir with considerable frequency. The Life says that on two occasions he went to Alexandria, once after he came forth from the fort at Pispir, to strengthen the Christian martyrs in the persecution of 311, and once at the close of his life (c. 350), to preach against the Arians. The Life says he dies at the age of a hundred and five, and St. Jerome places his death in 356-357. All the chronology is based on the hypothesis that this date and the figures in the Life are correct. At his own request his grave was kept secret by the two disciples who buried him, lest his body should become an object of reverence.

Of his writings, the most authentic formulation of his teaching is without doubt that which is contained in the various sayings and discourses put into his mouth in the Life, especially the long ascetic sermons (16-43) spoken on his coming forth from the fort at Pispir. It is an instruction on the duties of the spiritual life, in which the warfare with demons occupies the chief place. Though probably not an actual discourse spoken on any single occasion, it can hardly be a mere invention of the biographer, and doubtless reproduces St. Anthony's actual doctrine, brought together and co-ordinated. It is likely that many of the sayings attributed to him in the “Apophthegmata” really go back to him, and the same may be said of the stories told of him in Cassian and Palladius. There is a homogeneity about these records, and a certain dignity and spiritual elevation that seem to mark them with the stamp of truth, and to justify the belief that the picture they give us of St Anthony's personality, character, and teaching is essentially authentic. A different verdict has to be passed on the writings that go under his name, to be found in P.G., XL. The Sermons and twenty Epistles from the Arabic are by common consent pronounced wholly spurious. St Jerome (De Viris Ill., lxxxviii) knew seven epistles translated from the Coptic into Greek; the Greek appears to be lost, but a Latin version exists (ibid.), and Coptic fragments exist of three of these letters, agreeing closely with the Latin; they may be authentic, but it would be premature to decide. Better is the position of a Greek letter to Theodore, preserved in the “Epistola Ammonis ad Theophilum”, sect. 20, and said to be a translation of a Coptic original; there seems to be no sufficient ground for doubting that it really was written by Anthony (see Butler, Lausiac History of Palladius, Part I,223). The authorities are agreed that St Anthony knew no Greek and spoke only Coptic. There exists a monastic Rule that bears St Anthony's name, preserved in Latin and Arabic forms (P.G., XL, 1065). While it cannot be received as having been actually composed by Anthony, it probably in large measure goes back to him, being for the most part made up out of the utterances attributed to him in the Life and the “Apophthegmata”; it contains, however, an element derived from the spuria and also from the “Pachomian Rules”. It was compiled at an early date, and had a great vogue in Egypt the East. At this day it is the rule followed by the Uniat Monks of Syria and Armenia, of whom the Maronites, with sixty monasteries and 1,100 monks, are the most important; it is followed also by the scanty remnants of Coptic monachism.

It will be proper to define St. Anthony's place, and to explain his influence in the history of Christian monachism. He probably was not the first Christian hermit; it is more reasonable to believe that, however little historical St Jerome's “Vita Pauli” may be, some kernel o fact underlies the story (Butler, op. cit., Pat I, 231,232), but Paul's existence was wholly unknown unknown till long after Anthony has become the recognized leader of Christian hermits. Nor was St Anthony a great legislator and organizer of monks, like his younger contemporary Pachomius: for, though Pachomius's first foundations were probably some ten or fifteen years later than Anthony's coming forth from his retreat at Pispir, it cannot be shown that Pachomius was directly influenced by Anthony, indeed his institute ran on quite different lines. And yet it is abundantly evident that from the middle of the fourth century throughout Egypt, as elsewhere, and among the Pachomian monks themselves, St Anthony was looked upon as the founder and father of Christian monachism. This great position was no doubt due to his commanding personality and high character, qualities that stand out clearly in all the records of him that have come down. The best study of his character is Newman's in the “Church of the Fathers” (reprinted in “Historical Sketches”). The following is his estimate: “His doctrine surely was pure and unimpeachable; and his temper is high and heavenly, without cowardice, without gloom, without formality, without self-complacency. Superstition is abject and crouching, it is full of thoughts of guilt; it distrusts God, and dreads the powers of evil. Anthony at least had nothing of this, being full of confidence, divine peace, cheerfulness, and valorousness, be he (as some men may judge) ever so much an enthusiast” (op.cit., Anthony in Conflict). Full of enthusiasm he was, but it did not make him fanatical or morose; his urbanity and gentleness, his moderation and sense stand out in many of the stories related of him. Abbot Moses in Cassian (Coll. II) says he had heard Anthony maintaining that of all virtues discretion was the most essential for attaining perfection; and the little known story of Eulogius and the Cripple, preserved in the Lausiac History (xxi), illustrates the kind of advice and direction he gave to those who sought his guidance.

The monasticism established under St Anthony's direct influence became the norm in Northern Egypt, from Lycopolis (Asyut) to the Mediterranean. In contradistinction to the fully coenobitical system, established by Pachomius in the South, it continued to be of a semi-eremetical character, the monks living commonly in separate cells or huts, and coming together only occasionally for church services; they were left very much to their own devices, and the life they lived was not a community life according to rule, as now understood (see Butler, op. cit., Part I, 233-238). This was the form of monastic life in the deserts of Nitria and Scete, as portrayed by Palladius and Cassian. Such groups of semi-independent hermitages were later on called Lauras, and have always existed in the East alongside of the Basilian monasteries; in the West St Anthony's monachism is in some measure represented by the Carthusians. Such was St Anthony's life and character, and such his role in Christian history. He is justly recognized as the father not only of monasticism, strictly so called, but of the technical religious life in every shape and form. Few names have exercised on the human race an influence more deep and lasting, more widespread, or on the whole more beneficent.

It remains to say a word on the controversy carried on during the present generation concerning St Anthony and the Life. In 1877 Weingarten denied the Athanasian authorship and the historical character of the Life, which he pronounced to be a mere romance; he held that up to 340 there were no Christian monk, and that therefore the dates of the “real” Anthony had to be shifted nearly a century. Some imitators in England went still further and questioned, even denied, that St Anthony had ever existed. To anyone conversant with the literature of monastic Egypt, the notion that the fictitious hero of a novel could ever have come to occupy Anthony's position position in monastic history can appear nothing less than a fantastic paradox. As a matter of fact these theories are abandoned on all hands; the Life is received as certainly historical in substances, and as probably by Athanasius, and the traditional account of monastic origins is reinstated in its great outlines. The episode is now chiefly of interest as a curious example of a theory that was broached and became the fashion, and then was completely abandoned, all within a single generation. (on the controversy see Butler, op.cit. Part I, 215-228, Part II, ix-xi).

E.C.BUTLER

Antichrist

(Greek Antichristos). In composition anti has different meanings: antibasileus denotes a king who fills an interregnum; antistrategos, a propraetor; anthoupatos, a proconsul; in Homer antitheos denotes one resembling a god in power and beauty, while in other works it stands for a hostile god. Following mere analogy one might interpret antichristos as denoting one resembling Christ in appearance and power; but it is safer to define the word according to its biblical and ecclesiastical usage.

I. BIBLICAL MEANING OF THE WORD

The word Antichrist occurs only in the Johannine Epistles; but there are so-called real parallelisms to these occurrences in the Apocalypse, in the Pauline Epistles, and less explicit ones in the Gospels and the Book of Daniel.

A. In the Johannine Epistles

St. John supposes in his Epistles that the early Christians are acquainted with the teaching concerning the coming of Antichrist. “You have heard that Antichrist cometh” (I John, ii, 18); “ This is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh” (I John, iv, 3). Though the Apostle speaks of several Antichrists, he distinguishes between the many and the one principal agent: “Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists” (I John, ii, 18). Again, the writer outiines the character and work of Antichrist: “They went out from us, but they were not of us” (I John, ii, 19); “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son” (I John, ii, 22); “And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God; and this is Antichrist” (I John, iv, 3); “For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an Antichrist” (II John, 7). Also the time, the Apostle places the coming of Antichrist at “the last hour” (I John, ii, 18); again he maintains that “he is now already in the world” (I John, iv, 3).

B. In the Apocalypse

Nearly all commentators find Antichrist mentioned in the Apocalypse, but they do not agree as to the particular chapter of the Book in which the mention occurs. Some point to the “beast” of xi, 7, others to the “red dragon” of xii, others again to the beast “ having seven heads and ten horns” of xiii, sqq., while many scholars identify Antichrist with the beast which had “two horns, like a lamb” and spoke “as a dragon” (xiii, 11, sqq.), or with the scarlet-coloured beast “having seven heads and ten horns” (xvii), or, finally, with Satan “loosed out of his prison,” and seducing the nations (xx, 7, sqq.). A detailed discussion of the reasons for and against each of these opinions would be out of place here.

C. In the Pauline Epistles

St. John supposes that the doctrine concerning the coming of Antichrist is already known to his readers; many commentators believe that it had become known in the Church through the writings of St. Paul. St. John urged against the heretics of his time that those who denied the mystery of the Incarnation were faint images of the future great Antichrist. The latter is described more fully in II Thess., ii, 3, sqq., 7-10. In the Church of Thessalonica disturbances had occurred on account of the belief that the second coming of Jesus Christ was imminent. This impression was owing partly to a misunderstanding of I Thess., iv, 15, sqq., partly to the machinations of deceivers. It was with a view of remedying these disorders that St. Paul wrote his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, inserting especially ii, 3-10. The Pauline doctrine is this: “the day of the Lord” will be preceded by “a revolt”, and the revelation of the “man of sin.” The latter will sit in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God; he will work signs and lying wonders by the power of Satan; he will seduce those who received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved; but the Lord Jesus shall kill him with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy him with the brightness of His coming. As to the time, “the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.” Briefly, the “day of thc Lord” will be preceded by the “man of known in the Johannine Epistles as Antichrist; the “man of sin” is preceded by “a revolt,” or a great apostasy; this apostasy is the outcome of the “mystery of iniquity” which already “worketh”, and which, according to St. John, shows itself here and there by faint types of Antichrist. The Apostle gives three stages in the evolution of evil: the leaven of iniquity, the great apostasy, and the man of sin. But he adds a clause calculated to determine the time of the main event more accurately; he describes something first as a thing (to datechon), then as a person (ho katechon), preventing the occurrence of the main event: “Only he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.” We can here only enumerate the principal opinions as to the meaning of this clause without discussing their value:

1. The impediment of the main event is “the man of sin”; the main event is the second coming of the Lord (Grimm, Simar).
2. The impediment is the Roman Empire; the main event impeded is the “man of sin” (most Latin Fathers and later interpreters)
3. The Apostle referred to persons and events of his own time; the katechon and the “man of sin” are variously identified with the Emperors Caligula, Titus, Nero, Claudius, etc. (Protestant theologians living after the seventeenth century).
4. The Apostle refers immediately to contemporary men and events, which are, however, types of the eschatological katechon, “man of sin”, and day of the Lord; the destruction of Jerusalem, e. g., is the type of the Lord's second coming, etc. (Döllinger).

Before leaving the Pauline doctrine of Antichrist, we may ask ourselves, whence did the Apostle derive his teaching? Here again we meet with various answers.

1. St. Paul expresses merely his own view based on the Jewish tradition and the imagery of the Prophets Daniel and Ezechiel. This view has been advocated by several Protestant writers.
2. The Apostle expresses the impression produced on the early Church by the eschatological teaching of Jesus Christ. This opinion is expressed by Döllinger.
3. St. Paul derived his doctrine concerning Antichrist from the words of Christ, the prophecy of Daniel, and the contemporary events. This opinion, too, is expressed by Döllinger.
4. The Apostle uttered a prophecy received through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Catholic interpreters have generally adhered to this opinion.

D. In the Evangelists and Daniel

After studying the picture of Antichrist in St. Paul's Epistle to the Thessalonians, one easily recognizes the “man of sin” in Dan., vii, 8, 11, 20, 21, where the Prophet describes the “little horn”. A type of Antichrist is found in Dan., viii, 8 sqq., 23, sqq., xi, 21-45, in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes. Many commentators have found more or less clear allusions to Antichrist in the coming of false Christs and false prophets (Matt., xxiv, 24; Mark, xiii, 6, 22; Luke, xxi, 8), in the “abomination of desolation,” and in the one that “shall come in his own name” (John, v, 43).

II. ANTICHRIST IN ECCLESIASTICAL LANGUAGE

Bousset believes that there was among the Jews a fully developed legend of Antichrist, which was accepted and amplified by Christians; and that this legend diverges from and contradicts in important points the conceptions found in the Apocalypse. We do not believe that Bousset has fully proved his opinion; his view as to the Christian development of the concept of Antichrist does not exceed the merits of an ingenious theory. We need not here enter upon an investigation of Gunkel's work, in which he traces back the idea of Antichrist to the primeval dragon of the deep; this view deserves no more attention than the rest of the author's mythological fancies. What then is the true ecclesiastical concept of Antichrist? Suarez maintains that it is of faith that Antichrist is an individual person, a signal enemy of Christ. This excludes the contention of those who explain Antichrist either as the whole collection of those who oppose Jesus Christ, or as the Papacy. The Waldensian and Albigensian heretics, as well as Wyclif and Hus, called the Pope by the name of Antichrist; but the expression was only a metaphor in their case. It was only after the time of the Reformation that the name was applied to the Pope in its proper sense. It then passed practically into the creed of the Lutherans, and has been seriously defended by them as late as 1861 in the “Zeitschrift für lutherische Theologie”. The change from the true Church into the reign of Antichrist is said to have taken place between 19 February and 10 November, A. D. 607, when Pope Boniface III obtained from the Greek emperor Newton, the title “Head of All the Churches” for the Roman Church. An appeal was made to Apoc., xiii, 8, in confirmation of this date, and it was calculated from Apoc., xi, 3, that the end of the world might be expected A. D. 1866. Cardinal Bellarmin refuted this error both from an exegetical and historical point of view in “De Rom. Pont.”, III. The individual person of Antichrist will not be a demon, as some of the ancient writers believed; nor will he be the person of the devil incarnated in the human nature of Antichrist. He will he a human person, perhaps of Jewish extraction, if the explanation of Gen., xlix, 17, together with that of Dan's omission in the catalogue of the tribes, as found in the Apocalypse, be correct. It must be kept in mind that extra-Scriptural tradition furnishes us no revealed supplement to the Biblical data concerning Antichrist. While these latter are sufficient to make the believer recognize the “man of sin” at the time of his coming, the lack of any additional reliable revelation should put us on our guard against the day-dreams of the Irvingites, the Mormons, and other recent proclaimers of new revelations.

It may not be out of place to draw the reader's attention to two dissertations by the late Cardinal Newman on the subject of Antichrist. The one is entitled “The Patristic Idea of Antichrist”; it considers successively his time, religion, city, and persecution. It formed the eighty-third number of the “Tracts for the Times”, and has been republished in the volume entitled “Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects” (London, New York, and Bombay 1899). The other dissertation is contained among the Cardinal's “Essays Critical and Historical” (Vol. II; London, New York, and Bombay, 1897), and bears the title “The Protestant Idea of Antichrist.”

In order to understand the significance of the Cardinal's essays on the question of the Antichrist, it must be kept in mind that a variety of opinions sprang up in course of time concerning the nature of this opponent of Christianity.

1. Koppe, Nitzsch, Storr, and Pelt contended that the Antichrist is an evil principle, not embodied either in a person or a polity; this opinion is in opposition to both St. Paul and St. John. Both Apostles describe the adversary as being distinctly concrete in form.
2. A second view admits that the Antichrist is a person, but it maintains that he is a person of the past; Nero, Diocletian, Julian, Caligula, Titus, Simon Magus, Simon the son of Giora, the High Priest Ananias, Vitellius, the Jews, the Pharisees, and the Jewish realots have been variously identified with the Antichrist. But there is little traditional authority for this opinion; besides, it does not appear to satisfy fully the prophetic predictions, and, in the case of some of its adherents, it is based on the supposition that the inspired writers could not transcend the limits of their experiences.
3. A third opinion admitted that the Antichrist must indeed appear in a concrete form, but it identified this concrete form with the system of the Papacy. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bucer, Beza, Calixtus, Bengel, Michaelis, and almost all the Protestant writers of the Continent are cited as upholding this view; the same may be said of the English theologians Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, Hutchinson, Tyndale, Sandys, Philpot, Jewell, Rogers, Fulke, Bradford, King James, and Andrewes. Bramhall introduced qualifications into the theory, and after this its ascendancy began to wane among English writers. Nor must it be supposed that the Papal-Antichrist theory was upheld by all Protestants in the same form; the False Prophet or second Apocalyptic Beast is identified with Antichrist and the Papacy by Aretius, Foxe, Napier Mede, Jurieu, Cunninghame, Faber, Woodhouse, and Habershon; the first Apocalyptic Beast holds this position in the opinion of Marlorat, King James, Daubuz, and Galloway; both Beasts are thus identified by Brightman, Pareus, Vitringa, Gill, Bachmair, Fraser, Croly, Fysh, and Elliott.

After this general survey of the Protestant views concerning the Antichrist, we shall be able to appreciate some of Cardinal Newman's critical remarks on the question.

1. If any part of the Church be proved to be antichristian, all of the Church is so, the Protestant branch inclusive.
2. The Papal-Antichrist theory was gradually developed by three historical bodies: the Albigenses, the Waldenses, and the Fraticelli, between the eleventh and the sixteenth centuries: are these the expositors from whom the Church of Christ is to receive the true interpretation of the prophecies?
3. The defenders of the Papal-Antichrist theory have made several signal blunders in their arguments; they cite St. Bernard as identifying the Beast of the Apocalypse with the Pope, though St. Bernard speaks in the passage of the Antipope; they appeal to the Abbot Joachim as believing that Antichrist will be elevated to the Apostolic See, while the Abbot really believes that Antichrist will overthrow the Pope and usurp his See; finally, they appeal to Pope Gregory the Great as asserting that whoever claims to be Universal Bishop is Antichrist, whereas the great Doctor really speaks of the Forerunner of Antichrist who was, in the language of his day, nothing but a token of an impending great evil.
4. Protestants were driven to the Papal-Antichrist theory by the necessity of opposing a popular answer to the popular and cogent arguments advanced by the Church of Rome for her Divine authority.
5. Warburton, Newton, and Hurd, the advocates of the Papal-Antichrist theory, cannot be matched against the saints of the Church of Rome.
6. If the Pope be Antichrist, those who receive and follow him cannot be men like St. Charles Borromeo, or Fénelon, or St. Bernard, or St. Francis of Sales.
7. If the Church must suffer like Christ, and if Christ was called Beelzebub, the true Church must expect a similar reproach; thus, the Papal-Antichrist theory becomes an argument in favor of the Roman Church.
8. The gibe, “If the Pope is not Antichrist, he has bad luck to be so like him”, is really another argument in favour of the claims of the Pope; since Antichrist simulates Christ, and the Pope is an image of Christ, Antichrist must have some similarity to the Pope, if the latter be the true Vicar of Christ.

IRENAEUS, Adveresus Haer., IV, 26; ADSO (PSEUDO-RABANUS MAURUS), De ortu, vitâ et moribus Antichristi, P. L., CI, 1289-98); BELLARMIN, De Rom. Pont., III; NEWMAN, The Patristic Idea of Antichrist, No. 83 of Tracts for the Times, republished in Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects (London, New York, and Bombay 1897);

Apiarius of Sicca

A priest of the diocese of Sicca, in proconsular Africa. Interest attaches to him only because of his appeal to Rome from his bishop's sentence of excommunication, and the consequent protracted parleying between Rome and Carthage about the privileges of the African Church in regulating its own discipline. In the resentment which the peculiar circumstances of the case provoked in many African bishops opponents of the Papacy read the denial by the Church of St. Augustine of the doctrine of Papal supremacy; and thus the case of Apiarius has come to be the classical example in anti-Roman controversial works, illustrating the fifth-centruy repudiation of Papal claims to disciplinary control.

Apiarius, deposed by Urbanus, Bishop of Sicca, for grave misconduct, appealed to Pope Zosimus, who, in view of iregularities in the bishop's procedure, ordered that the priest should be reinstated, and his pishop disciplined. Changrined, perhaps, at the unworthy priest's success, a general synod of Carthage, in May, 418, forbade appeal “beyond the seas” of clerics inferior to bishops. Recognizing in what was virtually a restatement of previous African legislation an expression of displeasure on the part of the African bishops, Pope Zosimus sent a delegation to defend his right to receive certain appeals, citing decrees believed by him to have been enacted at the Council of Nicaea, but which in fact were canons of the council of Sardica. The African bishops who met the legates, while not recognizing these decrees as Nicene, accepted them pending verification. In May, 419, was held the sixteenth Council of Carthage, and there again the representations of Zosimus were accepted, awaiting the result of a comparison of the Nicene canons as they existed in Africa, in which the decrees cited by the Pope had not been found, with those of the churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople. By the end of the year 419 Pope Boniface, who had succeeded Zosimus in December, 418, was informed that the eastern codices did not contain the alleged decrees; but, as the now repentant Apiarius had meantime been assigned to a new field of labour, interest in the affair subsided. The letter to Pope Boniface, while evidencing irritation at the arrogance of the legate Faustinus, contains nothing incompatible with belief in the Pope's supremacy.

Some four years later Apiarius relapsed into scandalous courses, was once more excommunicated, and again appealed to Rome. Pope Celestine, who had succeeded Boniface in September, 423, reinstated him and deputed the unwelcome Faustinus to sustain this decision before the African Bishops. The legate's exasperating efforts in behalf of the unworthy priest were miserably thwarted by Apiarius's admission of his guilt. Incensed in these provoking circumstances, by the heightened arrogance of Faustinus and the misinformed Pope's haste in sustaining Apiarius, a number of African bishops addressed to Celestine the famous letter, “Optaremus”, in which they bitterly resent the insults of the tactless legate, and request that in future the popes will exercise due discretion in hearing appeals from Africa and exact from the African Church in such matters no more than was provided for by the Council of Nicaea. This letter, with all his boldness, cannot be contrued into a denial of the Pope's jurisdiction by the Church of Africa. It simply voices the desire of the African bishops to continue the enjoyment of those privileges of partial home-rule which went by default to their Church during the stormy period when the theory of univeral papal dominion could not be always reduced to practice, because of the trials which the growing church had to endure. But before the time of Apiarius, as the Sardican canons referred to attest, Western Europe had come to accept Rome as a court of last appeal in disciplinary causes. Africa, too, was now ready, and its readiness is shown by the case of Apiarius as well as by the records of like appeals to Rome to which St. Augustine himself bears witness.

JOHN B. PETERSON

Apocalypse

Apocalypse, from the verb apokalypto, to reveal, is the name given to the last book in the Bible. It is also called the Book of Revelation. Although a Christian work, the Apocalypse belongs to a class of literature dealing with eschatological subjects and much in vogue among the Jews of the first century before, and after, Christ.

AUTHENTICITY

The author of the Apocalypse calls himself John. John to the seven churches which are in Asia ' (Ap., i, 4). And again, I, John, your brother and your partner in tribulation, . . . was in the island which called Patmos, for the word of God (i , 9). The Seer does not further specify his personality. But from tradition we know that the Seer the Apocalypse was John the Apostle the son of Zebedee, the Beloved Disciple of Jesus. At the end of the second century the Apocalypse was acknowledged by the historical representatives of the principal churches as the genuine work of John the Apostle. In Asia, Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse, acknowledged the Revelation of John and wrote a commentary on it (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, 26). In Gaul, Irenaeus firmly believes in its Divine and Apostolic authority (Adversus Haer., V, 30). In Africa, Tertullian frequently quotes Revelation without apparent misgivings as to its authenticity (C. Marcion, III, 14, 25). In Italy, Bishop Hippolytus assigns it to the Apostle St. John, and the Muratorian Fragment (a document about the beginning of the third century) enumerates it along with the other canonical writings, adding, it is true, apocryphal Apocalypse of St. Peter, but with the clause, quam quidam ex nostris in ecclesia legi nolunt. The Vetus Itala, moreover, the standard Latin version in Italy and Africa during the third century, contained the Apocalypse. In Egypt, Clement and Origen believed without hesitation in its Joannine authorship. They were both scholars and men of critical judgment. Their opinion is all the more valuable as they had no sympathy with the millennial teaching of the book. They contented themselves with an allegorical interpretation of certain passages but never ventured to impugn its authority. Approaching more closely the apostolic age we have the testimony of St. Justin Martyr, about the middle of the second century. From Eusebius, (Hist. Eccl., IV, xviii, 8), as well as from his dialogue with the Jew, Tryphon (c. 81), held in Ephesus, the residence of the apostle, we know that he admitted the authenticity of the Apocalypse. Another witness of about the same time is Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a place not far from Ephesus. If he himself had not been a hearer of St. John, he certainly was personally acquainted with several of his disciples (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 39). His evidence however is but indirect. Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea, in the prologue to his commentary on the Apocalypse, informs us that Papias admitted its inspired character. From the Apocalypse undoubtedly Papias derived his ideas of the millennium, on which account Eusebius decries his authority, declaring him to have been a man of limited understanding. The apostolic writings which are extant furnish no evidence for the authenticity of the book.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST ITS AUTHENTICITY

The Alogi, about A. D. 200, a sect so called because of their rejection of the logos-doctrine, denied the authenticity of the Apocalypse, assigning it to Cerinthus (Epiphanius, Ll, ff, 33; cf. Iren., Adv. Haer., III, 11, 9). Caius, a presbyter in Rome, of about the same time, holds a similar opinion. Eusebius quotes his words taken from his Disputation: “But Cerinthus by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great Apostle falsely pretended to wonderful things, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom” (Hist. Eccl., III, 28). The most formidable antagonist of the authority of the Apocalypse is Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, disciple of Origen. He is not opposed to the supposition that Cerinthus is the writer of the Apocalypse. “For”, he says, “this is the doctrine of Cerinthus, that there will be an earthly reign of Christ, and as he was a lover of the body he dreamed that he would revel in the gratification of the sensual appetite”. He himself did not adopt the view that Cerinthus was the writer. He regarded the Apocalypse as the work of an inspired man but not of an Apostle (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, 25). During the fourth and fifth centuries the tendency to exclude the Apocalypse from the list of sacred books continued to increase in the Syro-Palestinian churches. Eusebius expresses no definite opinion. He contents himself with the statement: “The Apocalypse is by some accepted among the canonical books but by others rejected” (Hist. Eccl., III, 25). St. Cyril of Jerusalem does not name it among the canonical books (Catech. IV, 33-36); nor does it occur on the list of the Synod of Laodicea, or on that of Gregory of Nazianzus. Perhaps the most telling argument against the apostolic authorship of the book is its omission from the Peshito, the Syrian Vulgate. But although the authorities giving evidence against the authenticity of the Apocalypse deserve full consideration they cannot annul or impair the older and unanimous testimony of the churches. The opinion of its opponents, moreover, was not free from bias. From the manner in which Dionysius argued the question, it is evident that he thought the book dangerous as occasioning crude and sensual notions concerning the resurrection. In the West the Church persevered in its tradition of apostolic authorship. St. Jerome alone seemed to have been influenced by the doubts of the East.

THE APOCALYPSE COMPARED WITH THE FOURTH GOSPEL

The relation between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel has been discussed by authors, both ancient and modern. Some affirm and others deny their mutual resemblance. The learned Alexandrine Bishop, Dionysius, drew up in his time a list of differences to which modern authors have had little to add. He begins by observing that whereas the Gospel is anonymous, the writer of the Apocalypse prefixes his name, John. He next points out how the characteristic terminology of the Fourth Gospel, so essential to the Joannine doctrine, is absent in the Apocalypse. The terms, “life”, “light”, “grace”, “truth”, do not occur in the latter. Nor did the crudeness of diction on the part of the Apocalypse escape him. The Greek of the Gospel he pronounces correct as to grammar, and he even gives its author credit for a certain elegance of style.

But the language of the Apocalypse appeared to him barbarous and disfigured by solecisms. He, therefore inclines to ascribe the works to different authors (Hist. Eccl., VII, 25). The upholders of a common authorship reply that these differences may be accounted for by bearing in mind the peculiar nature and aim of each work. The Apocalypse contains visions and revelations. In conformity with other books of the same kind, e. g. the Book of Daniel, the Seer prefixed his name to his work. The Gospel on the other hand is written in the form of an historical record. In the Bible, works of that kind do not bear the signature of their authors. So also as regards the absence of Joannine terminology in the Apocalypse. The object of the Gospel is to prove that Jesus is the life and the light of the world, the fullness of truth and grace. But in the Apocalypse Jesus is the conqueror of Satan and his kingdom. The defects of grammar in the Apocalypse are conceded. Some of them are quite obvious. Let the reader but notice the habit of the author to add an apposition in the nominative to a word in an oblique case; e.g. iii, 12; xiv, 12; xx, 2. It further contains some Hebrew idioms: e.g. the Hebrew word equivalent to erchomenos, “the one that is to come”, instead of esomenos, i, 8. But it should be borne in mind that when the Apostle first came to Ephesus he was, probably wholly ignorant of the Greek tongue. The comparative purity and smoothness of diction in the Gospel may be adequately accounted for by the plausible conjecture that its literary composition was not the work of St. John but of one of his pupils. The defenders of the identity of authorship further appeal to the striking fact that in both works Jesus is called the Lamb and the Word. The idea of the lamb making atonement for sin by its blood is taken from Isaias, liii. Throughout the Apocalypse the portraiture of Jesus is that of the lamb. Through the shedding of its blood it has opened the book with seven seals and has triumphed over Satan. In the Gospel Jesus is pointed out by the Baptist as the “ Lamb of God . . . him who taketh away the sin of the world” (John, i, 29). Some of the circumstances of His death resemble the rite observed in the eating of the paschal lamb, the symbol of redemption. His crucifixion takes place on the selfsame day on which the Passover was eaten (John xviii, 28). Whilst hanging on the cross. His executioners did not break the bones in His body, that the prophecy might be fulfilled: “no bone in it shall be broken” (John, xix, 36). The name Logos, “Word”, is quite peculiar to the Apocalypse, Gospel and first Epistle of St. John. The first sentence of the Gospel is, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. The first epistle of St. John begins, “That which was from the beginning which we have heard . . . of the word of life”. So also in the Apocalypse, “And his name is called the Word of God” (xix, 13).

TIME AND PLACE

The Seer himself testifies that the visions he is about to narrate were seen by him whilst in Patmos. “I John . . . was in the island which is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus” (i. 9). Patmos is one of the group of small islands close to the coast of Asia Minor, about twelve geographical miles from Ephesus. Tradition, as Eusebius tells us, has handed down that John was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian for the sake of his testimony of God's word (Hist. Eccl., III, 18). He obviously refers to the passage “for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus” (i, 9). It is true that the more probable meaning of this phrase is, “in order to hear the word of God”, etc., and not “banished because of the word of God'', etc., (cf. i. 2). But it was quite natural that the Seer should have regarded his banishment to Patmos as prearranged by Divine Providence that in the solitude of the island he might hear God's word. The tradition recorded by Eusebius finds confirmation in the words of the Seer describing himself as “a brother and partaker in tribulation'' (i, 9). Irenaeus places the Seer's exile in Patmos at the end of Domitian's reign. “ Paene sub nostro saeculo ad finem Domitiani imperii” (Adv. Haer., V. 4). The Emperor Domitian reigned A. D. 81-96. In all matters of Joannine tradition Irenaeus deserves exceptional credit. His lifetime bordered upon the Apostolic age and his master, St. Polycarp, had been among the disciples of St. John. Eusebius, chronicling the statement of Irenaeus without any misgivings, adds as the year of the Seer's exile the fourteenth of Domitian's reign. St. Jerome also, without reserve or hesitation, follows the same tradition. “Quarto decimo anno, secundam post Neronem persecutionem movente Domitiano, in Patmos insulam relegatus, scripsit Apocalypsim” (Ex libro de Script. Eccl). Against the united testimony of these three witnesses of tradition the statement of Epiphanius placing the Seer's banishment in the reign of Claudius, A. D. 41-54, appears exceedingly improbable (Haer., li, 12, 33).

CONTENTS

(1) The Seven Churches. Chap. i, 1-3. Title and description of the book. The revelation made by Jesus the Messias to John. — (i, 4-9). Salutation prefatory to the seven Epistles, wishing the churches the grace and the peace of God and Jesus. — (i, 9-20). The vision of Jesus as the Son of man. The portrait is taken from Dan., x, and Henoch, xlvi. Cf. the phrases, “ one like the son of man “ (Ap., i, 13, Dan., x, 16, and vii, 13); “girded with gold” (Ap., i, 13; Dan., x, 5); “Eyes like flames of fire” (Ap., i, 14; Dan., x, 6); “a voice like that of a multitude” (Ap., i, 15; Dan., x, 6); “I fell down like one senseless” (Ap., i, 17; Dan., x, 9); “and he touched me” (Ap. i, 17, Dan., x, 18); “hair white like wool” (Ap., i, 14; Dan., vii, 9; Hen., xlvi, 1). — Chap. ii 1- iii, 2-2. The Epistles, to the seven Churches. The Churches are Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. The Epistles are short exhortations to the Christians to remain steadfast in their faith, to beware of false apostles and to abstain from fornication and from meat offered to idols.

(2) the Book with the Seven Seals. Chaps. iv and v. The vision of God enthroned upon the Cherubim. The throne is surrounded by twenty-four elders. In the right hand of God is a scroll sealed with seven seals. In the midst of the Cherubim and the elders the Seer beholds a lamb, agnus tamquam occisus , having on its throat the scar of the gash by which it was slain. The Seer weeps because no one either in heaven or on earth can break the seals. He is comforted on hearing that the lamb was worthy to do so because of the redemption it had wrought by its blood. The portrait of the throne is taken from Ezechiel, i. Compare in both accounts the description of the four beasts. They resemble a lion an ox, a man, and an eagle. Their bodies are full of eyes (cf. Ap., iv, 8; and Ez., x, 12). The twenty-four elders were probably suggested by the twenty-four courses of priests ministering in the Temple. The lamb slain for the sins of mankind is from Isaias, liii. Chaps. vi and vii. The seven seals and the numbering of the Saints. At the opening of four seals, four horses appear. Their colour is white, black, red. and sallow, or green (chloros, piebald), They signify conquest, slaughter, dearth and death. The vision is taken from Zach., vi, 1-8. At the opening of the fifth seal the Seer beholds the martyrs that were slain and hears their prayers for the final triumph. At the opening of the sixth seal the predestined to glory are numbered and marked. The Seer beholds them divided into two classes. First, 144,000 Jews, 12,000 of every tribe. Then a numberless multitude chosen from all nations and tongues. Chaps. viii and ix. After the interval of about half an hour. the seventh seal is broken; seven angels issue forth. each one holding a trumpet. The sounding of the first four trumpets causes a partial destruction of the elements of nature. One-third of the earth is burned, as also one-third of the trees and all the grass. One-third of the sea becomes blood (cf. Ex., vii, 17). One-third of the rivers is turned into water of wormwood. One-third of the sun, moon, and stars is obscured, causing one-third of the day to be dark (cf. Ex., x, 21). At the sounding of the fifth trumpet locusts ascend from the abyss. Their work is to torment men for five months, They are specially charged not to touch the grass. Their shape is that of horses (Joel, ii, 4) their teeth like those of lions (Joel. i. 6), their hair like the hair of women. They have the tails of scorpions where with to chastise man. The command over them is held by the Angel of the Abyss, named Abaddon, the destroyer. At the sound of the sixth trumpet the four angels chained at the Euphrates are let loose. They lead forth an army of horsemen. By the fire which the horses spit out and by their tails which are like serpents, one-third of mankind is killed. After the sixth trumpet there are two digressions. (1) The angel standing on the land and the sea. He swears that at the sound of the seventh trumpet the mystery will be completed. He hands to the Seer a little book. When eaten by him it is found sweet to taste, but bitter when once devoured. Taken from Ezech., ii. 8; iii, 3. (2) The contamination of the court of the Temple by the heathens. It lasts three and a half years. Taken from Dan., vii, 25; ix, 27; xii, 7-11. During that time two witnesses are sent to preach in Jerusalem. They are the two olive-trees foretold by Zach., iv, 3,11. At the end of their mission they are slain by the beast. They are raised to life after three and a half days (= years). The seventh trumpet is now sounded, the nations are judged and the kingdom of Christ is established.

(3) The Divine Drama. First Act. Chaps. xii, xiii, xiv. The lamb, the woman, and her seed; and opposed to them, the dragon, the beast from the sea, and the beast from the land. The main idea is taken from Gen., iii, 15. “I will put enmities between thee (the serpent) and the woman, and thy seed and her seed”. The woman is arrayed in heavenly splendour; a crown of twelve stars on her head and the sun and the moon under her feet (cf. Gen. xxxvii, 9, 10). She is in travail. Her first-born is destined to rule all the nation (Ps., ii, 8, 9). She herself, and her other seed, are persecuted for three and a half years by the great dragon who tries to kill them. The great dragon is Satan (Gen., iii, 1). He is cast out of heaven. With his tail he drags after him one-third of the stars. Taken from Dan., viii, 10. The fallen stars are the fallen angels. The beast from the sea is in great part taken from Daniel's description of the four beasts. It arises from the sea (Dan., vii, 3); has seven heads marked all over with blasphemies. It had also ten horns, like the fourth beast of Daniel (vii, 7); it resembled a leopard, the third beast of Daniel (vii, 6), it had feet like a bear. the second beast of Daniel (vii, 5); and teeth like a lion, the first beast of Daniel (vii, 4) . The great dragon gives full power unto the beast, whereupon all the world worship it (viz. those whose names are not contained in the book of the lamb). The followers of the beast have its mark on their head and hand. The beast from the land has two horns like a ram. Its power lies in its art of deceiving by means of tokens and miracles. Throughout the remainder of the book it is called the false prophet. Its office is to assist the beast from the sea, and to induce men to adore its image. The first act of the drama concludes with a promise of victory over the beast by the lamb of God.

Second Act. Chaps. xv, xvi. The seven vials. They are the seven plagues preceding the destruction of the great city, Babylon. They were for the greater part suggested by the Egyptian plagues. The first vial is poured out on the earth. Men and beasts are smitten with ulcers (Ex., ix. 9, 10). The second and third vial upon the seas and rivers. They become blood (Ex., vii, 17-21). The fourth vial upon the sun. It burns men to death. The fifth vial upon the throne of the beast. It causes great darkness (Ex., x, 11-29). The sixth vial upon the Euphrates. Its waters are dried up and form a passage for the kings of the East (Ex., xiv). The seventh upon the air. Storm and earthquake destroy Babylon.

Third Act. Chaps. xvii, xviii. The great harlot. She is seated upon the scarlet beast with the seven heads and ten horns. She is robed in scarlet and decked with gold. On her head is written: Mystery, Babylon the great. The kings of the earth commit fornication with her. But the day of her visitation has come. She is made a desolate place, the habitation of unclean animals (Ls., xiii, 21, 22). Her fall is lamented by the rulers and merchants of the earth. Fourth Act. Chaps. xix, xx. — The victory over the beast and the great dragon. A knight appears mounted on a white horse. His name is “The word of God”. He defeats the beast and the false prophet. They are cast alive in the pool of fire. Their defeat is followed by the first resurrection and the reign of Christ for a thousand years. The martyrs rise to life and partake with Christ in glory and happiness. During these thousand years the great dragon is held in chains. At their completion he is once more set at large to torment the earth. He deceives the nations Gog and Magog. These two names are taken from Ezech., chaps. xxviii, xxxix, where however Gog is the king of Magog. At last he also is east for all eternity in the pool of fire. Hereupon the general judgement and the resurrection take place. Fifth Act. Chaps. xxi, xxii. The new Jerusalem (cf. Ez., xl- xlviii). God dwells in the midst of His saints who enjoy complete happiness. The new Jerusalem is the spouse of the lamb. The names of the Twelve Tribes and the Twelve Apostles are written on its gates. God and the lamb are the sanctuary in this new city. Epilogue. Verses 18-21. The prophecy of the book is soon to be fulfilled. The Seer warns the reader not to add anything to it or take away from it under pain of forfeiting his share in the heavenly city.

PURPOSE OF THE BOOK

From this cursory perusal of the book, it is evident that the Seer was influenced by the prophecies of Daniel more than by any other book. Daniel was written with the object of comforting the Jews under the cruel persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Seer in the Apocalypse had a similar purpose. The Christians were fiercely persecuted in the reign of Domitian. The danger of apostasy was great. False prophets went about, trying to seduce the people to conform to the heathen practices and to take part in the Caesar-worship. The Seer urges his Christians to remain true to their faith and to bear their troubles with fortitude. He encourages them with the promise of an ample and speedy reward. He assures them that Christ s triumphant coming is at hand. Both in the beginning and at the end of his book the Seer is most emphatic in telling his people that the hour of victory is nigh. He begins, saying: “Blessed is he that . . . keepeth those things which are written in it; for the time is at hand “ (i. 3). He closes his visions with the pathetic words: “He that giveth testimony of these things saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus”. With the coming of Christ the woes of the Christians will be avenged. Their oppressors will be given up to the judgment and the everlasting torments. The martyrs that have fallen will be raised to life, that they may share the pleasures of Christ's kingdom, the millennium. Yet this is but a prelude to the everlasting beatitude which follows after the general resurrection. It is an article of faith that Christ will return at the end of time to judge the living and the dead. But the time of His second advent is unknown. “But of that day and hour no one knoweth, no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone” (Matt., xxiv, 36). It would appear, and is so held by many that the Christians of the Apostolic age expected that Christ would return during their own lifetime or generation. This seems to be the more obvious meaning of several passages both in the Epistles and Gospels (cf. John, xxi 21-23, Thess., iv, 13-18). The Christians of Asia Minor and the Seer with them, appear to have shared this fallacious expectation Their mistaken hope. however, did not affect the soundness of their belief in the essential part of the dogma. Their views of a millennial period of corporal happiness were equally erroneous. The Church has wholly cast aside the doctrine of a millennium previous to the resurrection. St. Augustine has perhaps more than any one else helped to free the Church from all crude fancies as regards its pleasures. He explained the millennium allegorically and applied it to the Church of Christ on earth. With the foundation of the Church the millennium began. The first resurrection is the spiritual resurrection of the soul from sin (De Civ. Dei Lib. XX). Thus the number 1,000 is to be taken indefinitely.

STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK AND ITS LITERARY COMPOSITION

The subject-matter of the Apocalypse required a threefold division. The first part comprises the seven exhortatory letters. The leading idea in the second part is the wisdom of Christ. It is symbolized by the book with seven seals. In it are written the eternal decrees of God touching the end of the world, and the final victory of good over evil. No one except Jesus, the lamb slain for the sins of the world, is worthy to break the seals and read its contents. The third part describes the Dower of Christ over Satan and his kingdom. The lamb defeats the dragon and the beast. This idea is developed in a drama of five acts. In five successive scenes we see before us the struggle, the fall of Babylon the harlot, the victory, and final beatitude. The third part is not only the most important, but also the most successful from a literary point of view. The drama of the lamb contains several beautiful thoughts of lasting value. The lamb, symbolizing gentleness and purity, conquers the beast, the personification of lust and cruelty. The harlot signifies idolatry. The fornication which the rulers and the nations of the earth commit with her signifies the worship they pay to the images of Caesar and the tokens of his power. The second part is inferior in literary beauty. It contains much that is taken from the Old Testament, and it is full of extravagant imagery. The Seer shows a fanciful taste for all that is weird and grotesque. He delights in portraying locusts with hair like that of women and horses with tails like serpents. There are occasional passages revealing a sense of literary beauty. God removes the curtain of the firmament as a scribe rolls up his scrolls. The stars fall from the heavens like figs from the fig-tree shaken by the storm (vi, 12-14). On the whole, however the Seer shows more love for Oriental splendour than the appreciation of true beauty.

INTERPRETATION

It would be alike wearisome and useless to enumerate even the more prominent applications made of the Apocalypse. Racial hatred and religious rancour have at all times found in its vision much suitable and gratifying matter. Such persons as Mohammed, the Pope, Napoleon, etc., have in turn been identified with the beast and the harlot. To the “reformers” particularly the Apocalypse was an inexhaustible quarry where to dig for invectives that they might hurl then against the Roman hierarchy. The seven hills of Rome, the scarlet robes of the cardinals, and the unfortunate abuses of the papal court made the application easy and tempting. Owing to the patient and strenuous research of scholars, the interpretation of the Apocalypse has been transferred to a field free from the odium theologicum. But then the meaning of the Seer is determined by the rules of common exegesis. Apart from the resurrection, the millennium, and the plagues preceding the final consummation, they see in his visions references to the leading events of his time. Their method of interpretation may be called historic as compared with the theological and political application of former ages. The key to the mysteries of the book they find in chap. xvii, 8-14. For thus says the Seer: “Let here the mind that hath understanding give heed “. The beast from the sea that had received plenitude of power from the dragon, or Satan, is the Roman Empire, or rather, Caesar, its supreme representative. The token of the beast with which its servants are marked is the image of the emperor on the coins of the realm. This seems to be the obvious meaning of the passage, that all business transactions, all buying and selling were impossible to them that had not the mark of the beast (Ap., xiii. 17). Against this interpretation it is objected that the Jews at the time of Christ had no scruple in handling money on which the image of Caesar was stamped (Matt., xxii 15-22). But it should be borne in mind that the horror of the Jews for the imperial images was principally due to the policy of Caligula. He confiscated several of their synagogues, changing them into heathen temples by placing his statue in them. He even sought to erect an image of himself in the Temple of Jerusalem (Jos., Ant., XVIII, viii, 2). The seven heads of the beast are seven emperors. Five of them the Seer says are fallen. They are Augustus Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. The year of Nero's death is A.D. 68. The Seer goes on to say “One is “, namely Vespasian, A. D. 70-79. He is the sixth emperor. The seventh, we are told by the Seer, “is not yet come. But when he comes his reign will be short “. Titus is meant, who reigned but two years (79-81). The eighth emperor is Domitian (81-96). Of him the Seer has something very peculiar to say. He is identified with the beast. He is described as the one that “was and is not and shall come up out of the bottomless pit” (xvii, 8). In verse 11 it is added: “And the beast which was and is not: the same also is the eighth. and is of the seven, and goeth into destruction”. All this sounds like oracular language. But the clue to its solution is furnished by a popular belief largely spread at the time. The death of Nero had been witnessed by few. Chiefly in the East a notion had taken hold of the mind of the people that Nero was still alive. Gentiles, Jews, and Christians were under the illusion that he was hiding himself, and as was commonly thought, he had gone over to the Parthians, the most troublesome foes of the empire. From there they expected him to return at the head of a mighty army to avenge himself on his enemies. The existence of this fanciful belief is a well-attested historic fact. Tacitus speaks of it: “Achaia atque Asia falso exterrit velut Nero adventaret, vario super ejus exitu rumore eoque pluribus vivere eum fingentibus credentibusque” (Hist., II, 8). So also Dio Chrysostomus: kai nyn (about A. D. 100) eti pantes epithymousi zen oi de pleistoi kai oiontai (Orat., 21, 10; cf. Suet., “Vit. Caes.” s.v. Nero, 57, and the Sibyliine Oracles, V, 28-33). Thus the contemporaries of the Seer believed Nero to be alive and expected his return. The Seer either shared their belief or utilized it for his own purpose. Nero had made a name for himself by his cruelty and licentiousness. The Christians in particular had reason to dread him. Under him the first persecution took place. The second occurred under Domitian. But unlike the previous one, it was not confined to Italy, but spread throughout the provinces. Many Christians were put to death, many were banished (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 17-19). In this way the Seer was led to regard Domitian as a second Nero, “Nero redivivus”. Hence he described him as “the one that was, that is not, and that is to return”. Hence also he counts him as the eighth and at the same time makes him one of the preceding seven, viz. the fifth, Nero. The identification of the two emperors suggested itself all the more readily since even pagan authors called Domitian a second Nero (calvus Nero, Juvenal. IV, 38). The popular belief concerning Nero's death and return seems to be referred to also in the passage (xiii, 3): “And I saw one of its heads as it were slain to death: and its death's wound was healed”. The ten horns are commonly explained as the vassal rulers under the supremacy of Rome. They are described as kings (basileis), here to be taken in a wider sense, that they are not real kings, but received power to rule with the beast. Their power, moreover, is but for one hour , signifying its short duration and instability (xvii, 17). The Seer has marked the beast with the number 666. His purpose was that by this number people may know it. He that has understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and his number is six hundred and sixty-six . A human number, i.e. intelligible by the common rules of investigation. We have here an instance of Jewish gematria. Its object is to conceal a name by substituting for it a cipher of equal numerical value to the letters composing it. For a long time interpreters tried to decipher the number 666 by means of the Greek alphabet, e. g. Iren., “Adv. Haer.”, V, 33. Their efforts have yielded no satisfactory result. Better success has been obtained by using the Hebrew alphabet. Many scholars have come to the conclusion that Nero is meant. For when the name “Nero Caesar” is spelled with Hebrew letters, it yields the cipher 666.

The second beast, that from the land, the pseudoprophet whose office was to assist the beast from the sea, probably signifies the work of seduction carried on by apostate Christians. They endeavoured to make their fellow Christians adopt the heathen practices and submit themselves to the cultus of the Caesar. They are not unlikely the Nicolaitans of the seven Epistles. For they are there compared to Balaam and Jezabel seducing the Israelites to idolatry and fornication. The woman in travail is a personification of the synagogue or the church. Her first-born is Christ, her other seed is the community of the faithful. — In this interpretation, of which we have given a summary, there are two difficulties:

• In the enumeration of he emperors three are passed over, viz. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. But this omission may be explained by the shortness of their reigns. Each one of the three reigned but a few months.
• Tradition assigns the Apocalypse to the reign of Domitian. But according to the computation given above, the Seer himself assigns his work to the reign of Vespasian. For if this computation be correct, Vespasian is the emperor whom he designates as “the one that is”. To this objection, however, it may be answered that it was the custom of apocalyptic writers, e.g., of Daniel, Enoch, and the Sibylline books, to cast their visions into the form of prophecies and give them the appearance of being the work of an earlier date. No literary fraud was thereby intended. It was merely a peculiar style of writing adopted as suiting their subject. The Seer of the Apocalypse follows this practice. Though actually banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian, after the destruction of Jerusalem, he wrote as if he had been there and seen his visions in the reign of Vespasian when the temple perhaps yet existed. Cf. II, 1, 2.

We cannot conclude without mentioning the theory advanced b the German scholar Vischer. He holds the Apocalypse to have been originally a purely Jewish composition, and to have been changed into a Christian work by the insertion of those sections that deal with Christian subjects. From a doctrinal point of view, we think, it cannot be objected to. There are other instances where inspired writers have availed themselves of non-canonical literature. Intrinsically considered it is not improbable. The Apocalypse abounds in passages which bear no specific Christian character but, on the contrary, show a decidedly Jewish complexion. Yet on the whole the theory is but a conjecture. (See also APOCRYPHA )

C. VAN DEN BIESEN

Apollinarianism

A Christological theory, according to which Christ had a human body and a human sensitive soul, but no human rational mind, the Divine Logos taking the place of this last. The author of this theory, Apollinaris (Apolinarios) the Younger, Bishop of Laodicea, flourished in the latter half of the fourth century and was at first highly esteemed by men like St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and St. Jerome for his classical culture, his Biblical learning, his defence of Christianity and his loyalty to the Nicene faith. He assisted his father, Apollinaris the Elder, in reconstructing the scriptures on classical models in order to compensate the Christians for the loss of Greek literature of which the edict of Julian had deprived them. St. Jerome credits him with innumerable volumes on the Scriptures ; two apologies of Christianity, one against Porphyry, and the other against Julian; a refutation of Eunomius, a radical Arian, etc.; but all these works are lost. With regard to Apollinaris s writings which bear on the present theory, we are more fortunate. A contemporary anonymous book: Adversus fraudes Apollinaristarum , informs us that the Apollinarists, in order to win credence for their error, circulated a number of tracts under the approved names of such men as Gregory Thaumaturgus (He kata meros pistis, Exposition of Faith), Athanasius (Peri sarkoseos, On the Incarnation), Pope Julius (Peri tes en Christo enotetos, On Unity in Christ), etc. Following that clue, Lequien (1740), Caspari (1879) and Dräseke (1892), have shown that in all probability these are Apollinaris s writings. Moreover, the Fathers of the Church who wrote in defence of orthodoxy, e.g., Athanasius, in two books against Apollinaris; Gregory Nazianzen, in several letters; Gregory of Nyssa in his Antirretikos; Theodoret, in his Haereticae Fabulae and Dialogues , etc., incidentally give us ample information on the real system of the Laodicean.

The precise time at which Apollinaris came forward with his heresy is uncertain. There are clearly two periods in the Apollinarist controversy. Up to 376, either because of his covert attitude or of the respect in which he was held, Apollinaris s name was never mentioned by his opponents, i.e. by individuals like Athanasius and Pope Damasus, or by councils like the Alexandrian (362), and the Roman (376). From this latter date it is open war. Two more Roman councils, 377 and 381, and a number of Fathers, plainly denounce and condemn as heretical the views of Apollinaris. He failed to submit even to the more solemn condemnation of the council of Constantinople, 381, whose first canon entered Apollinarianism on the list of heresies, and he died in his error, about 392. His following, at one time considerable in Constantinople, Syria, and Phoenicia, hardly survived him. Some few disciples, like Vitalis, Valentinus, Polemon, and Timothy, tried to perpetuate the error of the master and probably are responsible for the forgeries noticed above. The sect itself soon became extinct. Towards 416, many returned to the mother- Church, while the rest drifted away into Monophysitism.

THEORY

Apollinaris based his theory on two principles or suppositions, one ontological or objective, and one psychological or subjective. Ontologically, it appeared to him that the union of complete God with complete man could not be more than a juxtaposition or collocation. Two perfect beings with all their attributes, he argued, cannot be one. They are at most an incongruous compound, not unlike the monsters of mythology. Inasmuch as the Nicene faith forbade him to belittle the Logos, as Arius had done, he forthwith proceeded to maim the humanity of Christ, and divest it of its noblest attribute, and this, he claimed, for the sake of true Unity and veritable Incarnation. Psychologically, Apollinaris, considering the rational soul or spirit as essentially liable to sin and capable, at its best, of only precarious efforts, saw no way of saving Christ s impeccability and the infinite value of Redemption, except by the elimination of the human spirit from Jesus humanity, and the substitution of the Divine Logos in its stead. For the constructive part of his theory, Apollinaris appealed to the well-known Platonic division of human nature: body (sarx, soma), soul (psyche halogos), spirit (nous, pneuma, psyche logike). Christ, he said, assumed the human body and the human soul or principle of animal life, but not the human spirit. The Logos Himself is, or takes the place of, the human spirit, thus becoming the rational and spiritual centre, the seat of self- consciousness and self-determination. By this simple device the Laodicean thought that Christ was safe, His substantial unity secure, His moral immutability guaranteed, and the infinite value of Redemption made self-evident. And in confirmation of it all, he quoted from St. John i, 14 and the Word was made flesh ; St. Paul, Phil., ii, 7, Being made in the likeness of men and in habit found as a man , and I Cor., xv, 47 The second man, from heaven, heavenly.

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

It is to be found in the seventh anathema of Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome, 381. We pronounce anathema against them who say that the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human rational and intellective soul. For, the Word of God is the Son Himself. Neither did He come in the flesh to replace, but rather to assume and preserve from sin and save the rational and intellective soul of man. In answer to Apollinaris s basic principles, the Fathers simply denied the second as Manichaean. As to the first, it should be remembered that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had not yet formulated the doctrine of Hypostatical Union. It will then appear why the Fathers contented themselves with offering arguments in rebuttal, e.g.:

• (1) Scripture holds that the Logos assumed all that is human — therefore the pneuma also — sin alone excepted; that Jesus experienced joy and sadness, both being properties of the rational soul.
• (2) Christ without a rational soul is not a man; such an incongruous compound, as that imagined by Apollinaris, can neither be called God-man nor stand as the model of Christian life.
• (3) what Christ has not assumed He has not healed; thus the noblest portion of man is excluded from Redemption. They also pointed out the correct meaning of the Scriptural passages alleged by Apollinaris, remarking that the word sarx in St. John, as in other parts of Holy Writ, was used by synecdoche for the whole human nature, and that the true meaning of St. Paul (Philippians and I Corinthians) was determined by the clear teaching of the Pastoral Epistles. Some of them, however, incautiously insisted upon the limitations of Jesus knowledge as proof positive that His mind was truly human. But when the heresiarch would have taken them farther afield into the very mystery of the Unity of Christ, they feared not to acknowledge their ignorance and gently derided Apollinaris s mathematical spirit and implicit reliance upon mere speculation and human reasoning. The Apollinarist controversy, which nowadays appears somewhat childish, had its importance in the history of Christian dogma; it transferred the discussion from the Trinity into the Christological field; moreover, it opened that long line of Christological debates which resulted in the Chalcedonian symbol.

J.F. SOLLIER

St. Apollinaris

One of the first great martyrs of the church. He was made Bishop of Ravenna by St. Peter himself. The miracles he wrought there soon attracted official attention, for they and his preaching won many converts to the Faith, while at the same time bringing upon him the fury of the idolaters, who beat him cruelly and drove him from the city. He was found half dead on the seashore, and kept in concealment by the Christians, but was captured again and compelled to walk on burning coals and a second time expelled. But he remained in the vicinity, and continued his work of evangelization. We find him then journeying in the province of Aemilia. A third time he returned to Ravenna. Again he was captured, hacked with knives, had scalding water poured over his wounds, was beaten in the mouth with stones because he persisted in preaching, and then, loaded with chains, was flung into a horrible dungeon to starve to death; but after four days he was put on board ship and sent to Greece. There the same course of preachings, and miracles, and sufferings continued; and when his very presence caused the oracles to be silent, he was, after a cruel beating, sent back to Italy. All this continued for three years, and a fourth time he returned to Ravenna. By this time Vespasian was Emperor, and he, in answer to the complaints of the pagans, issued a decree of banishment against the Christians. Apollinaris was kept concealed for some time, but as he was passing out of the gates of the city, was set upon and savagely beaten, probably at Classis, a suburb, but he lived for seven days, foretelling meantime that the persecutions would increase, but that the Church would ultimately triumph. It is not certain what was his native place, though it was probably Antioch. Nor is it sure that he was one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as has been suggested. The precise date of his consecration cannot be ascertained, but he was Bishop of Ravenna for twenty-six years.

Acta SS., 5 July.

T. J. CAMPBELL

John Argyropulos

Humanist, and translator of Aristotle, born at Constantinople, 1416; died at Rome about 1486. It is certain that he was a teacher at Padua in 1434, although it is not clear why he returned to Constantinople in 1441. After the conquest of his native city by the Turks (1453) he joined the band of scholars who took refuge in Italy. In 1456 he was summoned to Florence by Cosimo de' Medici for the purpose of teaching (Aristotelian) philosophy and instructing the youthful Pietro and Lorenzo. In 1471 a plague broke out in Florence: this was the occasion of his leaving Florence for Rome, where he was kindly received by Pope Sixtus IV. There he continued his career as teacher, having among his pupils many cardinals and bishops and some distinguished foreigners, such as Reuchlin. He died at Rome; the year of his death is uncertain, but 1486 is the most probable date. He was one of those who contributed most to the revival of Greek learning in Italy. After Manuel Chrysoloras, he and George of Trebizond and George Gemistius had the largest share in making known to Western Europe the treasures of ancient Greek literature. Like all other humanists, he was somewhat intemperate in his zeal for his chosen subject. In his desire to extol the excellence of Greek literature, he expressed his contempt for the literature of ancient Rome; he was especially severe in his criticism of Cicero. His most serviceable works are his translations of many of Aristotle's works (published by Aldo Manucci, 1518-20) and his Commentaries on the “Ethics” and the “Politics” (published 1541). He also wrote several theological treatises, including one on the “Procession of the Holy Ghost” (P. G., CLVIII, 991 sqq.). Many of his works are still in manuscript.

WILLIAM TURNER

St. Arialdo

Martyred at Milan in 1065, for his attempt to reform the simoniacal and immoral clergy of that city. He was of noble extraction, born at Cutiacum, near Milan, and after his studies, at Laon and Paris, was made a canon in the cathedral city. For inveighing against abuses he was excommunicated by the bishop Guido, but was immediately reinstated by Pope Stephen, who bade him continue the work of reformation. He succeeded in having the bishop excommunicated because of his repeated lapses, but a riot ensued, resulting in serious injury to Arialdo. Previously an attempt had been made on his life with a poisoned sword. Later, when on his way to Rome, he was set upon by the emissaries of Guido and slain. Ten months after, his body was found in Lago Maggiore in a perfect state of preservation, and emitting a sweet odour. It was carried with great pomp to Milan, and exposed in the church of St. Ambrose from Ascension to Pentecost. It was subsequently interred in the church of St. Celsus, and in the following year, 1067, Alexander II declared him a martyr.

T. J. CAMPBELL

Arianism

A heresy which arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

DOCTRINE

First among the doctrinal disputes which troubled Christians after Constantine had recognized the Church in A.D. 313, and the parent of many more during some three centuries, Arianism occupies a large place in ecclesiastical history. It is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore will appear strange in modern eyes. But we shall better grasp its meaning if we term it an Eastern attempt to rationalize the creed by stripping it of mystery so far as the relation of Christ to God was concerned. In the New Testament and in Church teaching Jesus of Nazareth appears as the Son of God. This name He took to Himself (Matt., xi, 27; John, x, 36), while the Fourth Gospel declares Him to be the Word (Logos), Who in the beginning was with God and was God, by Whom all things were made. A similar doctrine is laid down by St. Paul, in his undoubtedly genuine Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. It is reiterated in the Letters of Ignatius, and accounts for Pliny's observation that Christians in their assemblies chanted a hymn to Christ as God. But the question how the Son was related to the Father (Himself acknowledged on all hands to be the one Supreme Deity), gave rise, between the years A. D. 60 and 200, to number of Theosophic systems, called generally Gnosticism, and having for their authors Basilides, Valentinus, Tatian, and other Greek speculators. Though all of these visited Rome, they had no following in the West, which remained free from controversies of an abstract nature, and was faithful to the creed of its baptism. Intellectual centres were chiefly Alexandria and Antioch, Egyptian or Syrian, and speculation was carried on in Greek. The Roman Church held steadfastly by tradition. Under these circumstances, when Gnostic schools had passed away with their “conjugations” of Divine powers, and “emanations” from the Supreme unknowable God (the “Deep” and the “Silence”) all speculation was thrown into the form of an inquiry touching the “likeness” of the Son to His Father and “sameness” of His Essence. Catholics had always maintained that Christ was truly the Son, and truly God. They worshipped Him with divine honours; they would never consent to separate Him, in idea or reality, from the Father, Whose Word, Reason, Mind, He was, and in Whose Heart He abode from eternity. But the technical terms of doctrine were not fully defined; and even in Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physis), person (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from the pre-Christian sects of philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The adaptation of a vocabulary employed by Plato and Aristotle to Christian truth was a matter of time; it could not be done in a day; and when accomplished for the Greek it had to be undertaken for the Latin, which did not lend itself readily to necessary yet subtle distinctions. That disputes should spring up even among the orthodox who all held one faith, was inevitable. And of these wranglings the rationalist would take advantage in order to substitute for the ancient creed his own inventions. The drift of all he advanced was this: to deny that in any true sense God could have a Son; as Mohammed tersely said afterwards, “God neither begets, nor is He begotten” (Koran, cxii). We have learned to call that denial Unitarianism. It was the ultimate scope of Arian opposition to what Christians had always believed. But the Arian, though he did not come straight down from the Gnostic, pursued a line of argument and taught a view which the speculations of the Gnostic had made familiar. He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son “is no part of the Ingenerate.” Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was “unlike” the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.

But a view so unlike tradition found little favour; it required softening or palliation, even at the cost of logic; and the school which supplanted Arianism form an early date affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. These men of the Via Media were named Semi-Arians. They approached, in strict argument, to the heretical extreme; but many of them held the orthodox faith, however inconsistently; their difficulties turned upon language or local prejudice, and no small number submitted at length to Catholic teaching. The Semi-Arians attempted for years to invent a compromise between irreconcilable views, and their shifting creeds, tumultuous councils, and worldly devices tell us how mixed and motley a crowd was collected under their banner. The point to be kept in remembrance is that, while they affirmed the Word of God to be everlasting, they imagined Him as having become the Son to create the worlds and redeem mankind. Among the ante-Nicene writers, a certain ambiguity of expression may be detected, outside the school of Alexandria, touching this last head of doctrine. While Catholic teachers held the Monarchia, viz. that there was only one God; and the Trinity, that this Absolute One existed in three distinct subsistences; and the Circuminession, that Father, Word, and Spirit could not be separated, in fact or in thought, from one another; yet an opening was left for discussion as regarded the term “Son,” and the period of His “generation” (gennesis). Five ante-Nicene Fathers are especially quoted: Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, and Novatian, whose language appears to involve a peculiar notion of Sonship, as though It did not come into being or were not perfect until the dawn of creation. To these may be added Tertullian and Methodius. Cardinal Newman held that their view, which is found clearly in Tertullian, of the Son existing after the Word, is connected as an antecedent with Arianism. Petavius construed the same expressions in a reprehensible sense; but the Anglican Bishop Bull defended them as orthodox, not without difficulty. Even if metaphorical, such language might give shelter to unfair disputants; but we are not answerable for the slips of teachers who failed to perceive all the consequences of doctrinal truths really held by them. From these doubtful theorizings Rome and Alexandria kept aloof. Origen himself, whose unadvised speculations were charged with the guilt of Arianism, and who employed terms like “the second God,” concerning the Logos, which were never adopted by the Church - this very Origen taught the eternal Sonship of the Word, and was not a Semi-Arian. To him the Logos, the Son, and Jesus of Nazareth were one ever-subsisting Divine Person, begotten of the Father, and, in this way, “subordinate” to the source of His being. He comes forth from God as the creative Word, and so is a ministering Agent, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born of creation. Dionysius of Alexandria (260) was even denounced at Rome for calling the Son a work or creature of God; but he explained himself to the pope on orthodox principles, and confessed the Homoousian Creed.

HISTORY

Paul of Samosata, who was contemporary with Dionysius, and Bishop of Antioch, may be judged the true ancestor of those heresies which relegated Christ beyond the Divine sphere, whatever epithets of deity they allowed Him. The man Jesus, said Paul, was distinct from the Logos, and, in Milton's later language, by merit was made the Son of God. The Supreme is one in Person as in Essence. Three councils held at Antioch (264-268, or 269) condemned and excommunicated the Samosatene. But these Fathers would not accept the Homoousian formula, dreading lest it be taken to signify one material or abstract substance, according to the usage of the heathen philosophies. Associated with Paul, and for years cut off from the Catholic communion, we find the well-known Lucian, who edited the Septuagint and became at last a martyr. From this learned man the school of Antioch drew its inspiration. Eusebius the historian, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Arius himself, all came under Lucian's influence. Not, therefore, to Egypt and its mystical teaching, but to Syria, where Aristotle flourished with his logic and its tendency to Rationalism, should we look for the home of an aberration which had it finally triumphed, would have anticipated Islam, reducing the Eternal Son to the rank of a prophet, and thus undoing the Christian revelation.

Arius, a Libyan by descent, brought up at Antioch and a school-fellow of Eusebius, afterwards Bishop of Nicomedia, took part (306) in the obscure Meletian schism, was made presbyter of the church called “Baucalis,” at Alexandria, and opposed the Sabellians, themselves committed to a view of the Trinity which denied all real distinctions in the Supreme. Epiphanius describes the heresiarch as tall, grave, and winning; no aspersion on his moral character has been sustained; but there is some possibility of personal differences having led to his quarrel with the patriarch Alexander whom, in public synod, he accused of teaching that the Son was identical with the Father (319). The actual circumstances of this dispute are obscure; but Alexander condemned Arius in a great assembly, and the latter found a refuge with Eusebius, the Church historian, at Caesarea. Political or party motives embittered the strife. Many bishops of Asia Minor and Syria took up the defence of their “fellow-Lucianist,” as Arius did not hesitate to call himself. Synods in Palestine and Bithynia were opposed to synods in Egypt. During several years the argument raged; but when, by his defeat of Licinius (324), Constantine became master of the Roman world, he determined on restoring ecclesiastical order in the East, as already in the West he had undertaken to put down the Donatists at the Council of Arles. Arius, in a letter to the Nicomedian prelate, had boldly rejected the Catholic faith. But Constantine, tutored by this worldly-minded man, sent from Nicomedia to Alexander a famous letter, in which he treated the controversy as an idle dispute about words and enlarged on the blessings of peace. The emperor, we should call to mind, was only a catechumen, imperfectly acquainted with Greek, much more incompetent in theology, and yet ambitious to exercise over the Catholic Church a dominion resembling that which, as Pontifex Maximus, he wielded over the pagan worship. From this Byzantine conception (labelled in modern terms Erastianism) we must derive the calamities which during many hundreds of years set their mark on the development of Christian dogma. Alexander could not give way in a matter so vitally important. Arius and his supporters would not yield. A council was, therefore, assembled in Nicaea, in Bithynia, which has ever been counted the first ecumenical, and which held its sittings from the middle of June, 325. (See FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA). It is commonly said that Hosius of Cordova presided. The Pope, St. Silvester, was represented by his legates, and 318 Fathers attended, almost all from the East. Unfortunately, the acts of the Council are not preserved. The emperor, who was present, paid religious deference to a gathering which displayed the authority of Christian teaching in a manner so remarkable. From the first it was evident that Arius could not reckon upon a large number of patrons among the bishops. Alexander was accompanied by his youthful deacon, the ever-memorable Athanasius who engaged in discussion with the heresiarch himself, and from that moment became the leader of the Catholics during well-nigh fifty years. The Fathers appealed to tradition against the innovators, and were passionately orthodox; while a letter was received from Eusebius of Nicomedia, declaring openly that he would never allow Christ to be of one substance with God. This avowal suggested a means of discriminating between true believers and all those who, under that pretext, did not hold the Faith handed down. A creed was drawn up on behalf of the Arian party by Eusebius of Caesarea in which every term of honour and dignity, except the oneness of substance, was attributed to Our Lord. Clearly, then, no other test save the Homoousion would prove a match for the subtle ambiguities of language that, then as always, were eagerly adopted by dissidents from the mind of the Church. A formula had been discovered which would serve as a test, though not simply to be found in Scripture, yet summing up the doctrine of St. John, St. Paul, and Christ Himself, “I and the Father are one”. Heresy, as St. Ambrose remarks, had furnished from its own scabbard a weapon to cut off its head. The “consubstantial” was accepted, only thirteen bishops dissenting, and these were speedily reduced to seven. Hosius drew out the conciliar statements, to which anathemas were subjoined against those who should affirm that the Son once did not exist, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing, or that He was of a different substance or essence from the Father, or was created or changeable. Every bishop made this declaration except six, of whom four at length gave way. Eusebius of Nicomedia withdrew his opposition to the Nicene term, but would not sign the condemnation of Arius. By the emperor, who considered heresy as rebellion, the alternative proposed was subscription or banishment; and, on political grounds, the Bishop of Nicomedia was exiled not long after the council, involving Arius in his ruin. The heresiarch and his followers underwent their sentence in Illyria.

But these incidents, which might seem to close the chapter, proved a beginning of strife, and led on to the most complicated proceedings of which we read in the fourth century. While the plain Arian creed was defended by few, those political prelates who sided with Eusebius carried on a double warfare against the term “consubstantial”, and its champion, Athanasius. This greatest of the Eastern Fathers had succeeded Alexander in the Egyptian patriarchate (326). He was not more than thirty years of age; but his published writings, antecedent to the Council, display, in thought and precision, a mastery of the issues involved which no Catholic teacher could surpass. His unblemished life, considerate temper, and loyalty to his friends made him by no means easy to attack. But the wiles of Eusebius, who in 328 recovered Constantine's favour, were seconded by Asiatic intrigues, and a period of Arian reaction set in. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed on a charge of Sabellianism (331), and the Emperor sent his command that Athanasius should receive Arius back into communion. The saint firmly declined. In 325 the heresiarch was absolved by two councils, at Tyre and Jerusalem, the former of which deposed Athanasius on false and shameful grounds of personal misconduct. He was banished to Trier, and his sojourn of eighteen months in those parts cemented Alexandria more closely to Rome and the Catholic West. Meanwhile, Constantia, the Emperor's sister, had recommended Arius, whom she thought an injured man, to Constantine's leniency. Her dying words affected him, and he recalled the Lybian, extracted from him a solemn adhesion to the Nicene faith, and ordered Alexander, Bishop of the Imperial City, to give him Communion in his own church (336). Arius openly triumphed; but as he went about in parade, the evening before this event was to take place, he expired from a sudden disorder, which Catholics could not help regarding as a judgment of heaven, due to the bishop's prayers. His death, however, did not stay the plague. Constantine now favoured none but Arians; he was baptized in his last moments by the shifty prelate of Nicomedia; and he bequeathed to his three sons (337) an empire torn by dissensions which his ignorance and weakness had aggravated.

Constantius, who nominally governed the East, was himself the puppet of his empress and the palace-ministers. He obeyed the Eusebian faction; his spiritual director, Valens, Bishop of Mursa, did what in him lay to infect Italy and the West with Arian dogmas. The term “like in substance”, Homoiousion, which had been employed merely to get rid of the Nicene formula, became a watchword. But as many as fourteen councils, held between 341 and 360, in which every shade of heretical subterfuge found expression, bore decisive witness to the need and efficacy of the Catholic touchstone which they all rejected. About 340, an Alexandrian gathering had defended its archbishop in an epistle to Pope Julius. On the death of Constantine, and by the influence of that emperor's son and namesake, he had been restored to his people. But the young prince passed away, and in 341 the celebrated Antiochene Council of the Dedication a second time degraded Athanasius, who now took refuge in Rome. There he spent three years. Gibbon quotes and adopts “a judicious observation” of Wetstein which deserves to be kept always in mind. From the fourth century onwards, remarks the German scholar, when the Eastern Churches were almost equally divided in eloquence and ability between contending sections, that party which sought to overcome made its appearance in the Vatican, cultivated the Papal majesty, conquered and established the orthodox creed by the help of the Latin bishops. Therefore it was that Athanasius repaired to Rome. A stranger, Gregory, usurped his place. The Roman Council proclaimed his innocence. In 343, Constans, who ruled over the West from Illyria to Britain, summoned the bishops to meet at Sardica in Pannonia. Ninety-four Latin, seventy Greek or Eastern, prelates began the debates; but they could not come to terms, and the Asiatics withdrew, holding a separate and hostile session at Philippopolis in Thrace. It has been justly said that the Council of Sardica reveals the first symptoms of discord which, later on, produced the unhappy schism of East and West. But to the Latins this meeting, which allowed of appeals to Pope Julius, or the Roman Church, seemed an epilogue which completed the Nicene legislation, and to this effect it was quoted by Innocent I in his correspondence with the bishops of Africa.

Having won over Constans, who warmly took up his cause, the invincible Athanasius received from his Oriental and Semi-Arian sovereign three letters commanding, and at length entreating his return to Alexandria (349). The factious bishops, Ursacius and Valens, retracted their charges against him in the hands of Pope Julius; and as he travelled home, by way of Thrace, Asia Minor, and Syria, the crowd of court-prelates did him abject homage. These men veered with every wind. Some, like Eusebius of Caesarea, held a Platonizing doctrine which they would not give up, though they declined the Arian blasphemies. But many were time-servers, indifferent to dogma. And a new party had arisen, the strict and pious Homoiousians, not friends of Athanasius, nor willing to subscribe to the Nicene terms, yet slowly drawing nearer to the true creed and finally accepting it. In the councils which now follow these good men play their part. However, when Constans died (350), and his Semi-Arian brother was left supreme, the persecution of Athanasius redoubled in violence. By a series of intrigues the Western bishops were persuaded to cast him off at Arles, Milan, Ariminum. It was concerning this last council (359) that St. Jerome wrote, “the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian”. For the Latin bishops were driven by threats and chicanery to sign concessions which at no time represented their genuine views. Councils were so frequent that their dates are still matter of controversy. Personal issues disguised the dogmatic importance of a struggle which had gone on for thirty years. The Pope of the day, Liberius, brave at first, undoubtedly orthodox, but torn from his see and banished to the dreary solitude of Thrace, signed a creed, in tone Semi-Arian (compiled chiefly from one of Sirmium), renounced Athanasius, but made a stand against the so-called “Homoean” formulae of Ariminum. This new party was led by Acacius of Caesarea, an aspiring churchman who maintained that he, and not St. Cyril of Jerusalem, was metropolitan over Palestine. The Homoeans, a sort of Protestants, would have no terms employed which were not found in Scripture, and thus evaded signing the “Consubstantial”. A more extreme set, the “Anomoeans”, followed Aetius, were directed by Eunomius, held meetings at Antioch and Sirmium, declared the Son to be “unlike” the Father, and made themselves powerful in the last years of Constantius within the palace. George of Cappadocia persecuted the Alexandrian Catholics. Athanasius retired into the desert among the solitaries. Hosius had been compelled by torture to subscribe a fashionable creed. When the vacillating Emperor died (361), Julian, known as the Apostate, suffered all alike to return home who had been exiled on account of religion. A momentous gathering, over which Athanasius presided, in 362, at Alexandria, united the orthodox Semi-Arians with himself and the West. Four years afterwards fifty-nine Macedonian, i.e., hitherto anti-Nicene, prelates gave in their submission to Pope Liberius. But the Emperor Valens, a fierce heretic, still laid the Church waste.

However, the long battle was now turning decidedly in favour of Catholic tradition. Western bishops, like Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercellae banished to Asia for holding the Nicene faith, were acting in unison with St. Basil, the two St. Gregories, and the reconciled Semi-Arians. As an intellectual movement the heresy had spent its force. Theodosius, a Spaniard and a Catholic, governed the whole Empire. Athanasius died in 373; but his cause triumphed at Constantinople, long an Arian city, first by the preaching of St. Gregory Nazianzen, then in the Second General Council (381), at the opening of which Meletius of Antioch presided. This saintly man had been estranged from the Nicene champions during a long schism; but he made peace with Athanasius, and now, in company of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, represented a moderate influence which won the day. No deputies appeared from the West. Meletius died almost immediately. St. Gregory Nazianzen (q. v.), who took his place, very soon resigned. A creed embodying the Nicene was drawn up by St. Gregory of Nyssa, but it is not the one that is chanted at Mass, the latter being due, it is said, to St. Epiphanius and the Church of Jerusalem. The Council became ecumenical by acceptance of the Pope and the ever-orthodox Westerns. From this moment Arianism in all its forms lost its place within the Empire. Its developments among the barbarians were political rather than doctrinal. Ulphilas (311-388), who translated the Scriptures into Maeso-Gothic, taught the Goths across the Danube an Homoean theology; Arian kingdoms arose in Spain, Africa, Italy. The Gepidae, Heruli, Vandals, Alans, and Lombards received a system which they were as little capable of understanding as they were of defending, and the Catholic bishops, the monks, the sword of Clovis, the action of the Papacy, made an end of it before the eighth century. In the form which it took under Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eunomius, it has never been revived. Individuals, among them are Milton and Sir Isasc Newton, were perhaps tainted with it. But the Socinian tendency out of which Unitarian doctrines have grown owes nothing to the school of Antioch or the councils which opposed Nicaea. Neither has any Arian leader stood forth in history with a character of heroic proportions. In the whole story there is but one single hero - the undaunted Athanasius - whose mind was equal to the problems, as his great spirit to the vicissitudes, a question on which the future of Christianity depended.

WILLIAM BARRY

The Feast of the Assumption

The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 15 August; also called in old liturgical books Pausatio, Nativitas (for Heaven), Mors, Depositio, Dormitio S. Mariae. This feast has a double object: (1) the happy departure of Mary from this life; (2) the assumption of her body into heaven. It is the principal feast of the Blessed Virgin. Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem. The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise “De Obitu S. Dominae”, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book “De Transitu Virginis”, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: “St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.”

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous. Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain. It is more probably the anniversary of the dedication of some church than the actual anniversary of Our Lady's death. That it originated at the time of the Council of Ephesus, or that St. Damasus introduced it in Rome is only a hypothesis. According to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529) it was celebrated in Palestine before the year 500, probably in August (Baeumer, Brevier, 185). In Egypt and Arabia, however, it was kept in January, and since the monks of Gaul adopted many usages from the Egyptian monks (Baeumer, Brevier, 163), we find this feast in Gaul in the sixth century, in January [mediante mense undecimo (Greg. Turon., De gloria mart., I, ix)]. The Gallican Liturgy has it on the 18th of January, under the title: Depositio, Assumptio, or Festivitas S. Mariae (cf. the notes of Mabillon on the Gallican Liturgy, P. L., LXXII, 180). This custom was kept up in the Gallican Church to the time of the introduction of the Roman rite. In the Greek Church, it seems, some kept this feast in January, with the monks of Egypt; others in August, with those of Palestine; wherefore the Emperor Maurice (d. 602), if the account of the “Liber Pontificalis” (II, 508) be correct, set the feast for the Greek Empire on 15 August. In Rome (Batiffol, Brev. Rom., 134) the oldest and only feast of Our Lady was l January, the octave of Christ's birth. It was celebrated first at Santa Maria Maggiore, later at Santa Maria ad Martyres. The other feasts are of Byzantine origin. Duchesne thinks (Origines du culte chr., 262) that before the seventh century no other feast was kept at Rome, and that consequently the feast of the Assumption, found in the sacramentaries of Gelasius and Gregory, is a spurious addition made in the eighth or seventh century. Probst, however (Sacramentarien, 264 sqq.), brings forth good arguments to prove that the Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary, found on the 15th of August in the Gelasianum, is genuine, since it does not mention the corporeal assumption of Mary; that, consequently, the feast was celebrated in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome at least in the sixth century. He proves, furthermore, that the Mass of the Gregorian Sacramentary, such as we have it, is of Gallican origin (since the belief in the bodily assumption of Mary, under the influence of the apocryphal writings, is older in Gaul than in Rome), and that it supplanted the old Gelasian Mass. At the time of Sergius I (700) this feast was one of the principal festivities in Rome; the procession started from the church of St. Hadrian. It was always a double of the first class and a Holy Day of obligation. The octave was added in 847 by Leo IV; in Germany this octave was not observed in several dioceses up to the time of The Reformation. The Church of Milan has not accepted it up to this day (Ordo Ambros., 1906). The octave is privileged in the dioceses of the provinces of Sienna, Fermo, Michoacan, etc. The Greek Church continues this feast to 23 August, inclusive, and in some monasteries of Mount Athos it is protracted to 29 August (Menaea Graeca, Venice, 1880), or was, at least, formerly. In the dioceses of Bavaria a thirtieth day (a species of month's mind) of the Assumption was celebrated during the Middle Ages, 13 Sept., with the Office of the Assumption (double); to-day, only the Diocese of Augsburg has retained this old custom. Some of the Bavarian dioceses and those of Brandenburg, Mainz, Frankfort, etc., on 23 Sept. kept the feast of the “Second Assumption”, or the “Fortieth Day of the Assumption” (double) believing, according to the revelations of St. Elizabeth of Schönau (d. 1165) and of St. Bertrand, O.C. (d. 1170), that the B. V. Mary was taken up to heaven on the fortieth day after her death (Grotefend, Calendaria 2, 136). The Birgittines kept the feast of the “Glorification of Mary” (double) 30 Aug., since St. Birgitta of Sweden says (Revel., VI, l) that Mary was taken into heaven fifteen days after her departure (Colvenerius, Cal. Mar., 30 Aug.). In Central America a special feast of the Coronation of Mary in heaven (double major) is celebrated 18 Aug. The city of Gerace in Calabria keeps three successive days with the rite of a double first class, commemorating: 15th of August, the death of Mary; 16th of August, her Coronation. At Piazza, in Sicily, there is a commemoration of the Assumption of Mary (double second class) the 20th of February, the anniversary of the earthquake of 1743. A similar feast (double major with octave) is kept at Martano, Diocese of Otranto, in Apulia, 19th of November.

FREDERICK G. HOLWECK

Attainder

A bill of attainder may be defined to be an Act of Parliament for putting a man to death or for otherwise punishing him without trial in the usual form. Thus by a legislative act a man is put in the same position as if he had been convicted after a regular trial. It is an act whereby the judicature of the entire parliament is exercised, and may be contrasted with the procedure by impeachment in which the accusation, presented by the Commons acting as a grand jury of the whole realm, is tried by the Lords, exercising at once the functions of a high court of justice and of a jury. In a strictly technical sense it may be said that a Bill of Attainder is a legislative act inflicting the punishment of death without a trial, and that a Bill of Pains and Penalties is such an act inflicting a milder punishment. In the popular sense, however, the term “Bill of Attainder” embraces both classes of acts, and in that sense it is evidently used in the Constitution of the United States, as the Supreme Court has declared in Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 138, that “a bill of attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property or both”. Such a bill deals with the merits of a particular case and inflicts penalties, more or less severe, ex post facto, without trial in the usual form. While bills of attainder were used in England as early as 1321 in the procedure employed by Parliament in the banishment of the two Despensers (1 St. tr. pp. 23, 28), it was not until the period of passion engendered by the civil war that the summary power of Parliament to punish criminals by statute was for the first time perverted and abused. Then it was that this process was first freely used, not only against the living, but sometimes against the dead, the main object in the latter case being, of course, the confiscation of the estate of the attainted person. In the flush of victory which followed the battle of Towton, Edward IV obtained the passage of a sweeping bill of attainder through which the crown was enriched by forfeiture of the estates of fourteen lords and more than a hundred knights and esquires. In the seventeenth year of that reign was passed the Act of Attainder of the Duke of Clarence in which, after an oratorical preface setting out at length the offence imputed to him, it is enacted “that the said George Duke of Clarence be convicted, and atteynted of high treason”. Then follows the appointment of the Duke of Buckingham as lord high steward for that occasion to do execution. It is a remarkable fact that during a period of one hundred and sixty-two years (1459-1621) there is no record of a parliamentary impeachment either in the rolls of Parliament or in the Lords' journal. After the impeachment of Lord Stanley in 1459, for not sending his troops to the battle of Bloreheath, there was not another impeachment until that of Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Mitchell in 1621. During the interval, covering a little more than the reigns of the house of Tudor, enemies of the State were disposed of either by bills of attainder, by trials in the Star Chamber, or by trials for treason in the courts of common law. In the reign of Henry VIII Bills of attainder were often used instead of impeachments, as in the cases of Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, Queen Katherine Howard, the Duke of Norfolk, and the Earl of Surrey. During that reign religious persecution was carried on rather through the legal machinery devised for the punishment of high treason as defined by the Act of Supremacy than by bills of attainder. By the Act of Supremacy, the King was declared Head of the Church with “the title and style thereof”; by the penal act which followed as a corollary thereto, it was declared that any attempt to deprive him “of the dignity, title, or name” of his royal estate should constitute high treason; under the special act providing the amended oath, it was possible to call upon anyone to declare his belief in the validity of the new title, and a failure to do so was sufficient evidence of guilt. By that legal machinery were dashed to pieces the Charterhouse monks of London, who are admitted on every hand to have been the noblest and purest of all churchmen. Even =46roude admits that they were “gallant men, whose high forms, in the sunset of the old faith, stand transfigured on the horizon, tinged with the light of its dying glory”. The legal proceedings through which the Bishop of Rochester and Sir Thomas More were brought to the block were but a repetition of what had been gone through with in the case of the Carthusians. After the Tudor time the most remarkable bills of attainder are those that were directed against Lord Strafford, Lord Danby, the Duke of Monmouth, and Sir John Fenwick. As instances of bills of pains and penalties, reference may be made to those against Bishop Atterbury and Queen Caroline, usually referred to as the last instances of such legislation. When Queen Caroline returned to England, in July, 1830, all the ministers, except Canning, were induced to consent to the introduction in the House of Lords of a bill of pains and penalties, providing for the dissolution of her marriage with the King, upon the ground of adultery, and for her degradation. When the charges contained in the preamble came on to be heard, Brougham and Denman, by their bold and brilliant defence of the Queen, so aroused popular sympathy in her favour, by holding her up as a deserted and persecuted woman, that the ministry deemed it wise to drop the bill after the majority in its favour in the Lords had dwindled to nine. Reference is made to this case as an illustration of the nature of the procedure upon such bills. “The proceedings of parliament in passing bills of attainder, and of pains and penalties, do not vary from those adopted in regard to other bills. They may be introduced in either house, but ordinarily commence in the House of Lords: they pass through the same stages; and when agreed to by both houses they receive the royal assent in the usual form. But the parties who are subjected to these proceedings are admitted to defend themselves by counsel and witnesses, before both houses; and the solemnity of the proceedings would cause measures to be taken to enforce the attendance of members upon their service in parliament” (May, Parl. Practice, 744). It thus appears that, in the modern form, procedure by attainder admits the right of proof and argument. Entirely apart from the judicature of Parliament, attainder is defined by the common law of England to be the stain or corruption of blood which follows as an immediate and inseparable consequence of a death sentence. Such attainder took place after judgment of death, or upon such circumstances as were equivalent to such a judgment or outlawry on a capital crime, pronounced for absconding from justice. Conviction without judgment was not followed by attainder. The consequences of attainder were: first, forfeiture; second, corruption of the blood. The extent of the forfeiture depended on the nature of the crime for which the criminal was convicted; and by corruption of blood, “both upwards and downwards,” the attainted person could neither inherit nor transmit lands. After it was clear beyond dispute that the criminal was no longer fit to live, he was called attaint, stained, or blackened, and before 6 and 7 Vict., c. 85 p. 1, could not be called as a witness in any court. The doctrine of attainder has, however, ceased to be of much practical importance since 33 and 34 Vict., c. 23, wherein it was provided that henceforth no confession, verdict, inquest, conviction, or judgment of or for any treason or felony, or felo-de-se shall cause any attainder or corruption of blood or any forfeiture or escheat.

HANNIS TAYLOR

The Authorized Version

Name given to the English translation of the Bible produced by the Commission appointed by James I, and in consequence often spoken of as “King James's Bible”. It is in general use among English-speaking non-Catholics. In order to understand its origin and history, a brief survey is necessary of the earlier English translations of the Scriptures. From very early times portions of the Bible have been translated into English. It is well known that Venerable Bede was finishing a translation of St. John's Gospel on his deathbed. But the history of the English Bible as a whole does not go back nearly so far; it dates from the so-called Wyclif Version, believed to have been completed about the year 1380. The translation was made from the Vulgate as it then existed, that is before the Sixtine and Clementine revisions, and was well and accurately done. Abbot Gasquet contends confidently (The Old English Bible, 102 sqq.) that it was in reality of Catholic origin, and not due to Wyclif at all; at any rate it seems fairly certain that he had no share in any part of it except the Gospels, even if he had in these; and there is evidence that copies of the whole were in the hands of good Catholics, and were read by them. The version, however, undoubtedly derived its chief importance from the use made of it by Wyclif and the Lollards, and it is in this connection that it is chiefly remembered. During the progress of the Reformation a number of English versions appeared, translated for the most part not from the Vulgate, but from the original Hebrew and Greek. Of these the most famous were Tyndale's Bible (1525); Coverdale's Bible (1535); Matthews' Bible (1537); Cromwell's, or the “Great Bible” (1539), the second and subsequent editions of which were known as Cranmer's Bible; the Geneva Bible (1557-60); and the Bishop's Bible (1568). The art of printing being by this time known, copies of all these circulated freely among the people. That there was much good and patient work in them, none will deny; but they were marred by the perversion of many passages, due to the theological bias of the translators; and they were used on all sides to serve the cause of Protestantism.

In order to counteract the evil effects of these versions, the Catholics determined to produce one of their own. Many of them were then living at various centres on the Continent, having been forced to leave England on account of the Penal Laws, and the work was undertaken by the members of Allen's College, at Douai, in Flanders, which was for a time transferred to Reims. The result was the Reims New Testament (1582) and the Douay Bible (1609-10). The translation was made from the Vulgate, and although accurate, was sadly deficient in literary form, and so full of Latinisms as to be in places hardly intelligible. Indeed, a few years later, Dr. William Fulke, a well-known Puritan controversialist, brought out a book in which the text of the Bishops' Bible and the Reims Testament were printed in parallel columns, with the sole purpose of discrediting the latter. In this he did not altogether succeed, and it is now generally conceded that the Douay Bible contained much excellent and scholarly work, its very faults being due to over-anxiety not to sacrifice accuracy. In the meantime the Protestants were becoming dissatisfied with their own versions, and soon after his accession King James I appointed a commission of revision—the only practical outcome of the celebrated Hampton Court Conferences. The commissioners, who numbered forty-seven, were divided into six companies, two of which sat at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster, respectively; each company undertook a definite portion of the Bible, and its work was afterwards revised by a select committee chosen from the whole body. The instructions for their procedure were, to take the Bishops' Bible, which was in use in the churches, as their basis, correcting it by a comparison with the Hebrew and Greek texts. They were also given a list of other English versions which they were to consult. The commissioners set to work in 1607, and completed their labours in the short period of two years and nine months, the result being what is now known as the “Authorized Version”. Although at first somewhat slow in gaining general acceptance, the Authorized Version has since become famous as a masterpiece of English literature. The first edition appeared in 1611, soon after the Douay Bible; and although this latter was not one of the versions named in the instructions to the revisers, it is understood that it had considerable influence on them (see Preface to Revised Version, i, 2. Also, J. G. Carleton, “Rheims and the English Bible”).

The Authorized Version was printed in the usual form of chapters and verses, and before each chapter a summary of its contents was prefixed. No other extraneous matter was permitted, except some marginal explanations of the meaning of certain Hebrew or Greek words, and a number of cross-references to other parts of the Scripture. At the beginning was placed a dedication to King James and a short “Address to the Reader”. Books such as Ecclesiasticus, and Machabees, and Tobias, which are considered by Protestants to be apocryphal, were of course omitted. Although it was stated on the title-page that the Authorized Version was “appointed to be read in the Churches”, in fact it came into use only gradually. For the Epistles and Gospels, it did not displace the Bishops' Version until the revision of the Liturgy in 1661; and for the Psalms, that version has been retained to the present day; for it was found that the people were so accustomed to singing it that any change was inadvisable, if not impossible. Considerable changes were made, from time to time, in the successive editions of the Authorized Version, in the notes and references, and some even in the text. A system of chronology based chiefly on the calculations of Archbishop Ussher was first inserted in 1701; but in many later editions both the dates and many, or even all, of the references or verbal notes have been omitted.

It is generally admitted that the Authorized Version was in almost every respect a great improvement on any of its predecessors. So much was this the case that when Bishop Challoner made his revision of the Douay Bible (1749-52), which is now commonly in use among English-speaking Catholics, he did not scruple to borrow largely from it. Indeed, Cardinal Newman gives it as his opinion (Tracts Theol. and Eccles., 373) that Challoner's revision was even nearer to the Authorized Version than to the original Douay, “not in grammatical structure, but in phraseology and diction”. Nevertheless, there remained in the Authorized Version here and there traces of controversial prejudice, as for example, in the angel's salutation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the words “highly favoured” being a very imperfect rendering of the original. In such cases, needless to say, Challoner adhered to the Douay. Moreover, while in the Authorized Versions the names of persons and places were usually given in an anglicized form already in use, derived from the Hebrew spelling, Challoner nearly always kept the Vulgate names, which come originally from the Septuagint. It is partly due to this that the Authorized Version has an unfamiliar sound to Catholic ears. The Authorized Version remained in undisputed possession for the greater part of three centuries, and became part of the life of the people. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, however, it began to be considered that the progress of science called for a new version which should embrace the results of modern research. The work was set on foot by Convocation in 1870, and a Committee was formed, in which the Americans co-operated, resulting in the issue of the Revised Version (1881-84). The Revised Version has never received any definite ecclesiastical sanction, nor has it been officially introduced into church use. It has made its way simply on its merits. But although at the present day it is much used by students, for the general public (non-Catholic) the Authorized Version still holds its ground, and shows no sign of losing its popularity.

BERNARD WARD

Baptismal Vows

The name popularly given to the renunciations required of an adult candidate for baptism just before the sacrament is conferred. In the case of infant baptism, they are made in the name of the child by the sponsors. It is obvious that these promises have not the theological import of vows properly so called. According to the Roman Ritual, at present in use, three questions are to be addressed to the person to be baptized, as follows: “Dost thou renounce Satan? and all his works? and all his pomps?” To each of these interrogation the person, or the sponsor in his name, replies: “I do renounce”. The practice of demanding and making this formal renunciation seems to go back to the very beginnings of organized Christian worship. Tertullian among the Latins and St. Basil among the Greeks are at one in reckoning it as a usage which, although not explicitly warranted in the Scriptures, is nevertheless consecrated by a venerable tradition. St. Basil says this tradition ascends from the Apostles. Tertullian, in his “De Coronâ”, appears to hint at a twofold renunciation as common in his time, one which was made at the moment of baptism and another made sometime before, and publicly in the church, in the presence of the bishop. The form of this renunciation a found in the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 4) has a quaint interest. It is as follows: “Let therefore the candidate for baptism declare thus in his renunciation: 'I renounce Satan and his works and his pomps and his worship and his angels and his inventions and all things that are under him'. And after his renunciation let him in his consociation say: 'And I associate myself to Christ and believe and am baptized into one unbegotten being'”, etc.

Where there was a baptistery the renunciations were made in the proaulion oikon, the vestibule or ante-room, as distinguished from the esoteron oikon, the inner room where the baptism itself was administered. The catechumen, standing with his face to the West, which symbolized the abode of darkness, and stretching out his hand, or sometimes spitting out in defiance and abhorrence of the devil, was wont to make this abjuration. It was also customary after this for the candidate for baptism to make an explicit promise of obedience to Christ. This was called by the Greeks syntassesthai Christo, the giving of oneself over to the control of Christ. St. Justin Martyr testifies that baptism was only administered by those who, together with their profession of faith, made a promise or vow that they would live in conformity with the Christian code. Hence the generally employed formula: syntassomai soi, Christe, “I surrender myself to thee, O Christ, to be ruled by thy precepts”. This took place directly over the apotaxis or renunciation of the devil, and was variously described by the Latins as promissum, pactum, and votum. During this declaration of attachment to Jesus Christ the person to be baptized turned towards the East as towards the region of light.

The practice of renewing the baptismal promises is more or less widespread. This is done under circumstances of special solemnity such as at the closing exercises of a mission, after the administration of First Communion to children, or the conferring of the Sacrament of Confirmation. It is thus intended as a way of reaffirming one's loyalty to the obligations taken over by membership in the Christian Church.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Blessed Baptista Mantuanus

(Also known as Baptista Spagnoli). Carmelite and Renaissance poet, born at Mantua, 17 April, 1447, where he also died 22 March, 1516. The eldest son of Peter Spagnoli, a Spanish nobleman at the court of Mantua, Baptista studied grammar under Gregorio Tifernate, and philosophy at Pavia under Polo Bagelardi. The bad example of his schoolfellows led him into irregularities. He fell into the hands of usurers and, returning home, was turned out of his father's house owing to some calumny. He went to Venice and later on to Ferrara where he carried out his resolution of entering the Carmelites convent which belonged to the then flourishing Reform of Mantua. In a letter addressed to his father (1 April, 1464), and in his first publication, “De Vitâ beatâ”, he gave an account of his previous life and of the motives which led him to the cloister.

Baptista pursued his studies at Ferrara and Bologna where he was ordained priest, received his degrees, and delivered lectures in philosophy and divinity. The Duke of Mantua entrusted him with the education of his children, and the connexion with the ducal family in a number of poetical works, the “Trophaeum Gonzagae” and the “Fortuna Gonzagae” on the various misfortunes of the young duke; “Contra amorem” containing good advice to Sigismondo Gonzaga, and other poems celebrating the latter's elevation to dignities, even to the Roman purple. Six times (each for two years with four years interval) Baptista was nominated vicar-general of his congregation, and, in 1513, general of the whole order through the exertions of his former disciples, the duke and the cardinal. The chapter, however, resenting the intervention, restricted his powers. He held the office until his death, but, broken in health and energy, he exercised but little influence beyond consolidating the congregation of Albi, a French imitation of the Mantuan Reform. Baptista Mantuanus was beatified in 1890, his feast being assigned to 23 March.

Chiefly known a one of the most prolific Renaissance poets he excelled in almost every form of Latin verse; Vergil, however, was his favourite model. A monument represents the two poets of Mantua with Poetry hesitating to whom she is to offer the crown: “Cui dabo?” Baptista exercised too little self-restraint, however, to deserve it. He was bitterly attacked concerning the good taste of his earlier works printed without his knowledge, and also, but groundlessly, with reference to the legitimacy of his birth. To the end he made too free use of pagan mythology.

BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN

Baptistery

The separate building in which the Sacrament of Baptism was once solemnly administered, or that portion of the church-edifice later set apart for the same purpose. In ancient times the term was applied to a basin, pool or other place for bathing. The Latin term baptisterium was also applied to the vessel or tank which contained the water for baptism, and in the Early Church denoted indifferently the baptismal font and the building or chapel in which it was enshrined. There is no means of knowing when the first baptisteries were built; but both their name and form seem borrowed from pagan sources. They remind one of the bathing apartments in the thermae, and the fact that Pliny, in speaking of the latter, twice uses the word baptisteria seems to point to this derivation. The term was also applied to the bath in the circular chamber of the baths at Pompeii and to the tank in the triangular court of suburban villas. The earliest extant type of baptistery is found in the catacomb chambers in which were the baptismal-pools. (See BAPTISMAL FONT.) These rooms were sometimes spacious; that in the Roman catacomb of Priscilla adjoins other larger cubicula used perhaps for the adjuncts of the baptismal rite; that of the Pontian cemetery bears traces of sixth-century mural decoration, a beautiful crux gemmata with other Christian symbols being yet visible. With the construction of edifices for Christian worship a special building was erected for the ceremonies of initiation. Ordinarily circular or polygonal, it contained in the centre the font; a circular ambulatory gave room for the ministers and witnesses who, with the neophytes, were numerous at the Easter and Pentecost solemnities; radiating from the structure were rooms for the preparation of the candidates, and sometimes a chapel with altar for the Eucharistic service following baptism (cf. BAPTISM), as may be seen in the Lateran baptistery, The building sometimes joined, but was generally adjacent to, the cathedral or church to which it belonged, and was usually situated near the atrium or forecourt. Immersion gradually gave way to infusion, though in the South the custom of immersing children in the baptisteries persisted long after the North had commenced infusion in the small baptismal chapels. When separate baptisteries were no longer needed, the term was then applied to that part of the church which was set apart for an contained the baptismal font. The font was sometimes placed in a separate chapel or compartment, sometimes in an inclosure formed by a railing or open screen work; and often the font stands alone, either in the vestibule of the church, or in an arm of the transept, or at the western extremity of one of the aisles, and occasionally in the floor chamber of the western tower.

The modern baptistery is merely that part of the church set apart for baptism. According to the Roman Ritual, it should be railed off; it should have a gate fastened by a lock; and should be adorned, if possible, with a picture of the baptism of Christ by St. John. It is convenient that it should contain a chest with two compartments, one for the holy oils, the other for the salt, candle, etc. used in baptism. The form of the early baptisteries seems to have been derived from the Roman circular temples of tombs. And in adopting the plans, the early Christians modified them to some extent, for the internal columns which, in Roman examples were generally used in a decorative way, were now used to support the walls carrying the domes. To cover a large area with one roof was difficult; but by the addition of an aisle in one story, round a moderate-sized circular tomb, the inner walls could be replaced by columns in the lower half, which gave such buildings as these early baptisteries.

The earliest existing baptistery is that of the Lateran, said to have been erected in its original form under Constantine. Throughout the Roman world round or polygonal baptisteries seem to have been constantly employed from the fourth century onwards. In many places the Italians have preserved the separate building for baptism, while north of the Alps the practice generally prevailed of administering the rite in the churches. The construction of the baptistery of the Lateran is interesting because of a direct adaptation of the columnar system of the basilica to a concentric plan. The inner octagon is upheld by eight simple shafts, upon the straight entablature of which a second story of columns is superimposed. The original character of the ceiling and the roof cannot now be determined, but the weak supports were hardly adapted to bear a vault of masonry. Although baptisteries and mortuary chapels were generally built as simple cylindrical halls, without surrounding passages, other examples of the two modes of extension are not lacking.

The arrangement of the baptistery requires but brief notice. A flight of steps descended into the round or polygonal font (piscina or fons), which was sunk beneath the level of the floor, and sometimes raised a little above it by a row of columns which supported curtains to insure the most perfect privacy and decency during the immersion. The columns were united occasionally by archivolts, more frequently by architraves adorned by metrical inscriptions; the eight distichs in the Lateran baptistery are ascribed to Sixtus III.

The baptistery of Pisa, designed by Dioti Salvi in 1153, is circular, 129 feet in diameter, with encircling aisle in two stories. Built of marble, it is surrounded externally on the lower story by half columns, connected by semicircular arches, above which is an open arcade in two heights, supported by small detached shafts. It was not completed till A. D. 1278, and has Gothic additions of the fourteenth century, in consequence of which it is not easy to ascertain what the original external design really was. The structure is crowned by an outer hemispherical dome, through which penetrates a conical dome 60 feet in diameter over the central space, and supported on four piers and eight columns. Thus, if there were another internal hemispherical cupola, it would resemble the constructive dome of St. Paul, London. This baptistery bears remarkable similarity to the church of San Donato (ninth century) at Zara, in Dalmatian, which, however, has a space only 30 feet in diameter. The baptistery at Asti, if examined with those of San Antonio, will give a very compete idea of Lombardic architecture in the beginning of the eleventh century. More or less interesting examples of baptisteries exist at Biella, Brindisi, Cremona, Galliano, near Milan, Gravedona, Monte Sant' Angelo, Padua, Parma, Pinara, Pistoia, Spalato, Verona, and Volterra. These are very few examples in Italy of circular or polygonal buildings of any class belonging to the Gothic age. Baptisteries had passed out of fashion. One such building, at Parma, commenced in 1196, deserves to be quoted, not certainly for its beauty, but as illustrating those false principles of design shown in buildings of this age in Italy. In later Romanesque and Gothic periods, in Italy, where the churches were not derived from a combination of a circular Eastern church with a Western rectangular nave, as in France, but were correct copies of the Roman basilica, the baptistery always stands alone. In Germany, the earlier baptistery was joined to the square church and formed a western apse. The only examples in England are at Cranbrook and Canterbury; the latter, however, is supposed to have been originally part of the Treasury. It is not known at what time the baptistery became absorbed into the basilica. The change was made earlier in Rome than elsewhere. A late example of a separate baptistery, which, although small, is very beautiful in design, is in a court alongside the cathedral at Bergamo. This may be regarded as a connecting link between large buildings and fonts.

THOMAS H. POOLE

Epistle of Barnabas

Authorities for the Text and Editions

There is a triple tradition of the Greek text of this document. Up to 1843 eight manuscripts of the Epistle of Barnabas were known to be in Western libraries. These manuscripts were all derived from a common source, and no one of them contained chapters i-v, 7a. Since then two complete manuscripts of the texts have been discovered that are independent of each other and of the preceding group of texts, namely: the famous Codex Sinaiticus of the Bible (fourth century), in which the Epistle of Barnabas and “The Pastor” follow the books of the New Testament, and the Jerusalem Codex (eleventh century), which includes the Didache. There is also an old Latin version of the first seventeen chapters which is, perhaps, of the end of the fourth century (St. Petersburg, Q., I, 39). This version is a very free one and can hardly serve for the restoration of the text. The same is true for the citations from the epistle in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, and others. The text authority for the text is the Codex Sinaiticus.

Contents

The Epistle of Barnabas contains no clue to its author not to those for whom it was intended. Its aim is to impart to its readers the perfect wisdom (gnosis), that is an exact knowledge of the economy of salvation. It is made up of two parts, the subject of each being announced in verses 6 and 7 of the first chapter. The first part (ch. i-v, 4) is hortatory; in the evil days that are now at hand in which the end of the world and the Judgment shall appear, the faithful, freed from the bonds of the Jewish ceremonial law, are to practise the virtues and to flee from sin. The second part (ch. v, 5-xvii) is more speculative, although it tends, owing to the nature of the argument, to establish the freedom of Christians in respect to the Mosaic regulations. The author wishes to make his readers comprehend the real nature of the Old Testament. He shows how the ordinances of the Law should be understood as referring allegorically to the Christian virtues and institutions, and he pauses to make plain by a series of symbolical explanations, that are often singular, how the Old Testament prefigures Christ, His Passion, His Church, etc. Before concluding (ch. xxi) the author repeats and enlarges the exhortations of the first part of the epistle by borrowing from another document (the Didache or its source) the description of the two ways, the way of light and that of darkness (xviii-xx).

Use of Allegory

The epistle is characterized by the use of exaggerated allegory. In this particular the writer goes far beyond St. Paul the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and St. Ignatius. Not content with regarding the history and institutions of the Jews as containing types of Christianity, he casts aside completely the transitory historical character of the old religion. According to many scholars he teaches that it was never intended that the precepts of the Law should be observed in their literal sense, that the Jews never had a covenant with God, that circumcision was the work of the Devil, etc.; thus he represents a unique point of view in the struggle against Judaism. It might be said more exactly that he condemns the exercise of worship by the Jews in its entirety because in his opinion, the Jews did not know how to rise to the spiritual and typical meaning which God had mainly had in view in giving them the Law. It is this purely material observance of the ceremonial ordinances, of which the literal fulfilment was not sufficient, that the author holds to be the work of the Devil, and, according to him, the Jews never received the divine covenant because they never understood its nature (ch. vii, 3, 11, ix, 7; x, 10; xiv).

Intent

The Epistle of Barnabas is not a polemic. The author takes no notice of paganism. Although he touches on different points that had relations to the doctrines of the Gnostics, still he has no knowledge of these latter. The perfectly composed manner in which he expounds the wisdom he desires to impart shows that another, heretical wisdom (gnosis) is not in his thoughts. Moreover, the way in which he speaks of the Old Testament would not be explicable if he had known the wrong use that a Basilides or a Marcion could make of it. Besides, there was nothing in the Judaizing theories to alarm his faith. He speaks of Judaism only in the abstract, and nothing in the letter excites the suspicion that the members of his flock had been exposed to the peril of falling again under the yoke of the Law. No clear situation is described in the letter. In short, it should be regarded rather as the peaceful speculations of a catechist and not as the cries of alarm of a pastor. Consequently, it cannot be admitted that the author may have wished to take part in the struggle against the Judaizers either at Jerusalem or at Rome.

Date

This abstract discussion of Judaism is the sign of an epoch when the Judaizing controversies were already a thing of the past in the main body of the Church. In settling the date of the letter reference is often made to verses 3-5 of chapter four, where the writer, it is believed, finds the fulfilment of the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 7:7, sqq.) in the succession of the Roman Emperors of his time. Starting from this, some critics place the composition of the epistle in the reign of Vespasian, others in the reign of Domitian, and still others in the reign of Nerva. But there is nothing to prove that the author considers the prophecy to be already accomplished. Besides, he might have taken the words of the prophecy to mean a series of kingdoms instead of a line of kings. It is necessary, therefore, to fall back on verses 3-5 of chapter xvi. Reference is here made to the command given by Adrian in A.D. 130 for the reconstruction, in honour of Jupiter, of the Temple at Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by Titus. Adrian had also forbidden the Jews to practise circumcision. The writer of the letter makes allusion to this (ch. ix, 4). The epistle must, consequently, have been written in A.D. 130-131.

General Characteristics

In what befell Jerusalem and the Temple the author saw the refutation by events of the errors of the Jews, or rather of the Ebionites, for it is the latter that he has in mind whenever his language grows more definite (ch. iv, 4, 6; v, 5; xii, 10; xvi, 1). His flock are not in danger of falling into these errors. Therefore, he never attacks them directly. He simply takes advantage of the opportunity that occurrences offer him to give his opinions as to the position and nature of Judaism and its Law. Hence the epistle, in its general character, is more like a treatise or a homily than a letter. However, the epistolary form is not entirely fictitious. The author is not writing to Christians in general, but to a particular church in which he has exercised the office of a didaskalos and from which he finds himself separated (ch. i, 2, 4; xxi, 7, 9).

From a literary pint of view the Epistle of Barnabas has no merit. The style is tedious, poor in expression, deficient in clearness, in elegance, and incorrectness. The author's logic is weak, and his matter is not under his control; from this fact arise the numerous digressions. These digressions, however, afford no reason for doubting the integrity of the letter, or for regarding as interpolations either entire chapters, or a consecutive number of verses or parts of verses in each chapter. One scholar, Wehofer, thought that he had discovered, in the arrangement of the epistle, an adherence to the laws of the Semitic strophe. But the phenomena noted are found in all authors who work out their thought without being able to subordinate the argument to the rules of literary style.

From the dogmatic point of view the chief importance of the epistle is in its relation to the history of the Canon of the Scriptures. It cites, in fact, the Gospel of St. Matthew as Scripture (ch. 4:14), and even recognizes as in the Canon of the Sacred Books (gegraptai), along with the collection of Jewish writings, a collection of Christian ones (ch. v, 2), the contents of which, however, cannot be determined. The author regards several apocryphal books as belonging to the Old Testament—probably IV Esdras (ch. xii, l) and without doubt Henoch (ch. iv, 3; xvi, 5). In his Christology, his soteriology and his doctrine concerning justification the author develops the ideas of Paul with originality. It has been wrongly said that he regards the pre-existent Christ as only a spirit in the image of God. Without explicitly asserting the consubstantiality and the true sonship, he evidently acknowledges the Divine nature of Christ from before the Creation. The eschatological descriptions are decidedly moderate. He is a millenarian, but in speaking of the Judgment to come he simply expresses a vague belief that the end is approaching.

Nationality of the Author and History of the Epistle

The extremely allegorical character of the exegesis leads to the supposition that the author of the letter was an Alexandrian. His way of constantly placing himself and his readers in opposition to the Jews makes it impossible to believe that either he or the larger part of his readers were of Jewish origin. Besides, he is not always familiar with the Mosaic rites (cf. ch. vii). The history of the epistle confirms its Alexandrine origin. Up to the fourth century only the Alexandrians were acquainted with it, and in their Church the epistle attained to the honour of being publicly read. The manner in which Clement of Alexandria and Origen refer to the letter gives confirmation to the belief that, about the year A.D. 200, even in Alexandria the Epistle of Barnabas was not regarded by everyone as an inspired writing.

P. LADEUZE

St. Barnabas

Barnabas (originally Joseph), styled an Apostle in Holy Scripture, and, Like St. Paul, ranked by the Church with the Twelve, though not one of them; b. of Jewish parents in the Island of Cyprus about the beginning of the Christian Era. A Levite, he naturally spent much time in Jerusalem, probably even before the Crucifixion of Our Lord, and appears also to have settled there (where his relatives, the family of Mark the Evangelist, likewise had their homes, Acts, xii, 12) and to have owned land in its vicinity (iv, 36-37). A rather late tradition recorded by Clement of Alexandria (Strom., II, 20, P.G., VIII, col. 1060) and Eusebius (H. E., II, i, P. G., XX, col. 117) says that he was one of the seventy Disciples; but Acts (iv, 36-37) favours the opinion that he was converted to Christianity shortly after Pentecost (about A. D. 29 or 30) and immediately sold his property and devoted the proceeds to the Church. The Apostles, probably because of his success as a preacher, for he is later placed first among the prophets and doctors of Antioch (xiii, 1), surnamed him Barnabas, a name then interpreted as meaning “son of exhortation” or “consolation”. (The real etymology, however, is disputed. See Encyl. Bibli., I, col. 484.) Though nothing is recorded of Barnabas for some years, he evidently acquired during this period a high position in the Church.

When Saul the persecutor, later Paul the Apostle, made his first visit (dated variously from A. D. 33 to 38) to Jerusalem after his conversion, the Church there, remembering his former fierce spirit, was slow to believe in the reality of his conversion. Barnabas stood sponsor for him and had him received by the Apostles, as the Acts relate (ix, 27), though he saw only Peter and James, the brother of the Lord, according to Paul himself (Gal., i, 18, 19). Saul went to his house at Tarsus to live in obscurity for some years, while Barnabas appears to have remained at Jerusalem. The event that brought them together again and opened to both the door to their lifework was an indirect result of Saul's own persecution. In the dispersion that followed Stephen's death, some Disciples from Cyprus and Cyrene, obscure men, inaugurated the real mission of the Christian Church by preaching to the Gentiles. They met with great success among the Greeks at Antioch in Syria, reports of which coming o the ears of the Apostles, Barnabas was sent thither by them to investigate the work of his countrymen. He saw in the conversions effected the fruit of God's grace and, though a Jew, heartily welcomed these first Gentile converts. His mind was opened at once to the possibility of this immense field. It is a proof how deeply impressed Barnabas had been by Paul that he thought of him immediately for this work, set out without delay for distant Tarsus, and persuaded Paul to go to Antioch and begin the work of preaching. This incident, shedding light on the character of each, shows it was no mere accident that led them to the Gentile field. Together they laboured at Antioch for a whole year and “taught a great multitude”. Then, on the coming of famine, by which Jerusalem was much afflicted, the offerings of the Disciples at Antioch were carried (about A. D. 45) to the mother-church by Barnabas and Saul (Acts, xi). Their mission ended, they returned to Antioch, bringing with them the cousin, or nephew of Barnabas (Col., iv, 10), John Mark, the future Evangelist (Acts, xii, 25).

The time was now ripe, it was believed, for more systematic labours, and the Church of Antioch felt inspired by the Holy Ghost to send out missionaries to the Gentile world and to designate for the work Barnabas and Paul. They accordingly departed, after the imposition of hands, with John Mark as helper. Cyprus, the native land of Barnabas, was first evangelized, and then they crossed over to Asia Minor. Here, at Perge in Pamphylia, the first stopping place, John Mark left them, for what reason his friend St. Luke does not state, though Paul looked on the act as desertion. The two Apostles, however, pushing into the interior of a rather wild country, preached at Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, at Derbe, and other cities. At every step they met with opposition and even violent persecution from the Jews, who also incited the Gentiles against them. The most striking incident of the journey was at Lystra, where the superstitious populace took Paul, who had just cured a lame man, for Hermes (Mercury) “because he was the chief speaker”, and Barnabas for Jupiter, and were about to sacrifice a bull to them when prevented by the Apostles. Mob-like, they were soon persuaded by the Jews to turn and attack the Apostles and wounded St. Paul almost fatally. Despite opposition and persecution, Paul and Barnabas made many converts on this journey and returned by the same route to Perge, organizing churches, ordaining presbyters and placing them over the faithful, so that they felt, on again reaching Antioch in Syria, that God had “opened a door of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts, xiii, 13—xiv, 27; see article PAUL, SAINT).

Barnabas and Paul had been “for no small time” at Antioch, when they were threatened with the undoing of their work and the stopping of its further progress. Preachers came from Jerusalem with the gospel that circumcision was necessary for salvation, even for the Gentiles. The Apostles of the Gentiles, perceiving at once that this doctrine would be fatal to their work, went up to Jerusalem to combat it; the older Apostles received them kindly and at what is called the Council of Jerusalem (dated variously from A. D. 47 to 51) granted a decision in their favour as well as a hearty commendation of their work (Acts, xiv, 27—xv, 30; see articles JERUSALEM, COUNCIL OF; PETER, SAINT). On their return to Antioch, they resumed their preaching for a short time. St. Peter came down and associated freely there with the Gentiles, eating with them. This displeased some disciples of James; in their opinion, Peter's act was unlawful, as against the Mosaic law. Upon their remonstrances, Peter yielded apparently through fear of displeasing them, and refused to eat any longer with the Gentiles. Barnabas followed his example. Paul considered that they “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel” and upbraided them before the whole church (Gal., ii, 11-15). Paul seems to have carried his point. Shortly afterwards, he and Barnabas decided to revisit their missions. Barnabas wished to take John Mark along once more, but on account of the previous defection Paul objected. A sharp contention ensuing, the Apostles agreed to separate. Paul was probably somewhat influenced by the attitude recently taken by Barnabas, which might prove a prejudice to their work. Barnabas sailed with John Mark to Cypress, while Paul took Silas an revisited the churches of Asia Minor. It is believed by some that the church of Antioch, by its God-speed to Paul, showed its approval of his attitude; this inference, however, is not certain (Acts, xv, 35-41).

Little is known of the subsequent career of Barnabas. He was still living and labouring as an Apostle in 56 or 57, when Paul wrote I Cor. (ix, 5, 6). from which we learn that he, too, like Paul, earned his own living, though on an equality with other Apostles. The reference indicates also that the friendship between the two was unimpaired. When Paul was a prisoner in Rome (61-63), John Mark was attached to him as a disciple, which is regarded as an indication that Barnabas was no longer living (Col., iv, 10). This seems probable. Various traditions represent him as the first Bishop of Milan, as preaching at Alexandria and at Rome, whose fourth (?) bishop, St. Clement, he is said to have converted, and as having suffered martyrdom in Cyprus. The traditions are all late and untrustworthy. With the exception of St. Paul and certain of the Twelve, Barnabas appears to have been the most esteemed man of the first Christian generation. St. Luke, breaking his habit of reserve, speaks of him with affection, “for he was a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of Faith”. His title to glory comes not only from his kindliness of heart, his personal sanctity, and his missionary labours, but also from his readiness to lay aside his Jewish prejudices, in this anticipating certain of the Twelve; from his large-hearted welcome of the Gentiles, and from his early perception of Paul's worth, to which the Christian Church is indebted, in large part at least, for its great Apostle. His tenderness towards John Mark seems to have had its reward in the valuable services later rendered by him to the Church. The feast of St. Barnabas is celebrated on 11 June. He is credited by Tertullian (probably falsely) with the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas is ascribed to him by many Fathers.

JOHN F. FENLON

St. Basil the Great

Bishop of Caesarea, one of the most distinguished Doctors of the Church, born probably 329; died 1 January, 379. He ranks after Athanasius as a defender of the Oriental Church against the heresies of the fourth century. With his friend Gregory of Nazianzus and his brother Gregory of Nyssa, he makes up the trio known as “The Three Cappadocians”, far outclassing the other two in practical genius and actual achievement.

LIFE

St. Basil the Elder, father of St. Basil the Great, was the son of a Christian of good birth and his wife, Macrina (Acta SS., January, II), both of whom suffered for the faith during the persecution of Maximinus Galerius (305-314), spending several years of hardship in the wild mountains of Pontus. St. Basil the Elder was noted for his virtue (Acta SS, May, VII) and also won considerable reputation as a teacher in Caesarea. He was not a priest (Cf. Cave, Hist. Lit., I, 239). He married Emmelia, the daughter of a martyr and became the father of ten children. Three of these, Macrina, Basil, an Gregory are honoured as saints; and of the sons, Peter, Gregory, and Basil attained the dignity of the episcopate.

Under the care of his father and his grandmother, the elder Macrina, who preserved the traditions of their countryman, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-275) Basil was formed in habits of piety and study. He was still young when his father died and the family moved to the estate of the elder Macrina at Annesi in Pontus, on the banks of the Iris. As a boy, he was sent to school at Caesarea, then “a metropolis of letters”, and conceived a fervent admiration for the local bishop, Dianius. Later, he went to Constantinople, at that time “distinguished for its teachers of philosophy and rhetoric”, and thence to Athens. Here he became the inseparable companion of Gregory of Nazianzus, who, in his famous panegyric on Basil (Or. xliii), gives a most interesting description of their academic experiences. According to him, Basil was already distinguished for brilliancy of mind and seriousness of character and associated only with the most earnest students. He was able, grave, industrious, and well advanced in rhetoric, grammar, philosophy, astronomy, geometry, and medicine. (As to his not knowing Latin, see Fialon, Etude historique et littéraire sur St. Basile, Paris, 1869). We know the names of two of Basil's teachers at Athens, Prohaeresius, possibly a Christian, and Himerius, a pagan. It has been affirmed, though probably incorrectly, that Basil spent some time under Libanius. He tells us himself that he endeavoured without success to attach himself as a pupil to Eustathius (Ep., I). At the end of his sojourn at Athens, Basil being laden, says St. Gregory of Nazianzus “with all the learning attainable by the nature of man”, was well equipped to be a teacher. Caesarea took possession of him gladly “as a founder and second patron” (Or. xliii), and as he tells u (ccx), he refused the splendid offers of the citizens of Neo-Caesarea, who wished him to undertake the education of the youth of their city.

To the successful student and distinguished professor, “there now remained”, says Gregory (Or. xliii), “no other need than that of spiritual perfection”. Gregory of Nyssa, in his life of Macrina, gives us to understand that Basil's brilliant success both as a university student and a professor had left traces of worldliness and self-sufficiency on the soul of the young man. Fortunately, Basil came again in contact with Dianius, Bishop of Caesarea, the object of his boyish affection, and Dianius seems to have baptized him, and ordained him Reader soon after his return to Caesarea. It was at the same time also that he fell under the influence of that very remarkable woman, his sister Macrina, who has meanwhile founded a religious community on the family estate at Annesi. Basil himself tells us how, like a man roused from deep sleep, he turned his eyes to the marvellous truth of the Gospel, wept many tears over his miserable life, and prayed for guidance from God: “Then I read the Gospel, and saw there that a great means of reaching perfection was the selling of one's goods, the sharing of them with the poor, the giving up of all care for this life, and the refusal to allow the soul to be turned by any sympathy towards things of earth” (Ep. ccxxiii). To learn the ways of perfection, Basil now visited the monasteries of Egypt, Palestine, Coele-Syria, and Mesopotamia. He returned, filled with admiration for the austerity and piety of the monks, and founded a monastery in his native Pontus, on the banks of the Iris, nearly opposite Annesi. (Cf. Ramsay, Hist. Geog. of Asia Minor, London, 1890, p. 326). Eustathius of Sebaste had already introduced the eremitical life into Asia Minor; Basil added the cenobitic or community form, and the new feature was imitated by many companies of men and women. (Cf. Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., VI, xxvii; Epiphanius, Haer., lxxv, 1; Basil, Ep. ccxxiii; Tillemont, Mém., IX, Art. XXI, and note XXVI.) Basil became known as the father of Oriental monasticism, the forerunner of St. Benedict. How well he deserved the title, how seriously and in what spirit he undertook the systematizing of the religious life, may be seen by the study of his Rule. He seems to have read Origen's writings very systematically about this time, for in union with Gregory of Nazianzus, he published a selection of them called the “Philocalia”.

Basil was drawn from his retreat into the area of theological controversy in 360 when he accompanied two delegates from Seleucia to the emperor at Constantinople, and supported his namesake of Ancyra. There is some dispute as to his courage and his perfect orthodoxy on this occasion (cf. Philostorgius, Hist. Eccl., IV, xii; answered by Gregory of Nyssa, In Eunom., I, and Maran, Proleg., vii; Tillemont, Mém., note XVIII). A little later, however, both qualities seem to have been sufficiently in evidence, as Basil forsook Dianius for having signed the heretical creed of Rimini. To this time (c. 361) may be referred the “Moralia”; and a little later came to books against Eunomius (363) and some correspondence with Athanasius. It is possible, also, that Basil wrote his monastic rules in the briefer forms while in Pontus, and enlarged them later at Caesarea. There is an account of an invitation from Julian for Basil to present himself a court and of Basil's refusal, coupled with an admonition that angered the emperor and endangered Basil's safety. Both incident and and correspondence however are questioned by some critics.

Basil still retained considerable influence in Caesarea, and it is regarded as fairly probable that he had a hand in the election of the successor of Dianius who died in 362, after having been reconciled to Basil. In any case the new bishop, Eusebius, was practically placed in his office by the elder Gregory of Nazianzus. Eusebius having persuaded the reluctant Basil to be ordained priest, gave him a prominent place in the administration of the diocese (363). In ability for the management of affairs Basil so far eclipsed the bishop that ill-feeling rose between the two. “All the more eminent and wiser portion of the church was roused against the bishop” (Greg. Naz., Or. xliii; Ep. x), and to avoid trouble Basil again withdrew into the solitude of Pontus. A little later (365) when the attempt of Valens to impose Arianism on the clergy and the people necessitated the presence of a strong personality, Basil was restored to his former position, being reconciled to the bishop by St. Gregory of Nazianzus. There seems to have been no further disagreement between Eusebius and Basil and the latter soon became the real head of the diocese. “The one”, says Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. xliii), “led the people the other led their leader”. During the five years spent in this most important office, Basil gave evidence of being a man of very unusual powers. He laid down the law to the leading citizens and the imperial governors, settled disputes with wisdom and finality, assisted the spiritually needy, looked after “the support of the poor, the entertainment of strangers, the care of maidens, legislation written and unwritten for the monastic life, arrangements of prayers, (liturgy?), adornment of the sanctuary” (op. cit.). In time of famine, he was the saviour of the poor.

In 370 Basil succeeded to the See of Caesarea, being consecrated according to tradition on 14 June. Caesarea was then a powerful and wealthy city (Soz., Hist. Eccl., V, v). Its bishop was Metropolitan of Cappadocia and Exarch of Pontus which embraced more than half of Asia Minor and comprised eleven provinces. The see of Caesarea ranked with Ephesus immediately after the patriarchal sees in the councils, and the bishop was the superior of fifty chorepiscopi (Baert). Basil's actual influence, says Jackson (Prolegomena, XXXII) covered the whole stretch of country “from the Balkans to the Mediterranean and from the Aegean to the Euphrates”. The need of a man like Basil in such a see as Caesarea was most pressing, and he must have known this well. Some think that he set about procuring his own election; others (e. g. Maran, Baronius, Ceillier) say that he made no attempt on his own behalf. In any event, he became Bishop of Caesarea largely by the influence of the elder Gregory of Nazianzus. His election, says the younger Gregory (loc. cit.), was followed by disaffection on the part of several suffragan bishops “on whose side were found the greatest scoundrels in the city”. During his previous administration of the diocese Basil had so clearly defined his ideas of discipline and orthodoxy, that no one could doubt the direction and the vigour of his policy. St. Athanasius was greatly pleased at Basil's election (Ad Pallad., 953; Ad Joann. et Ant., 951); but the Arianizing Emperor Valens, displayed considerably annoyance and the defeated minority of bishops became consistently hostile to the new metropolitan. By years of tactful conduct, however, “blending his correction with consideration and his gentleness with firmness” (Greg. Naz., Or. xliii), he finally overcame most of his opponents.

Basil's letters tell the story of his tremendous and varied activity; how he worked for the exclusion of unfit candidates from the sacred ministry and the deliverance of the bishops from the temptation of simony; how he required exact discipline and the faithful observance of the canons from both laymen and clerics; how he rebuked the sinful, followed up the offending, and held out hope of pardon to the penitent. (Cf. Epp. xliv, xlv, and xlvi, the beautiful letter to a fallen virgin, as well as Epp. liii, liv, lv, clxxxviii, cxcix, ccxvii, and Ep. clxix, on the strange incident of Glycerius, whose story is well filled out by Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, New York, 1893, p. 443 sqq.) If on the one hand he strenuously defended clerical rights and immunities (Ep. civ), on the other he trained his clergy so strictly that they grew famous as the type of all that a priest should be (Epp. cii, ciii). Basil did not confine his activity to diocesan affairs, but threw himself vigorously into the troublesome theological disputes then rending the unity of Christendom. He drew up a summary of the orthodox faith; he attacked by word of mouth the heretics near at hand and wrote tellingly against those afar. His correspondence shows that he paid visits, sent messages, gave interviews, instructed, reproved, rebuked, threatened, reproached, undertook the protection of nations, cities, individuals great and small. There was very little chance of opposing him successfully, for he was a cool, persistent, fearless fighter in defence both of doctrine and of principles. His bold stand against Valens parallels the meeting of Ambrose with Theodosius. The emperor was dumbfounded at the archbishop's calm indifference to his presence and his wishes. The incident, as narrated by Gregory of Nazianzus, not only tells much concerning Basil's character but throws a clear light on the type of Christian bishop with which the emperors had to deal and goes far to explain why Arianism, with little court behind it, could make so little impression on the ultimate history of Catholicism.

While assisting Eusebius in the care of his diocese, Basil had shown a marked interest in the poor and afflicted; that interest now displayed itself in the erection of a magnificent institution, the Ptochoptopheion, or Basileiad, a house for the care of friendless strangers, the medical treatment of the sick poor, and the industrial training of the unskilled. Built in the suburbs, it attained such importance as to become practically the centre of a new city with the name of he kaine polis or “Newtown”. It was the mother-house of like institutions erected in other dioceses and stood as a constant reminder to the rich of their privilege of spending wealth in a truly Christian way. It may be mentioned here that the social obligations of the wealthy were so plainly and forcibly preached by St. Basil that modern sociologists have ventured to claim him as one of their own, though with no more foundation than would exist in the case of any other consistent teacher of the principles of Catholic ethics. The truth is that St. Bail was a practical lover of Christian poverty, and even in his exalted position preserved that simplicity in food and clothing and that austerity of life for which he had been remarked at his first renunciation of the world.

In the midst of his labours, Basil underwent suffering of many kinds. Athanasius died in 373 and the elder Gregory in 374, both of them leaving gaps never to be filled. In 373 began the painful estrangement from Gregory of Nazianzus. Anthimus, Bishop of Tyana, became an open enemy, Apollinaris “a cause of sorrow to the churches” (Ep. cclxiii), Eustathius of Sebaste a traitor to the Faith and a personal foe as well. Eusebius of Samosata was banished, Gregory of Nyssa condemned and deposed. When Emperor Valentinian died and the Arians recovered their influence, all Basil's efforts must have seemed in vain. His health was breaking, the Goths were at the door of the empire, Antioch was in schism, Rome doubted his sincerity, the bishops refused to be brought together as he wished. “The notes of the church were obscured in his part of Christendom, and he had to fare on as best he might,—admiring, courting, yet coldly treated by the Latin world, desiring the friendship of Rome, yet wounded by her reserve,—suspected of heresy by Damasus, and accused by Jerome of pride” (Newman, The Church of the Fathers). Had he lived a little longer and attended the Council of Constantinople (381), he would have seen the death of its first president, his friend Meletius, and the forced resignation of its second, Gregory of Nazianzus. Basil died 1 January, 379. His death was regarded as a public bereavement; Jews, pagans, and foreigners vied with his own flock in doing him honour. The earlier Latin martyrologies (Hieronymian and Bede) make no mention of a feast of St. Basil. The first mention is by Usuard and Ado who place it on 14 June, the supposed date of Basil's consecration to the episcopate. In the Greek “Menaea” he is commemorated on 1 January, the day of his death. In 1081, John, Patriarch of Constantinople, in consequence of a vision, established a feast in common honour of St. Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom, to be celebrated on 30 January. The Bollandists give an account of the origin of this feast; they also record as worthy of note that no relics of St. Basil are mentioned before the twelfth century, at which time parts of his body, together with some other very extraordinary relics were reputed to have been brought to Bruges by a returning Crusader. Baronius (c. 1599) gave to the Naples Oratory a relic of St. Basil sent from Constantinople to the pope. The Bollandists and Baronius print descriptions of Basil's personal appearance and the former reproduce two icons, the older copied from a codex presented to Basil, Emperor of the East (877-886).

By common consent, Basil ranks among the greatest figures in church history and the rather extravagant panegyric by Gregory of Nazianzus has been all but equalled by a host of other eulogists. Physically delicate and occupying his exalted position but a few years, Basil did magnificent and enduring work in an age of more violent world convulsions than Christianity has since experienced. (Cf. Newman The Church of the Fathers). By personal virtue he attained distinction in an age of saints; and his purity, his monastic fervour, his stern simplicity, his friendship for the poor became traditional in the history of Christian asceticism. In fact, the impress of his genius was stamped indelibly on the Oriental conception of religious life. In his hands the great metropolitan see of Caesarea took shape as the sort of model of the Christian diocese; there was hardly any detail of episcopal activity in which he failed to mark out guiding lines and to give splendid example. Not the least of his glories is the fact that toward the officials of the State he maintained that fearless dignity and independence which later history has shown to be an indispensable condition of healthy life in the Catholic episcopate.

Some difficulty has arisen out of the correspondence of St. Basil with the Roman See. That he was in communion with the Western bishops and that he wrote repeatedly to Rome asking that steps be taken to assist the Eastern Church in her struggle with schismatics and heretics is undoubted; but the disappointing result of his appeals drew from him certain words which require explanation. Evidently he was deeply chagrined that Pope Damasus on the one hand hesitated to condemn Marcellus and the Eustathians, and on the other preferred Paulinus to Meletius in whose right to the See of Antioch St. Basil most firmly believed. At the best it must be admitted that St. Basil criticized the pope freely in a private letter to Eusebius of Samosata (Ep. ccxxxix) and that he was indignant as well as hurt at the failure of his attempt to obtain help from the West. Later on, however, he must have recognized that in some respects he had been hasty; in any event, his strong emphasis of the influence which the Roman See could exercise over the Eastern bishops, and his abstaining from a charge of anything like usurpation are great facts that stand out obviously in the story of the disagreement. With regard to the question of his association with the Semi-Arians, Philostorgius speaks of him as championing the Semi-Arian cause, and Newman says he seems unavoidably to have Arianized the first thirty years of his life. The explanation of this, as well as of the disagreement with the Holy See, must be sought in a careful study of the times, with due reference to the unsettled and changeable condition of theological distinctions, the lack of anything like a final pronouncement by the Church's defining power, the “lingering imperfections of the Saints” (Newman), the substantial orthodoxy of many of the so-called Semi-Arians, and above all the great plan which Basil was steadily pursuing of effecting unity in a disturbed and divided Christendom.

WRITINGS

Dogmatic

Of the five books against Eunomius (c. 364) the last two are classed as spurious by some critics. The work assails the equivalent Arianism of Eunomius and defends the Divinity of the Three Persons of the Trinity; it is well summarized by Jackson (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, VIII). The work “De Spiritu Sancto”, or treatise on the Holy Spirit (c. 375) was evoked in part by the Macedonian denial of the Divinity of the Third Person and in part by charges that Basil himself had “slurred over the Spirit” (Gregory Naz., Ep. lviii), that he had advocated communion with all such a should admit simply that the Holy Ghost was not a creature (Basil, Ep. cxiii), and that he had sanctioned the use of a novel doxology, namely, “Glory be to the Father with the Son together with the Holy Ghost” (De Sp. S., I, i) The treatise teaches the doctrine of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, while avoiding the phrase “God, the Holy Ghost” for prudential reasons (Greg. Naz., Or. xliii. Wuilcknis and Swete affirm the necessity of some such reticence on Basil's part. (Cf. Jackson, op. cit., p. XXIII, note.) With regard to Basil's teaching on the Third Person, as expressed in his work against Eunomius (III, i), a controversy arose at the Council of Florence between the Latins and the Greeks; but strong arguments both external and internal, availed to place Basil on the side of the “Filioque”. The dogmatic writings were edited separately by Goldhorn, in his “S. Basilii Opera Dogmatica Selecta” (Leipzig, 1854). The “De Spiritu Sancto”, was translated into English by Johnston (Oxford, 1892); by Lewis in the Christian Classic Series (1888); and by Jackson (op. cit.).

Exegetical

These include nine homilies “On the Hexaemeron” and thirteen (Maran) genuine homilies on particular Psalms. A lengthy commentary on the first sixteen chapters of Isaias is of doubtful authenticity (Jackson), though by a contemporary hand. A commentary on Job has disappeared. “The Hexaemeron” was highly admired by Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. xliii, no. 67). It is translated entire by Jackson (op. cit.). The homilies on the Psalms are moral and hortatory rather than strictly exegetical. In interpreting the Scripture, Basil uses both the literal and the allegorical methods, but favours the literal system of Antioch. His second homily contains a denunciation of usury which has become famous.

Homiletical

Twenty-Four sermons, doctrinal, moral, and panegyrical in character, are looked upon as generally genuine, certain critical difficulties, however, remaining still unsolved. Eight of these sermons were translated into Latin by Rufinus. The discourses place Basil among the very greatest of Christian preachers and evince his special gift for preaching upon the responsibilities of wealth. The most noteworthy in the collection are the homilies on the rich (vi and vii) copied by St. Ambrose (De Nabuthe Jez., v, 21-24), and the homily (xxii) on the study of pagan literature. The latter was edited by Fremion (Paris, 1819, with French translation), Sommer (Paris, 1894), Bach (Muuml;nster, 1900), and Maloney (New York, 1901). With regard to Basil's style and his success as a preacher much has been written. (Cf. Villemain, “Tableau d'éloq. Chrét. au IVe siècle”, Paris, 1891; Fialon, “Etude Litt. sur St. B.”, Paris, 1861); Roux, “Etude sur la prédication de B. le Grand”, Strasburg, 1867; Croiset, “Hist. de la litt. Grecque”, Paris, 1899.)

Moral and Ascetical

This group contains much of spurious or doubtful origin. Probably authentic are the latter two of the three prefatory treatises, and the five treatises: “Morals”, “On the Judgment of God”, “On Faith”, “The Longer Monastic Rules”, “The Shorter Monastic Rules”. The twenty-four sermons on morals area a cento of extracts from the writings of Basil made by Simeon Metaphrastes. Concerning the authenticity of the Rules there has been a good deal of discussion. As is plain from these treatises and from the homilies that touch upon ascetical or moral subjects, St. Basil was particularly felicitous in the field of spiritual instruction.

Correspondence

The extant letters of Basil are 366 in number, two-thirds of them belonging to the period of his episcopate. The so-called “Canonical Epistles” have been assailed as spurious, but are almost surely genuine. The correspondence with Julian and with Libanius is probably apocryphal; the correspondence with Apollinarus is uncertain. All of the 366 letters are translated in the “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers”. Some of the letters are really dogmatic treatises, and others are apologetic replies to personal attacks. In general they are very useful for their revelation of the saint's character and for the pictures of his age which they offer.

Liturgical

A so-called “Liturgy of St. Basil” exists in Greek and in Coptic. (See BASIL, LITURGY OF.) It goes back at least to the sixth century, but its connexion with Basil has been a matter of critical discussion (Brightman, “Liturgies, Eastern and Western”, Oxford, 1896, I; Probst, “Die Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts und deren Reform”, Muuml;nster, 1893, 377-412).

EDITIONS OF ST. BASIL

The editio princeps of the original text of the extant works of Basil appeared at Basle, 1551, and the first complete Latin translation at Rome, 1515 (autograph manuscript in the British Museum). The best edition is that of the Maurist Benedictines, Garnier and Maran (Paris, 1721-30), republished with appendixes by Migne (P. G., XXIX-XXXII). For fragments attributed to Basil with more or less certainty, and edited by Matthaei, Mai, Pitra, and others, see Bardenhewer, “Patrologie” (Freiburg, 1901), 247. Portions of letters recently discovered in Egyptian papyri were published by H. Landwehr, “Grieschische Handschriften aus Fayûm”, in “Philologus”, XLIII (1884).

REFERENCES

GREG. NAZ., Prationes, especially xliii; IDEM, Epistolae; Carm. de vit=E1 su=E2; GREG. NYSS., Vita Macrinae; IDEM, Or. in laudem fratris Basilii; IDEM, In Eunom., I; SOCRATES, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxvi; VI, iii; SOZOMON, Hist. Eccl., VI, xxvi; VI, xv, xvi, xvii, xxii; RUFINUS, Hist. Eccl., II, ix; THEODORET, Hist. Eccl., IV, xix; PHILOSTORGIUS, Hist. Eccl., VIII, xi-xiii; EPHILEM SYRUS, Encomium in Bas., ap. COTELIER, Mon. Eccl. Gr., II; JEROME, De Vir. Illust., cxvi. The Vita Basilii by AMPHILOCHIUS is a forgery of about the ninth century. NEWMAN, Church of the Fathers, I-III

JOSEPH MCSORLEY

Use of Beads at Prayers

Beads variously strung together, according to the kind, order, and number of prayers in certain forms of devotion, are in common use among Catholics as an expedient to ensure a right count of the parts occurring in more or less frequent repetition. Made of materials ranging from common wood or natural berries to costly metals a precious stones, they may be blessed, as they are in most cases, with prayer and holy water, thereby becoming sacramentals. In this character they are prescribed by the rules of most religious orders, both of men and women, to be kept for personal use or to be worn as part of the religious garb. They are now mostly found in the form of the Dominican Rosary, or Marian Psalter (see ROSARY); but Catholics are also familiar with the Brigittine beads, the Dolour beads, the Immaculate Conception beads, the Crown of Our Saviour, the Chaplet of the Five Wounds, the Crosier beads, and others. In all these devotions, due to individual zeal or fostered by particular religious bodies, the beads serve one and the same purpose of distinguishing and numbering the constituent prayers.

Rationalistic criticism generally ascribes an Oriental origin to prayer beads; but man's natural tendency to iteration, especially of prayers, and the spirit and training of the early Christians may still safely be assumed to have spontaneously suggested fingers, pebbles, knotted cords, and strings of beads or berries as a means of counting, when it was desired to say a specific number of prayers. The earliest historical indications of the use of beads at prayer by Christians show, in this as in other things, a natural growth and development. Beads strung together or ranged on chains are an obvious improvement over the well-known primitive method instanced, for example, in the life of the Egyptian Abbot Paul (d. A. D. 341), who used to take three hundred pebbles into his lap as counters and to drop one as he finished each of the corresponding number of prayers it was his wont to say daily. In the eighth century the penitentials, or rule books pertaining to penitents, prescribed various penances of twenty, fifty, or more, paters. The strings of beads, with the aid of which such penances were accurately said, gradually came to be known as paternosters. Archaeological records mention fragments of prayer beads found in the tomb of the holy abbess Gertrude of Nivelles (d. 659); also similar devices discovered in the tombs of St. Norbert and of St. Rosalia, both of the twelfth century. The Bollandists quote William of Malmesbury (De Gest. Pont. Angl., IV, 4) as stating that the Countess Godiva, who founded a religious house at Coventry in 1040, donated, when she was about to die, a circlet or string of costly precious stones on which she used to say her prayers, to be placed on a statue of the Blessed Virgin. In the course of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, such paternosters came into extensive use especially in the religious orders. At certain times corresponding to the canonical hours, lay brothers and lay sisters were obliged to say a certain number of Our Fathers as an equivalent of the clerical obligation of the Divine Office. The military orders, likewise, notably the Knights of St. John, adopted the paternoster beads as a part of the equipment of lay members. In the fifteenth century, wearing the beads at one's girdle was a distinctive sign of membership in a religious confraternity or third order. If a certain worldliness in the use of beads as ornaments in those days had to be checked, as it was by various capitulary ordinances prohibiting monks and friars, for instance, from having beads of coral, crystal, amber, etc., and nuns from wearing beads around the neck, evidence is not wanting that paternosters were also openly carried as a sign of penance, especially by bands of pilgrims processionally visiting the shrines, churches, and other holy places at Rome. From their purpose, too, it is natural that prayer beads were prized as gifts of friendship. They were especially valued if they had been worn by a person of known sanctity or if they had touched the relics of any saint, in which cases they were often piously believed to be the instruments of miraculous power and healing virtue.

Beads were generally strung either on a straight thread, or cord, or so as to form a circlet, or loop. At the present time chained beads have almost entirely taken the place of the corded ones. To facilitate the counting or to mark off certain divisions of a devotion, sets of beads, usually decades, are separated from each other by a larger bead or sometimes by a medal or metal cross. The number of beads on a chaplet, or Rosary, depends on the number of prayers making up each particular form of devotion. A full Rosary consists of one hundred and fifty Hail Marys, fifteen Our Fathers, and three or four beads corresponding to introductory versicles and the “Glory be to the Father”, etc. Such a “pair of beads” is generally worn by religious. Lay people commonly have beads representing a third part of the Rosary. The Brigittine beads number seven paters in honour of the sorrows and joys of the Blessed Virgin, and sixty-three aves to commemorate the years of her life. Another Crown of Our Lady, in use among the Franciscans, has seventy-two aves, based on another tradition of the Blessed Virgin's age. The devotion of the Crown of Our Lord consists of thirty-three paters in honour of the years of Our Lord on earth and five aves in honour of His sacred wounds. In the church Latin of the Middle Ages, many names were applied to prayer beads as: devotiones, signacula, oracula, precaria, patriloquium, serta, preculae, numeralia, computum, calculi, and others. An Old English form, bedes, or bedys, meant primarily prayers. From the end of the fifteenth century and in the beginning of the sixteenth, the name paternoster beads fell into disuse and was replaced by the name ave beads and Rosary, chaplet, or crown.

The use of beads among pagans is undoubtedly of greater antiquity than their Christian use; but there is no evidence to show that the latter is derived from the former, any more than there is to establish a relation between Christian devotions and pagan forms of prayer. One sect in India used a chaplet consisting generally of one hundred and eight beads made of the wood of the sacred Tulsi shrub, to tell the names of Vishnu; and another accomplished its invocations of Siva by means of a string of thirty-two or sixty-four berries of the Rudr=E2ksha tree. These or other species of seeds or berries were chosen as the material for these chaplets on account of some traditional association with the deities, as recorded in sacred legends. Some of the ascetics had their beads made of the teeth of dead bodies. Among some sects, especially the votaries of Vishnu, a string of beads is placed on the neck of children when, at the age of six or seven, they are about to be initiated and to be instructed in the use of the sacred formularies. Most Hindus continue to wear the beads both for ornament and for use at prayers. Among the Buddhists, whose religion is of Brahminic origin, various prayer-formulas are said or repeated with the aid of beads made of wood, berries, coral, amber, or precious metals and stones. A string of beads cut from the bones of some holy lama is especially valued. The number of beads is usually one hundred and eight; but strings of thirty or forty are in use among the poorer classes. Buddhism in Burma, Tibet, China, and Japan alike employs a number of more or less complicated forms of devotion, but the frequently recurring conclusion, a form of salutation, is mostly the same, and contains the mystic word OM, supposed to have reference to the Buddhistic trinity. It is not uncommon to find keys and trinkets attached to a Buddhist's prayer beads, and generally each string is provided with two little cords of special counters, ten in number, in the form of beads or metal disks. At the end of one of these cords is found a miniature thunderbolt; the other terminates in a tiny bell. With the aid of this device the devotee can count a hundred repetitions of his beads or 108x10x10 formulas in all. Among the Japanese, especially elaborate systems of counting exist. One apparatus is described as capable of registering 36,736 prayers or repetitions.

The Moslems use a string of ninety-nine (or one hundred) beads called the subha or tasbih, on which they recite the “beautiful” names or attributes of Allah. It is divided into three equal parts either by a bead or special shape or size, or by a tassel of gold or silk thread. The use of these Islamic beads appears to have been established as early as the ninth century independently of Buddhistic influences. Some critics have thought the Mohammedan chaplet is kindred to a Jewish form of one hundred blessings. The beads in general use are said to be often made of the sacred clay of Mecca or Medina. Among travellers; records of prayer beads is the famous instance, by Marco Polo, of the King of Malabar, who wore a fine silk thread strung with one hundred and four large pearls and rubies, on which he was wont to pray to his idols. Alexander Von Humboldt is also quoted as finding prayer beads, called Quipos, among the native Peruvians.

JOHN R. VOLE

Aubrey Beardsley

English artist, born at Brighton, 1872; died at Mentone, France, 16 March, 1898. It has been cleverly said that Beardsley was “a boy who never grew up”, and the statement has a considerable amount of truth in it. He was a wonderfully precocious boy all his life, with the frank merriment, enthusiasm, and exuberance of a lad. He was unable to withstand the desire to do clever, mischievous things and to shock people of narrow opinions, and his ignoble and vicious works were more the result of his Puck-like mischief and eccentricity of habit than of any evil disposition. His earliest published work was a programme for an entertainment in 1888 at Brighton Grammar School, where he was a pupil, and his next in the “Bee Magazine”, Blackburn, 1891.

Young Beardsley commenced work as a clerk in the Guardian Fire Office, but at the earnest persuasions of Aymer Vallance and Pennell he entered Fred Brown's studio at Westminster and devoted his attention to illustration. While still a lad he attracted the attention of Sir E. Byrne-Jones and Puvis de Chavannes, and it said much for his genius that it received encouragement from men so different in their aims and practice. When nineteen he accepted the tremendous task of illustrating the “Morte D'Arthur”, and carried it through. The famous article upon him in the “Studio” appeared in April, 1893, and from that moment his work was in great demand. In April, 1894, he became art editor of the “Yellow Book”, the first numbers of which caused a great sensation. He was responsible for the first four volumes and then, with Arthur Symons, started the “Savoy”, to which he contributed a series of drawings. During his short life he carried the art of black and white further than any man since Albrecht Dürer. His special qualities were described by Hammerton as of “extreme economy of means, the perfection of discipline, of self-control, and of thoughtful deliberation at the very moment of invention”.

Beardsley had a marvellous knowledge of the quality of line, a real and powerful sense of beauty, coupled with a constant desire to be quaint, fanciful, or bizarre. He possessed a vigour, inventiveness, and daintiness almost unapproachable in the work of any other man. Hammerton speaks of the “serene surety of his drawing”, of his “superb sense of style”' but Beardsley's love of mischief, which he deeply regretted, led him into serious faults and caused him to be often misunderstood. By those who knew him he was regarded as the most original, brilliant, witty, and lovable man they ever met. His illustrations of “Salome”, “The Rape of the Lock”, “Mademoiselle de Maupin” and “Volpone” are amongst his greatest works. From boyhood he had bad health and suffered from frequent attacks of haemorrhage. He was always a man of deep religious feeling and became a Catholic at the close of his life (31 March, 1895).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Beatific Vision

The immediate knowledge of God which the angelic spirits and the souls of the just enjoy in Heaven. It is called “vision” to distinguish it from the mediate knowledge of God which the human mind may attain in the present life. And since in beholding God face to face the created intelligence finds perfect happiness, the vision is termed “beatific”. For further explanation of the subject, see HEAVEN.

E. A. PACE

Beatification and Canonization

HISTORY

According to some writers the origin of beatification and canonization in the Catholic Church is to be traced back to the ancient pagan apotheosis. (See APOTHEOSIS.) In his classic work on the subject (De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione) Benedict XIV examines and at the very outset refutes this view. He shows so well the substantial differences between them that no right-thinking person need henceforth confound the two institutions or derive one from the other. It is a matter of history who were elevated to the honour of apotheosis, on what grounds, and by whose authority; no less clear is the meaning that was attached to it. Often the decree was due to the statement of a single person (possibly bribed or enticed by promises, and with a view to fix the fraud more securely in the minds of an already superstitious people) that while the body of the new god was being burned, an eagle, in the case of the emperors, or a peacock (Juno's sacred bird), in the case of their consorts, was seen to carry heavenward the spirit of the departed (Livy, Hist. Rome, I, xvi; Herodian, Hist. Rome, IV, ii, iii). Apotheosis was awarded to most members of the imperial family, of which family it was the exclusive privilege. No regard was had to virtues or remarkable achievements. Recourse was frequently had to this form of deification to escape popular hatred by distracting attention from the cruelty of imperial rulers. It is said that Romulus was deified by the senators who slew him; Poppaea owed her apotheosis to her imperial paramour, Nero, after he had kicked her to death; Geta had the honour from his brother Caracalla, who had got rid of him through jealousy. Canonization in the Catholic Church is quite another thing. The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief difference, however, lies in the meaning of the term canonization, the Church seeing in the saints nothing more than friends and servants of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XXII, x; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat. martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act. 3).

The true origin of canonization and beatification must be sought in the Catholic doctrine of the worship (cultus), invocation, and intercession of the saints. As was taught by St. Augustine (Quaest. in Heptateuch., lib. II, n. 94; contra Faustum, lib. XX, xxi), Catholics, while giving to God alone adoration strictly so-called, honour the saints because of the Divine supernatural gifts which have earned them eternal life, and through which they reign with God in the heavenly fatherland as His chosen friends and faithful servants. In other words, Catholics honour God in His saints as the loving distributor of supernatural gifts. The worship of latria (latreia), or strict adoration, is given to God alone; the worship of dulia (douleia), or honour and humble reverence, is paid the saints; the worship of hyperdulia (hyperdouleia), a higher form of dulia, belongs, on account of her greater excellence, to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church (Aug., Contra Faustum, XX, xxi, 21; cf. De Civit. Dei, XXII, x) erects her altars to God alone, though in honour and memory of the saints and martyrs. There is Scriptural warrant for such worship in the passages where we are bidden to venerate angels (Ex., xxiii, 20 sqq.; Jos., v, 13 sqq.; Dan., viii, 15 sqq.; x, 4 sqq.; Luke, ii, 9 sqq.; Acts, xii, 7 sqq.; Apoc., v, 11 sqq.; vii, 1 sqq.' Matt., xviii, 10; etc.), whom holy men are not unlike, as sharers of the friendship of God. And if St. Paul beseeches the brethren (Rom., xv, 30; II Cor., i, 11; Col., iv, 3; Ephes., vi, 18, 19) to help him by their prayers for him to God, we must with even greater reason maintain that we can be helped by the prayers of the saints, and ask their intercession with humility. If we may beseech those who still live on earth, why not those who live in heaven? It is objected that the invocation of saints is opposed to the unique mediatorship of Christ Jesus. There is indeed “one mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus”. But He is our mediator in His quality of our common Redeemer; He is not our sole intercessor nor advocate, nor our sole mediator by way of supplication. In the eleventh session of the Council of Chalcedon (451 we find the Fathers exclaiming, “Flavianus lives after death! May the Martyr pray for us!” If we accept this doctrine of the worship of the saints, of which there are innumerable evidences in the writings of the Fathers and the liturgies of the Eastern and Western Churches, we shall not wonder t the loving care with which the Church committed to writing the sufferings of the early martyrs, sent these accounts from one gathering of the faithful to another, and promoted the veneration of the martyrs. Let one instance suffice. In the circular epistle of the Church of Smyrna (Eus., Hist. Eccl., IV, xxiii) we find mention of the religious celebration of the day on which St. Polycarp suffered martyrdom (23 February, 155); and the words of the passage exactly express the main purpose which the Church has in the celebration of such anniversaries: “We have at last gathered his bones, which are dearer to us than priceless gems and purer than gold, and laid them to rest where it was befitting they should lie. And if it be possible for us to assemble again, may God grant us to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom with gladness, thus to recall the memory of those who fought in the glorious combat, and to teach and strengthen by his example, those who shall come after us.” This anniversary celebration and veneration of the martyrs was a service of thanksgiving and congratulation, a token and an evidence of the joy of those who engaged in it (Muratori, de Paradiso, x), and its general diffusion explains why Tertullian, though asserting with the Chiliasts that the departed just would obtain eternal glory only after the general resurrection of the body, admitted an exception for the martyrs (de Resurrectione Carnis, xliii).

It must be obvious, however, that while private moral certainty of their sanctity and possession of heavenly glory may suffice for private veneration of the saints, it cannot suffice for public and common acts of that kind. No member of a social body may, independently of its authority, perform an act proper to that body. It follows naturally that for the public veneration of the saints the ecclesiastical authority of the pastors and rulers of the Church was constantly required. The Church had at heart, indeed, the honour of the martyrs, but she did not therefore grant liturgical honours indiscriminately to all those who had died for the Faith. St. Optatus of Mileve, writing at the end of the fourth century, tells us (De Schism, Donat., I, xvi, in P. L., XI, 916-917) of a certain noble lady, Lucilla, who was reprehended by Caecilianus, Archdeacon of Carthage, for having kissed before Holy Communion the bones of one who was either not a martyr or whose right to the title was unproved. The decision as to the martyr having died for his faith in Christ, and the consequent permission of worship, lay originally with the bishop of the place in which he had borne his testimony. The bishop inquired into the motive of his death and, finding he had died a martyr, sent his name with an account of his martyrdom to other churches, especially neighboring ones, so that, in event of approval by their respective bishops, the cultus of the martyr might extend to their churches also, and that the faithful, as we read of St. Ignatius in the “Acts” of his martyrdom (Ruinart, Acta Sincera Martyrum, 19) “might hold communion with the generous martyr of Christ (generoso Christi martyri communicarent). Martyrs whose cause, so to speak, had been discussed, and the fame of whose martyrdom had been confirmed, were known as proved (vindicati) martyrs. As far as the word is concerned it may probably not antedate the fourth century, when it was introduced in the Church at Carthage; but the fact is certainly older. In the earlier ages, therefore, this worship of the saints was entirely local and passed from one church to another with the permission of their bishops. This is clear from the fact that in none of the ancient Christian cemeteries are there found paintings of martyrs other than those who had suffered in that neighborhood. It explains, also, almost the universal veneration very quickly paid to some martyrs, e.g., St. Lawrence, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Sixtus of Rome [Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien (Paris, 1903), 284].

The worship of confessors—of those, that is, who died peacefully after a life of heroic virtue—is not as ancient as that of the martyrs. The word itself takes on a different meaning after the early Christian periods. In the beginning it was given to those who confessed Christ when examined in the presence of enemies of the Faith (Baronius, in his notes to Ro. Mart., 1 January, D), or, as Benedict XIV explains (op, cit., II, c. ii, n. 6), to those who died peacefully after having confessed the Faith before tyrants or other enemies of the Christian religion, and undergone tortures or suffered other punishments of whatever nature. Later on, confessors were those who had lived a holy life and closed it by a holy death in Christian peace. It is in this sense that we now treat of the worship paid to confessors.

It was in the fourth century, as is commonly held, that confessors were first given public ecclesiastical honour, though occasionally praised in ardent terms by earlier Fathers, and although an abundant rewards (multiplex corona) is declared by St. Cyprian to be theirs (De Zelo et Livore, col. 509; cf. Innoc. III, De Myst. Miss., III, x; Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, v, no 3 sqq; Bellarmine, De Missâ, II, xx, no 5). Still Bellarmine thinks it uncertain when confessors began to be objects of cultus, and asserts that it was not before 800, when the feasts of Sts. Martin and Remigius are found in the catalogue of feasts drawn up by the Council of Mainz. This opinion of Innocent III and Benedict XIV is confirmed by the implicit approval of St. Gregory the Great (Dial., I, xiv, and III, xv) and by well attested facts; in the East, for example, Hilarion (Sozomen, III, xiv, and VIII, xix), Ephrem (Greg. Nyss., Orat. in laud. S. Ephrem), and other confessors were publicly honoured in the fourth century; and, in the West, St. Martin of Tours, as is gathered plainly from the oldest Breviaries and the Mozarabic Missal (Bona, Rer. Lit., II, xii, no. 3), and St. Hilary of Poitiers, as can be shown from the very ancient Mass-book known as “Missale Francorum”, were objects of a like cultus in the same century (Martigny, Dictionnaire des antiquités chrétiennes, s. v. Confesseurs). The reason of this veneration lies, doubtless, in the resemblance of the confessors' self-denying and heroically virtuous lives to the sufferings of the martyrs; such lives could truly be called prolonged martyrdoms. Naturally, therefore, such honour was first paid to ascetics (Duchesne, op. cit., 284) and only afterwards to those who resembled in their lives the very penitential and extraordinary existence of the ascetics. So true is this that the confessors themselves are frequently called martyrs. St. Gregory Nazianzen calls St. Basil a martyr (Orat. de laud., P. L., XXXVI, 602); St. Chrysostom applies the same title to Eustachius of Antioch (Opp. II, 606); St. Paulinus of Nola writes of St. Felix of Nola that he won heavenly honours, sine sanguine martyr (“a bloodless martyr”-Poem., XIV, Carm. III, v, 4); St. Gregory the Great styles Zeno of Verona a martyr (Dial. III. xix), and Metronius gives to St. Roterius (Acta SS., II, May 11, 306) the same title. Later on, the names of confessors were inserted in the diptychs, and due reverence was paid them. Their tombs were honoured (Martigny, loc. cit.) with the same title (martyria) as those of the martyrs. It remained true, however, at all times that it was unlawful to venerate confessors without permission of the ecclesiastical authority as it had been so to venerate martyrs (Bened. XIV, loc. cit., vi).

We have seen that for several centuries the bishops, in some places only the primates and patriarchs (August., Brevic. Collat. cum Donatistis, III, xiii, no 25 in P. L., XLIII, 628), could grant to martyrs and confessors public ecclesiastical honour; such honour, however, was always decreed only for the local territory over which the grantors held jurisdiction. Still, it was only the Bishop of Rome's acceptance of the cultus that made it universal, since he alone could permit or command in the Universal Church [Gonzalez Tellez, Comm. Perpet. in singulos textus libr. Decr. (III, xlv), in cap. i, De reliquiis et vener. Sanct.]. Abuses, however, crept into this form of discipline, due as well to indiscretions of popular fervour as to the carelessness of some bishops in inquiring into the lives of those whom they permitted to be honoured as saints. Towards the close of the eleventh century the popes found it necessary to restrict episcopal authority on this point, and decreed that the virtues and miracles of persons proposed for public veneration should be examined in councils, more particularly in general councils. Urban II, Calixtus II, and Eugenius III followed this line of action. It happened, even after these decrees, that “some, following the ways of the pagans and deceived by the fraud of the evil one, venerated as a saint a man who had been killed while intoxicated”. Alexander III (1159-81) took occasion to prohibit his veneration in these words : “For the future you will not presume to pay him reverence, as, even though miracles were worked through him, it would not allow you to revere him as a saint unless with the authority of the Roman Church” (c. i, tit. cit., X. III, xlv). Theologians do not agree as to the full import of this decretal. Either a new law was made (Bellarmine, De Eccles. Triumph., I, viii), in which case the pope then for the first time reserved the right of beatification, or a pre-existing law was confirmed. As the decretal did not put an end to all controversy, and some bishops did not obey it in as far as it regarded beatification (which right they had certainly possessed hitherto), Urban VII published, in 1634, a Bull which put an end to all discussion by reserving to the Holy See exclusively not only its immemorial right of canonization, but also that of beatification.

NATURE OF BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION

Before dealing with the actual procedure in causes of beatification and canonization, it is proper to define these terms precisely and briefly in view of the preceding considerations. Canonization, generally speaking, is a decree regarding the public ecclesiastical veneration of an individual. Such veneration, however, may be permissive or preceptive, may be universal or local. If the decree contains a precept, and is universal in the sense that it binds the whole Church, it is a decree of canonization; if it only permits such worship, or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church, it is a decree of beatification. In the ancient discipline of the Church, probably even as late as Alexander III, bishops could in their several dioceses allow public veneration to be paid to saints, and such episcopal decrees were not merely permissive, but, in my opinion, preceptive. Such decrees, however, could not prescribe universal honour; the effect of an episcopal act of this kind, was equivalent to our modern beatification. In such cases there was, properly speaking, no canonization, unless with the consent of the pope extending the cultus in question, implicitly or explicitly, and imposing it by way of precept upon the Church at large. In the more recent discipline beautification is a permission to venerate, granted by the Roman Pontiffs with restriction to certain places and to certain liturgical exercises. Thus it is unlawful to pay to the person known as Blessed (i. e. the Beatus, Beatified), public reverence outside of the place for which the permission is granted, or to recite an office in his honour, or to celebrate Mass with prayers referring to him, unless special indult be had; similarly, other methods of honour have been interdicted. Canonization is a precept of the Roman Pontiff commanding public veneration to be paid an individual by the Universal Church. To sum up, beatification, in the present discipline, differs from canonization in this: that the former implies (1) a locally restricted, not a universal, permission to venerate, which is (2) a mere permission, and no precept; while canonization implies a universal precept. In exceptional cases one or other element of this distinction may be lacking; thus, Alexander III not only allowed but ordered the public cultus of Bl. William of Malavalle in the Diocese of Grosseto, and his action was confirmed by Innocent III; Leo X acted similarly with regard to Bl. Hosanna for the city and district of Mantua; Clement IX with regard to Bl. Rose of Lima, when he selected her as principal patron of Lima and of Peru; and Clement X, by making her patron of all America, the Philippines, and the Indies. Clement X also chose Bl. Stanislaus Kostka as patron of Poland, Lithuania, and the allied provinces. Again, in respect to universality, Sixtus IV permitted the cultus of Bl. John Boni for the Universal Church. In all these instances there was only beatification. The cultus of Bl. Rose of Lima, it is true, was general and obligatory for America, but, lacking complete preceptive universality, was not strictly speaking canonization (Benedict XIV, op. sit., I, xxxix).

Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal and obligatory. But in imposing this obligation the pope may, and does, use one of two methods, each constituting a new species of canonization, i. e. formal canonization and equivalent canonization. Formal canonization occurs when the cultus is prescribed as an explicit and definitive decision, after due judicial process and the ceremonies usual in such cases. Equivalent canonization occurs when the pope, omitting the judicial process and the ceremonies, orders some servant of God to be venerated in the Universal Church; this happens when such a saint has been from a remote period the object of veneration, when his heroic virtues (or martyrdom) and miracles are related by reliable historians, and the fame of his miraculous intercession is uninterrupted. Many examples of such canonization are to be found in Benedict XIV; e. g. Saints Romuald, Norbert, Bruno, Peter Nolasco, Raymond Nonnatus, John of Matha, Felix of Valois, Queen Margaret of Scotland, King Stephen of Hungary, Wenceslaus Duke of Bohemia, and Gregory VII. Such instances afford a good proof of the caution with which the Roman Church proceeds in these equivalent canonizations. St. Romuald was not canonized until 439 years after his death, and the honour came to him sooner than to any of the others mentioned. We may add that this equivalent canonization consists usually in the ordering of an Office and Mass by the pope in honour of the saint, and that mere enrolment in the Roman Martyrology does not by any means imply this honour (Bened. XIV, l, c., xliii, no 14).

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND CANONIZATION

Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s. v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: “Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i. e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.” These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Suarez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.

What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this: “In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast.” (Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.) There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).

This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification, not withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary known as “Glossa” [in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III, 22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap. lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step. Moreover, in most cases, the cultus permitted by beatification, is restricted to a determined province, city, or religious body (Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, xlii). Some, however, have thought otherwise (Arriaga, Theol., V, disp. 7, p. 6; Amicus, Theol., IV, disp. 7, p.4, no 98; Turrian= us on II-II, V, disp. 17, no 6; Del Bene, De S. Inquisit. II, dub. 254).

PRESENT PROCEDURE IN CAUSES OF BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION

We must first distinguish causes of martyrs from those of confessors or virgins, since the method followed is not entirely identical in both cases.

(a) The beatification of Confessors

In order to secure beatification (the most important and difficult step in the process of canonization) the regular procedure is as follows:

(1) Choosing of a vice-postulator by the postulator-general of the cause, to promote all the judicial inquiries necessary in places outside of Rome. Such inquiries are instituted by the local episcopal authority.

(2) The preparation of the inquiries (processus) all of which are carried on by the ordinary episcopal authority. They are of three kinds:

• Informative inquiries regard the reputation for sanctity and miracles of the servants of God, not only in general, but also in particular instances; there may be several such inquiries if the witnesses to be examined belong to different dioceses.
• Processes de non cultu are instituted to prove that the decrees of Urban VIII regarding the prohibition of public worship of servants of God before their beatification have been obeyed; they are generally conducted by the bishop of the place where the relics of the servant of God are preserved.
• Other inquiries are known as Processiculi diligentiarum and have for their object the writings attributed to the person whose beatification is in question; they vary in number according to the dioceses where such writings are found, or are thought likely to be found, and may not be judicially executed before an “Instruction” is obtained from the promotor of the Faith by the postulator-general and by him sent to the bishop in question.

(3) The results of all these inquiries are sent to Rome, to the Congregation of Rites, in charge of a messenger (portitor) chosen by the judges, or by some other secure way, in case a rescript of the congregation dispenses from the obligation of sending a messenger.

(4) They are opened, translated if necessary into Italian, a public copy is made, and a cardinal is deputed by the pope as relator or ponens of the cause, for all which steps rescripts of the congregation, confirmed by the pope, must be obtained.

(5) The writings of the servant of God are next revised by theologians appointed by the cardinal relator himself, authorized to so act by a special rescript. Meantime, the advocate and the procurator of the cause, chosen by the postulator-general, have prepared all the documents that concern the introduction of the cause (positio super introductione causae). These consist of (a) a summary of the informative processes, (b) an information, (c) answers to the observations or difficulties of the promotor of the Faith sent by him to the Postulator.

(6) This collection of documents (positio) is printed and distributed to the cardinals of the Congregation of Rites forty days before the date assigned for their discussion.

(7) If nothing contrary to faith and morals is found in the writings of the servant of God, a decree is published, authorizing further action (quod in causâ procedi possit ad ulteriora), i. e., the discussion of the matter (dubium) of appointment or non-appointment of a commission for the introduction of the cause.

(8) At the time fixed by the Congregation of Rites an ordinary meeting (congregatio) is held in which this appointment is debated by the cardinals of the aforesaid congregation and its officials, but without the vote or participation of the consultors, though this privilege is always granted them by prescript.

(9) If in this meeting the cardinals favour the appointment of the aforesaid commission, a decree to that effect is promulgated, and the pope signs it, but, according to custom, with his baptismal name, not with that of his pontificate. Thenceforward the servant of God is judicially given the title of Venerable.

(10) A petition is then presented asking remissorial letters for the bishops in partibus (outside of Rome), authorizing them to set on foot by Apostolic authority, the inquiry (processus) with regard to the fame of sanctity and miracles in general. This permission is granted by rescript, and such remissorial letters are prepared and sent to the bishops by the postulator-general. In case the eye-witnesses be of advanced age, other remissorial letters are usually granted for the purpose of opening a process known as “inchoative” concerning the particular virtues of miracles of the person in question. This is done in order that the proofs may not be lost (ne pereant probationes), and such inchoative process precedes that upon the miracles and virtues in general.

(11) While the Apostolic process concerning the reputation of sanctity is under way outside of Rome, documents are being prepared by the procurator of the cause for the discussion de non cultu, or absence of cultus, and at the appointed time an ordinary meeting (congregatio) is held in which the matter is investigated; if it be found that the decree of Urban VIII has been complied with, another decree provides that further steps may be taken.

(12) When the inquiry concerning the reputation of sanctity (super famâ) has arrived in Rome, it is opened (as already described in speaking of the ordinary processes, and with the same formalities in regard to rescripts), then translated into Italian, summarized, and declared valid. The documents super famâ; in general are prepared by the advocate, and at the proper time, in an ordinary meeting of the cardinals of the Congregation of Rites, the question is discussed: whether there is evidence of a general repute for sanctity and miracles of this servant of God. If the answer is favourable, a decree embodying this result is published.

(13) New remissorial letters are then sent to the bishops in partibus for Apostolical processes with regard to the reputation for sanctity and miracles in particular. These processes must be finished within eighteen months and when they are received in Rome are opened, as above described, and by virtue of an equal number of rescripts, by the cardinal prefect, translated into Italian, and their summary authenticated by the Chancellor of the Congregation of Rites.

(14) The advocate of the cause next prepares the documents (positio) which have reference to the discussion of the validity of all the preceding processes, informative and Apostolic.

(15) This discussion is held in the meeting called congregatio rotalis from the fact that it is only judges of the Rota who vote. If the difficulties of the promotor of the Faith are satisfactorily answered, the decree establishing the validity of the inquiries or processes is published.

(16) Meanwhile all necessary preparation is made for the discussion of the question (dubium): Is there evidence that the venerable servant of God practiced virtues both theological and cardinal, and in an heroic degree? (An constet de virtutibus Ven. servi Dei, tam theologicis quam cardinalibus, in heroico gradu?) In the causes of confessors this step is of primary importance. The point is discussed in three meetings or congregations called respectively, ante-preparatory, preparatory, and general. The first of these meetings is held in the palace of the cardinal relator (reporter) of the cause, and in it only consultors of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, and with their chairman, or prefect, presiding, the third is also held in the Vatican, and at it the pope presides, and both cardinals and consultors vote. For each of these congregations the advocate of the cause prepares and prints official reports (positiones), called respectively report, new report, final report, concerning the virtues, etc.,— positio, positio nova, positio novissima, super virtutibus. In each case, before proceeding to the subsequent meeting, a majority of the consultors must decide that the difficulties of the promotor of the Faith have been satisfactorily solved.

(17) When the Congregation of Rites in the above described general meeting has decided favourably, the pope is asked is asked to sign the solemn decree which asserts that there exists evidence of the heroic virtues of the servant of God. This decree is not published until after the pope, having commended the matter to God in prayer, gives a final consent and confirms by his supreme sentence the decision of the congregation.

(18) The miracles now remain to be proved, of which two of the first class are required in case the practice of virtues in the heroic degree has been proved, in both ordinary and Apostolic inquiries or processes by eyewitnesses—three, if the eyewitnesses were found only in the ordinary processes; four, if the virtues were proven only by hearsay (de auditu) witnesses. If the miracles have been sufficiently proven in the Apostolic processes (super virtutibus) already declared valid, steps are taken at once to prepare the documents with regard to miracles (super miraculis). If in the Apostolic processes only general mention has been made of the miracles, new Apostolic processes must be opened, and conducted after the manner already described for proving the practice of virtues in an heroic degree.

(19) The discussion of the particular miracles proceeds in exactly the same way and in the same order as that of the virtues. If the decisions be favourable, the general meeting of the congregation is followed by a decree, confirmed by the pope, in which it is announced that there is proof of miracles. It must be noted here that in the positio for the ante-preparatory congregation there are required, and are printed, opinions of two physicians, one of whom has been chosen by the postulator, the other by the Congregation of Rites. Of the three reports (positiones) above mentioned, and which are now also required, the first is prepared in the usual way; the second consists of an exposition of the heroic virtues of the servant of God. an information, and a reply to later observations of the promotor of the Faith; the last consists only of an answer to his final observations.

(20) When the miracles have been proved, another meeting of the Congregation of Rites is held in which it is debated once, and only once, whether or not, given the approbation of the virtues and miracles, it is safe to proceed with the solemnities of beatification. If a majority of the consultors be favourable, a decree to this effect is issued by the pope, and at the time appointed by him the solemn beatification of the servant of God takes place in the Vatican Basilica, on which occasion a pontifical Brief is issued permitting the public cultus and veneration of the beatified person now known as Blessed (Beatus).

(b) The Beatification of Martyrs

(1) The causes of martyrs are conducted in the same way as those of confessors as far as the informative processes and those de non cultu and ad introductionem causae are concerned. But when once the commission of introduction has been appointed they advance much more rapidly.

(2) No remissorial letters are granted for Apostolic processes concerning the general reputation for martyrdom and miracles; the letters sent call for an immediate investigation into the fact of martyrdom, its motive, and the particular miracles alleged. There is no longer a discussion of the general reputation for martyrdom or miracles.

(3) The miracles are not discussed, as formerly, in separate meetings, but in the same meetings that deal with the fact and the motive of the martyrdom.

(4) The miracles (signa) required are not those of the first class; those of the second class suffice, nor is their number determined. On some occasions the decision as to miracles has been entirely dispensed with.

(5) The discussion as to martyrdoms and miracles, formerly held in three meetings or congregations, viz. the ante-preparatory, preparatory, and general, is now usually conducted, through a dispensation to be had in each instance from the sovereign pontiff, in a single congregation known as particularis, or special. It consists of six or seven cardinals of the Congregation of Rites and four or five prelates especially deputed by the pope. There is but one positio prepared in the usual way; if there be an affirmative majority a decree is issued concerning the proof of martyrdom, the cause of martyrdom, and miracles. (Constare de Martyrio, causâ Martyrii et signis.)

(6) The final stage is a discussion of the security (super tuto) with which advance to beatification may be made, as in the case of confessors; the solemn beatification then follows. This procedure is followed in all cases of formal beatification in causes of both confessors and martyrs proposed in the ordinary way (per viam non cultus). Those proposed as coming under the definition of cases excepted (casus excepti) by Urban VIII are treated in another way. In such cases it must be proved that an immemorial public veneration (at least for 100 years before the promulgation, in 1640, of the decrees of Urban VIII) has been paid the servant of God, whether confessor or martyr. Such cause is proposed under the title of “confirmation of veneration” (de confirmatione cultus); it is dealt with in an ordinary meeting of the Congregation of Rites. When the difficulties of the promotor of the Faith have been satisfied, a pontifical decree confirming the cultus is promulgated. Beatification of this kind is called equivalent or virtual.

(c) The Canonization of Confessors or Martyrs

The canonization of confessors or martyrs may be taken up as soon as two miracles are reported to have been worked at their intercession, after the pontifical permission of public veneration as described above. At this stage it is only required that the two miracles worked after the permission awarding a public cultus be discussed in three meetings of the congregation. The discussion proceeds in the ordinary way; if the miracles be confirmed another meeting (super tuto) is held. The pope then issues a Bull of Canonization in which he not only permits, but commands, the public cultus, or veneration, of the saint.

It is with the utmost possible brevity that I have described the elements of a process of beatification or canonization. It may be easily conjectured that considerable time must elapse before any cause of beatification or canonization can be conducted, from the first steps of the information, inquiry, or process, to the issuing of the decree super tuto. According to the constitution of this Congregation, more than one important discussion (dubia majora) cannot be proposed at the same time. It must be remembered

• that the same cardinals and consultors must vote in all discussions;
• that there is but one promotor of the Faith and one sub-promotor, who alone have charge of all observations to be made with regard to the dubia;
• that these cardinals and consultors have to treat questions of ritual as well as processes of canonization and beatification.

To execute all this business there is but one weekly meeting (congressus), a kind of minor congregation in which only the cardinal prefect and the major officials vote; in it less important and practical questions are settled regarding rites as well as causes, and answers are given, and rescripts which the pope afterwards verbally approves. The other meetings of the congregation (ordinary, rotal, and “upon virtues and miracles”) may be as few as sixteen in the course of the year. Some other cause must therefore be found for the slow progress of causes of beatification or canonization than a lack of good will or activity on the part of the Congregation of Rites.

EXPENSES

It will not be out of place to give succinctly the ordinary actual expenses of canonization and beatification. Of these expenses some are necessary others merely discretionary, e. g. the expenses incurred in obtaining the different rescripts) others, though necessary, are not specified. Such are the expenses of the solemnity in the Vatican Basilica, and for paintings representing the newly beatified which are afterwards presented to the pope, the cardinals, officials, and consultors of the Congregation of Rites. The limits of this class of expenses depend on the postulator of the cause. If he chooses to spend a moderate sum the entire cause from the first process to the solemn beatification will not cost him less than $20,000. The expenses of the process from beatification to canonization will easily exceed $30,000. In illustration of this we subjoin the final account of the expenses of the public solemnities in the Vatican Basilica for the canonization by Leo XIII, of Saints Anthony Maria Zaccaria and Peter Fourier, as published by the Most Rev. Diomede Panici, titular Archbishop of Laodicea, then Secretary of the Congregation of Rites.

• To decoration of the Basilica, lights, architectural designs, labour, and superintendence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lire 152,840.58
• Procession, Pontifical Mass, preparation of altars in Basilica. . . . . . . . . . . . 8,114.58
• Cost of gifts presented to Holy Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,438.87
• Hangings, Sacred Vestments, etc, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,990.60
• Recompense for services and money loaned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,525.07
• To the Vatican Chapter as perquisites for decorations and candles . . . . . . . . . 18,000.00
• Propine and Competenza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,936.00
• Incidental and unforeseen expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,468,40
• Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lire 221,849.10 —or (taking the lira equivalent to $.193 in 1913 United States money) $42,816.87. (See also BLESSED.)

CAMILLUS BECCARI

Beelzebub

1. Old Testament

Beelzebub, or Baalzebûb, the Philistine god of Accaron (Ekron), scarcely 25 miles west of Jerusalem, whose oracle King Ochozias (Ahaziah) attempted to consult in his last illness, IV (II) Kings, i, 2. It is only as an oracle that the god is known to us; no other mention of him occurs in the Old Testament. The name is commonly translated “the lord of the flies”, and the god is supposed to be so called either because as a sun god he brings the flies, though the Ba'al was probably not a sun god, or more likely because he is invoked to drive away the flies from the sacrifice, like the Zeus Apomuios, who drove them from Olympia, or the hero Myiagros in Arcadia. Halévy and Winckler interpret the name, according to the analogy of very many names compounded with baal, as “the lord of Zebub”, supposed to be a locality in Accaron; there is no proof, however, for the existence of such a locality, and besides Beelzebub is called the god of Accaron. Cheyne thinks the original form of the name is Ba'al Zebul, “the lord of the mansion,” or high house, which would refer to the god's temple or to the mountain on which the gods dwelt, or rather, in his opinion, to both. But the textual evidence, as Lagrange objects, is entirely in favour of Zebub. Cheyne, admitting this, holds that the title “lord of the high house”, which would suggest to the writer of Kings a reference to Yahweh's temple or to His heavenly dwelling place, would be considered offensive, and would induce him, in contempt, to change it to Ba'al Zebub, the lord of flies. The tradition of the true name, lingering on, accounts for its presence in the Gospels (Zeboul). This conjecture, which has a certain plausibility, leaves unexplained why the contempt should lead to the particular form, Baal Zebub, a name without parallel in Semitic religions. It seems more reasonable, then, to regard Baalzebub as the original form and to interpret it as “lord of the Flies”.

2. New Testament

In the New Testament, there is question of an evil spirit, Beelzeboul. On account of the great similarity of names, he is usually identified with Baalzebub, beel being the Aramaic form of baal, and the change from the final b to l such as might easily occur. But there were numberless names for demons at that time, and this one may have been newly invented, having no relation to the other; the fact that one element of the compound is Aramaic and the other Hebrew would not disprove this. The meaning of the term is “lord of the mansion” or dwelling, and it would be supposed by the Jews of this time to refer to the nether regions, and so be an appropriate name for the prince of that realm. Beelzeboul (Beelzebub) is used, then, merely as another name for Satan (Matt., xii, 24-29; Luke, xi, 15-22) by whom the enemies of Our Lord accused Him of being possessed and by whom they claimed He cast out demons. Their charge seems to have been that the good Our Lord did was wrought by the Evil One in order to deceive, which Jesus showed to be absurd and a wilful blindness. If the New Testament name be considered a transformation of the old, the question arises as to how the god of the little town of Accaron came to give a name to the Prince of Darkness. The mission on which Ochozias sent his followers seems to show that Beelzebub already had a wide renown in Palestine. The narrative (IV Kings, i) was a very striking one, well known to the contemporaries of Our Lord (Luke, ix, 54); from it might easily be derived the idea of Beelzebub as the special adversary of God, and the change in the final letter of the name which took place (ex hypothesi) would lead the Jews to regard it as designating the prince of the lower regions. With him was naturally connected the idea of demoniacal possession; and there is no need of Cheyne's conjecture that Beelzebub's “name naturally rose to Jewish lips when demoniacal possession was spoken of, because of the demoniacal origin assumed for heathen oracles”. How can we account for the idea of Beelzebub exorcizing the demons? On the assumption that he is to be identified with the Philistine god, Lagrange thinks the idea is derived from the special prerogative of Beelzebub as fly-chaser (chasse-mouche). In the Babylonian epic of the deluge, “the gods gather over the sacrificer like flies” (see Driver, Genesis, 105). It was easy for the heathen Semites, according to Lagrange, to come to conceive of the flies troubling the sacrifice as images of spirits hovering around with no right to be there; and so Beelzebub, the god who drove away the flies, became the prince of demons in whose name the devils were exorcised from the bodies of the possessed. Others think the idea naturally arose that the lord of the demons had power to command them to leave the possessed. It seems much more reasonable, however, to regard this faculty of Beelzebub not as a tradition, but simply as a change invented by Our Lord's enemies to throw discredit on his exorcisms. His other miracles were probably accounted for by ascribing them to Beelzebub and so these likewise. Allen (Comm. on Matt., 107, 134) has endeavored to simplify the problem by the use of higher criticism. According to him, the role of Beelzebub as arch-demon and exorcist was not a Palestinian belief; in Mark's Gospel, Beelzebub is simply the demon said to possess Our Lord. Matthew and Luke by mistake fuse together two independent clauses of Mark, iii, 22 and identify Beelzebub and Satan, to whom the faculty of exorcism is ascribed. The fusion, however, seems to be justified by the next verse of Mark, which is more naturally interpreted in the sense of Matthew and Luke, though Allen's interpretation may be admitted as possible. Beelzebub does not appear in the Jewish literature of the period; there we usually find Beliar (Belial) as an alternative name for Satan.

JOHN F. FENLON

Ven. George Beesley

(Also spelled Bisley). Martyr, born at The Hill in Goosnargh parish, Lancaster, England, of an ancient Catholic family; died 2 July, 1591. He was ordained priest at the English College at Reims, 14 March, 1587, and left for England, 1 November, 1588. A man of singular courage, young, strong, and robust, he was captured by Topcliffe late in 1590, and was by his tortured reduced to a skeleton. He endured all with invincible courage and could not be induced to betray his fellow Catholics. He suffered by the statue of 27 Eliz., merely for being a priest, in Fleet Street, London. His last words were “Absit mihi gloriari nisi in Cruce Domini Nostri Jesu Christi” and, after a pause, “Good people, I beseech God to send all felicity”.

BEDE CAMM

Francesco Antonio Begnudelli-Basso

A canonist who lived at the end of the seventeenth century; died at Freising, 9 October, 1713. From 1675 he was Vicar-General of Trent, his native place. In 1679, however, he held a canonry in the Cathedral of Freising, where also he became in 1696 vicar-general of the diocese, and where he died. His “Bibliotheca juris canonico-civilis practica seu repertoium quaestionum magis practicarum in utroque foro” ranked him among the best canonists of his day. His canonical acumen is especiallynoteworthy, while he speaks in the clearest terms of papal infallibility. The work was published in Freising in 1712, for vols. in folio; Geneva, 1747; Modena and Venice, 1758. It has, however, lost its practical usefulness owing to the later editions of Lucius Ferraris's “Bibliotheca”, which is vastly superior to the work of Begnudelli.

ANDREW B. MEEHAN

Beguines & Beghards

The etymology of the names Beghard and Beguine can only be conjectured. Most likely they are derived from the old Flemish word beghen, in the sense of “to pray”, not “to beg”, for neither of these communities were at any time mendicant orders; maybe from Bega, the patron saint of Nivelles, where, according to a doubtful tradition the first Beguinage was established; maybe, again, from Lambert le Bègue, a priest of Liège who died in 1180, after having expended a fortune in founding in his native town a cloister and church for the widows and orphans of crusaders.

As early as the commencement of the twelfth century there were women in the Netherlands who lived alone, and without taking vows devoted themselves to prayer and good works. At fist there were not many of them, but as the century grew older their numbers increased; it was the age of the Crusades, and the land teemed with desolate women—the raw material for a host of neophytes. These solitaries made their homes not in the forest, where the true hermit loves to dwell, but on the fringe of the town, where their work lay, for they served Christ in His poor. About the beginning of the thirteenth century some of them grouped their cabins together, and the community thus formed was the first Beguinage.

The Beguine could hardly be called a nun; she took no vows, could return to the world and wed if she would, and did no renounce her property If she was without means she neither asked not accepted alms, but supported herself by manual labour, or by teaching the children of burghers. During the time of her novitiate she lived with “the Grand Mistress” of her cloister, but afterwards she had her own dwelling, and, if she could afford it, was attended by her own servants. The same aim in life, kindred pursuits, and community of worship were the ties which bound her to her companions. There was no mother-house, nor common rule, nor common general of the order; every community was complete in itself and fixed its own order of living, though later on many adopted the rule of the Third Order of Saint Francis. These communities were no less varied as to the social status of their members; some of them only admitted ladies of high degree; others were exclusively reserved for persons in humble circumstances; others again opened their doors wide to women of every condition, and these were the most densely peopled. Several, like the great Beguinage of Ghent, numbered their inhabitants by thousands. Such was this semi-monastic institution. Admirably adapted to the spiritual and social needs of the age which produced it, it spread rapidly throughout the land and soon began to exercise a profound influence on the religious life of the people. Each of these institutions was an ardent centre of mysticism, and it was not the monks, who mostly dwelt on the country side, nor even the secular clergy, but the Beguines, the Beghards, and the sons of Saint Francis who moulded the thought of the urban population of the Netherlands. There was a Beguinage at Mechlin as early as 1207, at Brussels in 1245, at Louvain in 1234, at Bruges in 1244, and by the close of the century there was hardly a commune in the Netherlands without its Beguinage, whilst several of the great cities had two or three or even more. Most of these institutions were suppressed during the religious troubles of the fifteen-hundreds or during the stormy years which closed the eighteenth century, but a few convents of Beguines still exist in various parts of Belgium. The most notable are those of Bruges, Mechlin, Louvain, and Ghent, which last numbers nearly a thousand members.

The widespread religious revival of which the Beguinage was the outcome brought forth also about the same time several kindred societies for men. Of these the Beghards were the most widespread and the most important. The Beghards were all of them laymen, and like the Beguines, they were not bound by vows, the rule of life which they observed was not uniform, and the members of each community were subject only to their own local superiors; but, unlike them, they had no private property; the brethren of each cloister had a common purse, dwelt together under one roof, and ate at the same board. They were for the most part, though not always, men of humble origin—weavers, dyers, fullers, and so forth—and thus they were intimately connected with the city craft-guilds. Indeed, no man could be admitted to the Beghards' convent at Brussels unless he were a member of the Weavers' Company, and this was in all probability not a unique case. The Beghards were often men to whom fortune had not been kind—men who had outlived their friends, or whose family ties had been broken by some untoward event, and who, by reason of failing health or advancing years, or perhaps on account of some accident, were unable to stand alone. If, as a recent writer has it, “the medieval towns of the Netherlands found in the Beguinage a solution of their feminine question”, the establishment of these communities afforded them at least a partial solution of another problem which pressed for an answer: the difficult problem of how to deal with the worn-out workingman. Albeit the main object of all these institutions was not a temporal but a spiritual one, they had banded together in the first place to build up the inner man. Nor whilst working out their own salvation were they unmindful of their neighbours in the world, and thanks to their intimate connexion with the craft-guilds, they were able to largely influence the religious life, and to a great extent to mould the religious opinion of the cities and towns of the Netherlands, at all events in the case of the proletariat, during more than two hundred years.

Bearing in mind the wretched and down-trodden class from which the Beghards were generally recruited, and the fact that they were so little trammelled by ecclesiastical control, it is not surprising that the mysticism of some of them presently became a sort of mystical pantheism, or that some of them gradually developed opinions not in harmony with the Catholic Faith, opinions, indeed, if we may trust John Ruysbroek, which seem to have differed little from the religious and political opinions professed by anarchists to-day. The heretical tendencies of the Beghards and Beguines necessitated disciplinary measures, sometimes severe, on the part of ecclesiastical authority. Various restrictions were placed upon them by the Synod of Fritzlar (1259), Mainz (1261), Eichstätt (1282); and they were forbidden as “having no approbation” by the Synod of Béziers (1299). They were condemned by the Council of Vienne (1312), but this sentence was mitigated by John XXII (1321), who permitted the Beguines, as they had mended their ways, to resume their mode of life. The Beghards were more obstinate. During the fourteenth century they were repeatedly condemned by the Holy See, the bishops (notably in Germany), and the Inquisition. It should be noted, on the other hand, that in spite of widespread abuses, men of faith and piety were found among the Beghards. In their behalf Gregory XI (1374-77) and Boniface IX (1394) addressed Bulls to the bishops of Germany and the Netherlands. An echo of the theological errors into which the Beghards fell is found in the doctrine of Quietism.

Nor did the Beghard communities of the Netherlands escape the fate which sooner or later overtakes all human institutions: before the close of the Middle Ages most of them were in full decadence. Not, as so often happens, that their life was crushed out by the weight of gold; though, as time went on, they acquired endowments, they were never rich; they waned with the waning of the cloth trade, and, when that industry died, gradually dwindled away. Their crazy ships were sorely tried by the storm of the fifteen-hundreds; some of them went to the bottom, some weathered its fury, but were so battered that they afterwards sank in still water; a few, somehow or other, managed to keep afloat till the hurricane of the French Revolution at last dashed them to pieces. The highest number of these medieval foundations in Belgium were 94. They were reduced (1734) to 34 and (1856) to 20. Their membership in 1631 was 2,487; in 1828, 1,010; in 1856, about 1,600.

ERNEST GILLIAT-SMITH

Rule of St. Benedict

This work holds the first place among monastic legislative codes, and was by far the most important factor in the organization and spread of monasticism in the West. For its general character and also its illustration of St. Benedict's own life, see the article BENEDICT, SAINT. Here, however, it is treated in more detail, under the following heads:

• I. The Text of the Rule;
• II. Analysis of the Rule;
• III. Practical Working of the Rule.

I. THE TEXT OF THE RULE

The exact time and place at which St. Benedict wrote his Rule are not known, nor can it be determined whether the Rule, as we now possess it, was composed as a single whole or whether it gradually took shape in response to the needs of his monks. Somewhere about 530 however, may be taken as a likely date, and Monte Cassino as a more probable place than Subiaco, for the Rule certainly reflects St. Benedict's matured monastic and spiritual wisdom. The earliest chronicler says that when Monte Cassino was destroyed by the Lombards in 581, the monks fled to Rome, carrying with them, among other treasures, a copy of the Rule “which the holy Father had composed”; and in the middle of the eighth century there was in the pope's library a copy believed to be St. Benedict's autograph. It has been assumed by many scholars that this was the copy brought from Monte Cassino; but though this is likely enough, it is not a certainty. Be that as it may, this manuscript of the Rule was presented by Pope Zachary to Monte Cassino in the middle of the eighth century, a short time after the restoration of that monastery. Charlemagne found it there when he visited Monte Cassino towards the end of the century, and at his request a most careful transcript of it was made for him, as an exemplar of the text to be disseminated throughout the monasteries of his empire. Several copies of the Rule were made from it, one of which survives to this day; for there can be no doubt that the present Codex 914 of the St. Gall Library was copied directly from Charlemagne's copy for the Abby of Reichnau. An exact diplomatic reprint (not in facsimile) of this codex was published at Monte Cassino in 1900, so that the text of this manuscript, certainly the best individual text of the Rule in existence, can be studied without difficulty. Various other manuscripts go back to Charlemagne's manuscript, or to its original at Monte Cassino, which was destroyed by fire in 896, and thus the text of the so-called autograph may be restored by approved critical methods with quite unusual certainty, and could we be certain that it really was the autograph, there would be no more to say.

But as already pointed out, it is not quite certain that it was St. Benedict's autograph, and the case is complicated by the circumstance that there is in the field another type of text, represented by the oldest known manuscript, the Oxford Hatton manuscript 42, and by other very early authorities, which certainly was the text most widely diffused in the seventh and eighth centuries. Whether this text was St. Benedict's first recension and the “autograph” his later revision, or whether the former is but a corrupted form of the latter, is a question which is still under debate, though the majority of critics lean towards the second alternative. In either case, however, the text of the “autograph” is the one to be adopted. The manuscripts, from the tenth century onwards, and the ordinary printed editions, give mixed texts, made up out of the two earliest types. Thus the text in current use is critically a bad one, but very few of the readings make any substantial difference.

The Rule was written in the Lingua Vulgaris or Low Latin vernacular of the time, and contains much syntax and orthography not in conformance with the classical models. There is as yet no edition of the Rule that satisfies the requirements of modern criticism, though one is in process of preparation for the Vienna “Corpus” of Latin Ecclesiastical writers. A sufficiently good manual edition was published by Dom Edmund Schmidt. of Metten, at Ratisbon in 1892, presenting in substance the text of St. Gall manuscript, with the Low Latin element eliminated.

The number of commentators on the rule is legion. Calmet gives a list of over a hundred and thirty such writers, and Ziegelbauer gives a similar list. The earliest commentary, in point of date, is that which has been variously ascribed to Paul Warnefrid (a monk of Monte Cassino about 780-799), Hildemar, Ruthard of Hirsau, and others. Hildemar, a Gallic monk, brought to Italy by Angelbert, Archbishop of Milan, reformed the monastery of Sts. Faustinus and Jovita at Brescia and died in 840. Martène, who considered this commentary to be the best ever produced, maintained that Hildemar was its real author, but modern critics attribute it to Paul Warnefrid. Amongst other commentators the following deserve mention: St. Hildegard (d. 1178), the foundress and first Abbess of Mount St. Rupert, near Bingen on the Rhine, who held that St. Benedict's prohibition of flesh-meat did not include that of birds; Bernard, Abbot of Monte Cassino, formerly of Lérins and afterwards a Cardinal (d. 1282); Turrecremata (Torquemada) a Dominican (1468); Trithemius, Abbot of Sponheim (1516); Perez, Archbishop of Tarragona and Superior-General of the congregation of Valladolid; Haeften, Prior of Afflighem (1648); Stengel, Abbot of Anhausen (1663); Mège (1691) and Martène (1739) Maurists; Calmet, Abbot of Senones (1757); and Mabillon (1707), who discusses at length several portions of the Rule in his Prefaces to the different volumes of the “Acta Sanctorum O.S.B.”

It is impossible to gauge the comparative value of these and other commentaries, because the different authors treat the Rule from different points of view. That of Calmet is perhaps the most literal and exhaustive on many important points; those of Martène and Haeften are mines of information regarding monastic tradition: Perez and Mège are practical and pious, though the latter has been considered lax in many of the views maintained; that of Turrecremata is useful as treating the Rule from the standpoint of moral theology; and others give mystical interpretations of its contents. It may be pointed out that in studying the Rule as a practical code of monastic legislation, it is necessary to facilitate uniformity of observance, each congregation of the order has its own constitutions, approved by the Holy See, by which are regulated many of the matters of detail not touched upon by the Rule itself.

Before proceeding to analyze St. Benedict's Rule and to discuss its leading characteristics, something must be said about the monasticism that preceded his times, and out of which his system grew, in order that some idea may be gained as to how much of the Rule was borrowed from his precursors and how much was due to his own initiative. Such considerations are important because there is no doubt whatever that the introduction and propagation of St. Benedict's Rule was the turning-point which changed the whole trend of monasticism in the West.

The earliest forms of Christian monachism were characterized by their extreme austerity and by their more or less eremetical nature. In Egypt, the followers of St. Anthony were purely eremetical, whilst those who followed the Rule of St. Pachomius, though they more nearly approached the cenobitical ideal, were yet without that element of stability insisted upon by St. Benedict, viz: the “common life” and family spirit. Under the Antonian system the austerities of the monks were left entirely to their own discretion; under the Pachomian, though there was an obligatory rule of limited severity, the monks were free to add to it what other ascetical practices they chose. And in both, the prevailing idea was that they were spiritual athletes, and as such they rivaled each other in austerity. Syrian and strictly Oriental monasticism need not be considered here, as it had no direct influence on that of Europe. When St. Basil (fourth century) organized Greek monasticism, he set himself against the eremetical life and insisted upon a community life, with meals, work, and prayer, all in common. With him the practice of austerity, unlike that of the Egyptians, was to be subject to control of the superior, for he considered that to wear out the body by austerities so as to make it unfit for work, was a misconception of the Scriptural precept of penance and mortification. His idea of the monastic life was the result of the contact of primitive ideas, as existing in Egypt and the East, with European culture and modes of thought.

Monasticism came into Western Europe from Egypt. In Italy, as also in Gaul, it was chiefly Antonian in character, though both the rules of St. Basil and St. Pachomius were translated into Latin and doubtless made their influence felt. As far as we know, each monastery had practically its own rule, and we have examples of this irresponsible form of monastic life in the community St. Benedict was called from his cave to govern, and in the Gyrovagi and Sarabitae whom he mentions in terms of condemnation in the first chapter of his Rule. A proof that the pervading spirit of Italian monachism was Egyptian lies in the fact that when St. Benedict determined to forsake the world and become a monk, he adopted, almost as a matter of course, the life of a solitary in a cave. His familiarity with the rules and other documents bearing upon the life of the Egyptian monks is shown by his legislating for the daily reading of the “Conferences” of Cassian, and by his recommendation (c. 73) of the “Institutes” and “Lives” of the Fathers and the Rule of St. Basil.

When, therefore, St. Benedict came to write his own Rule for the monasteries he had founded, he embodied in it the result of his own mature experience and observation. He had himself lived the life of a solitary after the most extreme Egyptian pattern, and in his first communities he had no doubt thoroughly tested the prevailing type of monastic rule. Being fully cognizant, therefore, of the unsuitability of much in the Egyptian systems to the times and circumstances in which he lived, he now struck out on a new line, and instead of attempting to revivify the old forms of asceticism, he consolidated the cenobitical life, emphasized the family spirit, and discouraged all private venture in austerities. His Rule thus consists of a carefully considered combination of old and new ideas; rivalry in austerity was eliminated, and there was to be henceforth a sinking of the individual in the community. In adapting a system essentially Eastern, to Western conditions, St. Benedict gave it coherence, stability, and organization, and the verdict of history is unanimous in applauding the results of such adaptation.

II. ANALYSIS OF THE RULE

Of the seventy-three chapters comprising the Rule, nine treat of the duties of the abbot, thirteen regulate the worship of God, twenty-nine are concerned with discipline and the penal code, ten refer to the internal administration of the monastery, and the remaining twelve consist of miscellaneous regulations.

The Rule opens with a prologue or hortatory preface, in which St. Benedict sets forth the main principles of the religious life, viz.: the renunciation of one's own will and the taking up of arms under the banner of Christ. He proposes to establish a “school” in which the science of salvation shall be taught, so that by persevering in the monastery till death his disciples may “deserve to become partakers of Christ's kingdom”.

• In Chapter 1 are defined the four principle kinds of monks: (1) Cenobites, those living in a monastery under an abbot; (2) Anchorites, or hermits, living a solitary life after long probation in the monastery; (3) Sarabites, living by twos and threes together, without any fixed rule or lawfully constituted superior; and (4) Gyrovagi, a species of monastic vagrants, whose lives spent in wandering from one monastery to another, only served to bring discredit on the monastic profession. It is for the first of these classes, as the most stable kind, that the Rule is written.
• Chapter 2 describes the necessary qualifications of an abbot and forbids him to make distinction of persons in the monastery except for particular merit, warning him at the same time that he will be answerable for the salvation of the souls committed to his care.
• Chapter 3 ordains the calling of the brethren to council upon all affairs of importance to the community.
• Chapter 4 summarizes the duties of the Christian life under seventy-two precepts, which are called “instruments of good works” and are mainly Scriptural either in letter or in spirit.
• Chapter 5 prescribes prompt, cheerful, and absolute obedience to the superior in all things lawful, which obedience is called the first degree of humility.
• Chapter 6 deals with silence, recommending moderation in the use of speech, but by no means prohibiting profitable or necessary conversation.
• Chapter 7 treats of humility, which virtue is divided into twelve degrees or steps in the ladder that leads to heaven. They are: (1) fear of God; (2) repression of self-will; (3) submission of the will to superiors; (4) obedience in hard and difficult matters; (5) confession of faults; (6) acknowledgment of one's own worthlessness; (7) preference of others to self; (8) avoidance of singularity; (9) speaking only in due season; (10) stifling of unseemly laughter; (11) repression of pride; (12) exterior humility.
• Chapters 9-19 are occupied with the regulation of the Divine Office, the opus Dei to which “nothing is to be preferred”, or Canonical Hours, seven of the day and one of the night. Detailed arrangements are made as to the number of Psalms, etc., to be recited in winter and summer, on Sundays, weekdays, Holy Days, and at other times.
• Chapter 19 emphasizes the reverence due to the presence of God.
• Chapter 20 directs that prayer in common be short.
• Chapter 21 provides for the appointment of deans over every ten monks, and prescribes the manner in which they are to be chosen.
• Chapter 22 regulates all matters relating to the dormitory, as, for example, that each monk is to have a separate bed and is to sleep in his habit, so as to be ready to rise without delay, and that a light shall burn in the dormitory throughout the night.
• Chapter 23-30 deal with offences against the Rule and a graduated scale of penalties is provided: first, private admonition; next, public reproof; then separation from the brethren at meals and elsewhere; then scourging; and finally expulsion; though this last is not to be resorted to until every effort to reclaim the offender has failed. And even in this last case, the outcast must be received again, should he so desire, but after the third expulsion all return is finally barred.
• Chapter 31 and 32 order the appointment of a cellarer and other officials, to take charge of the various goods of the monastery, which are to be treated with as much care as the consecrated vessels of the altar.
• Chapter 33 forbids the private possession of anything without the leave of the abbot, who is, however, bound to supply all necessaries.
• Chapter 34 prescribes a just distribution of such things.
• Chapter 35 arranges for the service in the kitchen by all monks in turn.
• Chapter 36 and 37 order due care for the sick, the old, and the young. They are to have certain dispensations from the strict Rule, chiefly in the matter of food.
• Chapter 38 prescribes reading aloud during meals, which duty is to be performed by such of the brethren, week by week, as can do so with edification to the rest. Signs are to be used for whatever may be wanted at meals, so that no voice shall interrupt that of the reader. The reader is to have his meal with the servers after the rest have finished, but he is allowed a little food beforehand in order to lessen the fatigue of reading.
• Chapter 39 and 40 regulate the quantity and quality of the food. Two meals a day are allowed and two dished of cooked food at each. A pound of bread also and a hemina (probably about half a pint) of wine for each monk. Flesh-meat is prohibited except for the sick and the weak, and it is always within the abbot's power to increase the daily allowance when he sees fit.
• Chapter 41 prescribes the hours of the meals, which are to vary according to the time of year.
• Chapter 42 enjoins the reading of the “Conferences” of Cassian or some other edifying book in the evening before Compline and orders that after Compline the strictest silence shall be observed until the following morning.
• Chapters 43-46 relate to minor faults, such as coming late to prayer or meals, and impose various penalties for such transgressions.
• Chapter 47 enjoins on the abbot the duty of calling the brethren to the “world of God” in choir, and of appointing those who are to chant or read.
• Chapter 48 emphasizes the importance of manual labour and arranges time to be devoted to it daily. This varies according to the season, but is apparently never less than about five hours a day. The times at which the lesser of the “day-hours” (Prime, Terce, Sext, and None) are to be recited control the hours of labour somewhat, and the abbot is instructed not only to see that all work, but also that the employments of each are suited to their respective capacities.
• Chapter 49 treats of the observance of Lent, and recommends some voluntary self-denial for that season, with the abbot's sanction.
• Chapters 50 and 51 contain rules for monks who are working in the fields or traveling. They are directed to join in spirit, as far as possible, with their brethren in the monastery at the regular hours of prayers.
• Chapter 52 commands that the oratory be used for purposes of devotion only.
• Chapter 53 is concerned with the treatment of guests, who are to be received “as Christ Himself”. This Benedictine hospitality is a feature which has in all ages been characteristic of the order. The guests are to be met with due courtesy by the abbot or his deputy, and during their stay they are to be under the special protection of a monk appointed for the purpose, but they are not to associate with the rest of the community except by special permission.
• Chapter 54 forbids the monks to receive letters or gifts without the abbot's leave.
• Chapter 55 regulates the clothing of the monks. It is to be sufficient in both quantity and quality and to be suited to the climate and locality, according to the discretion of the abbot, but at the same time it must be as plain and cheap as is consistent with due economy. Each monk is to have a change of garments, to allow for washing, and when traveling shall be supplied with clothes of rather better quality. The old habits are to be put aside for the poor.
• Chapter 56 directs that the abbot shall take his meals with the guests.
• Chapter 57 enjoins humility on the craftsmen of the monastery, and if their work is for sale, it shall be rather below than above the current trade price.
• Chapter 58 lays down rules for the admission of new members, which is not to be made too easy. These matters have since been regulated by the Church, but in the main St. Benedict's outline is adhered to. The postulant first spends a short time as a guest; then he is admitted to the novitiate, where under the care of a novice-master, his vocation is severely tested; during this time he is always free to depart. If after twelve month' probation, he still persevere, he may be admitted to the vows of Stability, Conversion of Life, and Obedience, by which he binds himself for life to the monastery of his profession.
• Chapter 59 allows the admission of boys to the monastery under certain conditions.
• Chapter 60 regulates the position of priests who may desire to join the community. They are charged with setting an example of humility to all, and can only exercise their priestly functions by permission of the abbot.
• Chapter 61 provides for the reception of strange monks as guests, and for their admission if desirous of joining the community.
• Chapter 62 lays down that precedence in the community shall be determined by the date of admission, merit of life, or the appointment of the abbot.
• Chapter 64 orders that the abbot be elected by his monks and that he be chosen for his charity, zeal, and discretion.
• Chapter 65 allows the appointment of a provost, or prior, if need be, but warns such a one that he is to be entirely subject to the abbot and may be admonished, deposed, or expelled for misconduct.
• Chapter 66 provides for the appointment of a porter, and recommends that each monastery should be, if possible, self-contained, so as to avoid the need of intercourse with the outer world.
• Chapter 67 gives instruction as to the behavior of a monk who is sent on a journey.
• Chapter 68 orders that all shall cheerfully attempt to do whatever is commanded them, however hard it may seem.
• Chapter 69 forbids the monks to defend one another.
• Chapter 70 prohibits them from striking one another.
• Chapter 71 encourages the brethren to be obedient not only to the abbot and his officials, but also to one another.
• Chapter 72 is a brief exhortation to zeal and fraternal charity
• Chapter 73 is an epilogue declaring that this Rule is not offered as an ideal of perfection, but merely as a means towards godliness and is intended chiefly for beginners in the spiritual life.

Characteristics of the Rule

In considering the leading characteristics of this Holy Rule, the first that must strike the reader is its wonderful discretion and moderation, its extreme reasonableness, and its keen insight into the capabilities as well as the weaknesses of human nature. Here are no excesses, no extraordinary asceticism, no narrow-mindedness, but rather a series of sober regulations based on sound common-sense. We see these qualities displayed in the deliberate elimination of austerities and in the concessions made with regard to what the monks of Egypt would have looked upon as luxuries. A few comparisons between the customs of these latter and the prescriptions of St. Benedict's Rule will serve to bring out more clearly the extent of his changes in this direction.

With regard to food, the Egyptian ascetics reduced it to a minimum, many of them eating only twice or thrice a week, whilst Cassian describes a meal consisting of parched vetches with salt and oil. three olives, two prunes, and a fig, as a “sumptuous repast” (Coll. vii, 1). St. Benedict, on the other hand, though he restricts the use of flesh-meat to the sick, orders a pound of bread daily and two dishes of cooked food at each meal, of which there were two in summer and one in winter. And he concedes also an allowance of wine, though admitting that it should not properly be the drink of monks (Chapter 40). As to clothing, St. Benedict's provision that habits were to fit, to be sufficiently warm, and not too old, was in great contrast to the poverty of the Egyptian monks, whose clothes, Abbot Pambo laid down, should be so poor that if left on the road no one would be tempted to take them (Apophthegmata, in P.G. LXV, 369). In the matter of sleep, whereas the solitaries of Egypt regarded diminution as one of their most valued forms of austerity, St. Benedict ordered from six to eight hours of unbroken sleep a day, with the addition of a siesta in summer. The Egyptian monks, moreover, often slept on the bare ground, with stones or mats for pillows, and often merely sitting or merely reclining, as directed in the Pachomian Rule, whilst Abbot John was unable to mention without shame the finding of a blanket in a hermit's cell (Cassian, Coll. xix, 6). St. Benedict, however, allowed not only a blanket but also a coverlet, a mattress, and a pillow to each monk. This comparative liberality with regard to the necessaries of life, though plain and meagre perhaps, if tested by modern notions of comfort, was far greater than amongst the Italian poor of the sixth century or even amongst many of the European peasantry at the present day. St. Benedict's aim seems to have been to keep the bodies of his monks in a healthy condition by means of proper clothing, sufficient food, and ample sleep, so that they might thereby be more fit for the due performance of the Divine Office and be freed from all that distracting rivalry in asceticism which has already been mentioned. There was, however, no desire to lower the ideal or to minimize the self-sacrifice that the adoption of the monastic life entailed, but rather the intention of bringing it into line with the altered circumstances of Western environment, which necessarily differed much from those of Egypt and the East. The wisdom and skill with which he did this is evident in every page of the Rule, so much so that Bossuet was able to call it “an epitome of Christianity, a learned and mysterious abridgement of all the doctrines of the Gospel, all the institutions of the Fathers, and all the Counsels of Perfection”.

St. Benedict perceived the necessity for a permanent and uniform rule of government in place of the arbitrary and variable choice of models furnished by the lives and maxims of the Fathers of the Desert. And so we have the characteristic of collectivism, exhibited in his insistence on the common life, as opposed to the individualism of the Egyptian monks. One of the objects he had in view in writing his Rule was the extirpation of the Sarabites and Gyrovagi, whom he so strongly condemns in his first chapter and of whose evil lives he had probably had painful experience during his early days at Subiaco. To further this aim he introduced the vow of Stability, which becomes the guarantee of success and permanence. It is only another example of the family idea that pervaded the entire Rule, by means of which the members of the community are bound together by a family tie, and each takes upon himself the obligation of persevering in his monastery until death, unless sent elsewhere by his superiors. It secures to the community as a whole, and to every member of it individually, a share in all the fruits that may arise from the labours of each monk, and it gives to each of them that strength and vitality which necessarily result from being one of a united family, all bound in a similar way and all pursuing the same end. Thus, whatever the monk does, he does it not as an independent individual but as part of a larger organization, and the community itself thus becomes one united whole rather than a mere agglomeration of independent members. The vow of Conversion of Life indicates the personal striving after perfection that must be the aim of every Benedictine monk. All the legislation of the Rule, the constant repression of self, the conforming of one's every action to a definite standard, and the continuance of this form of life to the end of one's days, is directed towards “putting off the old man and putting on the new”, and thereby accomplishing the conversio morum which is inseparable from a life-long perseverance in the maxims of the Rule. The practice of obedience is a necessary feature in St. Benedict's idea of the religious life, if not indeed its very essence. Not only is a special chapter of the Rule devoted to it, but it is repeatedly referred to as a guiding principle in the life of the monk; so essentials it that it is the subject of a special vow in every religious institute, Benedictine or otherwise. In St. Benedict's eyes it is one of the positive works to which the monk binds himself, for he calls it labor obedientiae (Prologue). It is to be cheerful, unquestioning, and prompt; to the abbot chiefly, who is to be obeyed as holding the place of Christ, and also to all the brethren according to the dictates of fraternal charity, as being “the path that leads to God” (Chapter 71). It is likewise extended to hard and even impossible things, the latter being at least attempted in all humility. In connexion with the question of obedience there is the further question as to the system of government embodied in the Rule. The life of the community centres round the abbot as the father of the family. Much latitude with regard to details is left to “discretion and judgement”, but this power, so far from being absolute or unlimited, is safeguarded by the obligation laid upon him of consulting the brethren - either the seniors only or else the entire community - upon all matters affecting their welfare. And on the other hand, wherever there seems to be a certain amount of liberty left to the monks themselves, this, in turn, is protected against indiscretion by the repeated insistence on the necessity for the abbot's sanction and approval. The vows of Poverty and Chastity, though not explicitly mentioned by St. Benedict, as in the rules of other orders, are yet implied so clearly as to form an indisputable and essential part of the life for which he legislates. Thus by means of the vows and the practice of the various virtues necessary to their proper observance, it will be seen that St. Benedict's Rule contains not merely a series of laws regulating the external details of monastic life, but also all the principles of perfection according to the Evangelical Counsels.

With regard to the obligation or binding power of the Rule, we must distinguish between the statutes or precepts and the counsels. By the former would be meant those laws which either command or prohibit in an absolute manner, and by the latter those that are merely recommendations. It is generally held by commentators that the precepts of the Rule bind only under the penalty of venial sin, and the counsels not even under that. Really grave transgressions against the vows, on the other hand, would fall under the category of mortal sins. It must be remembered, however, that in all these matters the principles of moral theology, canon law, the decisions of the Church, and the regulations of the Constitutions of the different congregations must be taken into consideration in judging of any particular case.

III. PRACTICAL WORKING OF THE RULE

No higher testimony as to the inherent excellencies of the Rule can be adduced than the results it has achieved in Western Europe and elsewhere; and no more striking quality is exhibited by it than by its adaptability to the ever-changing requirements of time and place since St. Benedict's days. Its enduring character is the highest testimony to its wisdom. For fourteen centuries it has been the guiding light of a numerous family of religious, men and women, and it is a living code at the present day, just as it was a thousand years ago. Though modified and adapted, from time to time, to suit the peculiar necessities and conditions of various ages and countries, by reason of its wonderful elasticity its principles still remain the same, and it has formed the fundamental basis of a great variety of other religious bodies. It has merited the encomiums of councils, popes, and commentators, and its vitality is as vigorous at the present time as it was in the ages of faith. Though it was no part of St. Benedict's design that his spiritual descendants should make a figure in the world as authors or statesmen, as preservers of pagan literature, as pioneers of civilization, as revivers of agriculture, or as builders of castles and cathedrals, yet circumstances brought them into all these spheres. His sole idea was the moral and spiritual training of his disciples, and yet in carrying this out he made the cloister a school of useful workers, a real refuge for society, and a solid bulwark of the Church (Dudden, Gregory the Great, II, ix). The Rule, instead of restricting the monk to one particular form of work, makes it possible for him to do almost any kind of work, and that in a manner spiritualized and elevated above the labour of merely secular craftsmen. In this lies one of the secrets of its success.

The results of the fulfilment of the precepts of the Rule are abundantly apparent in history. That of manual labour, for instance, which St. Benedict laid down as absolutely essential for his monks, produced many of the architectural triumphs which are the glory of the Christian world. Many cathedrals (especially in England), abbeys, and churches, scattered up and down the countries of Western Europe, were the work of Benedictine builders and architects. The cultivation of the soil, encouraged by St. Benedict, was another form of labour to which his followers gave themselves without reserve and with conspicuous success, do that many regions have owed much of their agricultural prosperity to the skillful husbandry of the sons of St. Benedict. The hours ordered by the Rule to be devoted daily to systematic reading and study, have given to the world many of the foremost scholars and writers, so that the term “Benedictine erudition” has been for long centuries a byword indicative of the learning and laborious research fostered in the Benedictine cloister. The regulations regarding the reception and education of children, moreover, were the germ from which sprang up a great number of famous monastic schools and universities which flourished in the Middle Ages.

It is true that as communities became rich and consequently less dependent upon their own labours for support, the primitive fervour for the Rule diminished, and for this reason charges of corruption and absolute departure from monastic ideals have been made against monks. But, although it is impossible to deny that the many reforms that were initiated seem to give colour to this view, it cannot be admitted that the Benedictine Institute, as a whole, ever became really degenerate or fell away seriously from the ideal established by its legislator. Individual failures there certainly were, as well as mitigations of rule, from time to time, but the loss of fervour in one particular monastery no more compromises all the other monasteries of the same country than the faults of one individual monk reflect necessarily upon the rest of the community to which he belongs. So, whilst admitting that the rigour of the Rule has varied at different times and in different places, we must, on the other hand, remember that modern historical research has entirely exonerated the monastic body as a whole from the charge of a general departure from the principles of the Rule and a widespread corruption of either ideal or practice. Circumstances have often rendered mitigations necessary but they have always been introduced as such and not as new or better interpretations of the Rule itself. The fact that the Benedictines still glory in their Rule, guard it with jealousy, and point to it as the exemplar according to which they are endeavouring to model their lives, is in itself the strongest proof that they are still imbued with its spirit, though recognizing its latitude of application and its adaptability to various conditions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MONTALAMBERT, Monks of the West (Tr., London, 1896), IV; TOSTI, St. Benedict, tr. Woods (London, 1896); DOYLE, The Teaching of St. Benedict (London,1887); DUDDEN, Gregory the Great (London, 1905); BUTLER Lausiac History of Palladius, Introd., XIX in Cambridge Texts and Studies (Cambridge, 1898); IDEM, The Text of St. Benedict's Rule, in Downside Review, XVII, 223; and in Journal of Theol. Studies, III, 458; BESSE, Le Moine Bénédictine (Ligué], 1898); HAEFTEN, Disquisitiones Monasticae (Antwerp, 1644); SCHMIDT, Regula Scti. Benedicit (Rtatisbon, 1880, 1892); WOELFFLIN, Benedicti Regula Monachorum (Leipzig, 1895); TRAUBE, Textgeschicte der Regula S. Benedicti (Munich 1898).
COMMENTARIES: WARNEFRID (Monte Cassino, 1880); MÈGE (Paris, 1687); MARTÈNE (Paris, 1690); also in P.L. LXVI; CALMET (Paris, 1734); MABILLON, Prefaces to Acta Sanctorum O.S.B. (Venice, 1733).
ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE RULE: ANONYMOUS (Ramsgate, 1872; Rome, 1895); DOYLE, ed. (London, 1875); VERHEYEN (Atchison, Kansas, 1906); HUNTER-BLAIR (Fort Augustus, Scotland, 1906).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON
In Memory of Clifford A Gordon

St. Benedict Joseph Labre

Born 26 March, 1748 at Amettes in the Diocese of Boulogne, France; d. in Rome 16 April, 1783. He was the eldest of fifteen children. His parents, Jean-Baptiste Labre and Anne-Barba Grandsire, belonged to the middle class and so were able to give to their numerous off spring considerable opportunities in the way of education. His early training he received in his native village in a school conducted by the vicar of the parish. The account of this period furnished in the life written by his confessor, Marconi, and that contained in the one compiled from the official processes of his beatification are at one in emphasizing the fact that he exhibited a seriousness of thought and demeanor far beyond his years. Even at that tender age he had begun to show a marked predilection for the spirit of mortification, with an aversion for the ordinary childish amusements, and he seems from the very dawning of reason to have had the liveliest horror for even the smallest sin. All this we are told was coexistent with a frank and open demeanor and a fund of cheerfulness which remained unabated to the end of his life. At the age of twelve his education was taken over by his paternal uncle, François-Joseph Labre, curé of Erin, With whom he then went to live. During the six following years which he spent under his uncle's roof, he made considerable progress in the study of Latin, history, etc. but found himself unable to conquer a constantly growing distaste for any form of knowledge which did not make directly for union with God. A love of solitude, a generous employment of austerities and devotedness to his religious exercises were discernible as distinguishing features of his life at this time and constitute an intelligible prelude to his subsequent career. At the age of sixteen he resolved to embrace a religious life as a Trappist, but having on the advice of his uncle returned to Amettes to submit his design to his parents for their approval he was unable to win their consent. He therefore resumed his sojourn in the rectory at Erin, redoubling his penances and exercises of piety and in every way striving to make ready for the life of complete self-annihilation to which the voice within his soul seemed to be calling him. After the heroic death of his uncle during an epidemic in September, 1766, Benedict, who had dedicated himself during the scourge to the service of the sick and dying, returned to Amettes in November of the same year. His absorbing thought at this time was still to become a religious at La Trappe, and his parents fearing that further opposition would be resistance to the will of God fell in with his proposal to enter the cloister. It was suggested, how ever, by his maternal uncle, the Abbé Vincent, that application be made to the Carthusians at Val-Sainte-Aldegonde rather than to La Trappe. Benedict's petition at Val-Sainte-Aldegonde was unsuccessful but he was directed to another monastery of the same order at Neuville. There he was told that as he was not yet twenty there was no hurry, and that he must first learn plain-chant and logic. During the next two years he applied twice unsuccessfully to be received at La Trappe and was for six weeks as a postulant with the Carthusians at Neuville, he finally sought and obtained admission to the Cistercian Abbey of Sept-Fonts in November, 1769. After a short stay at Sept-Fonts during which his exactness in religious observance and humility endeared him to the whole community, his health gave way, and it was decided that his vocation lay elsewhere. In accordance with a resolve formed during his convalescence he then set out for Rome. From Chieri in Piedmont he wrote to his parents a letter which proved to be the last they would ever receive from him. In it he informed them of his design to enter some one of the many monasteries in Italy noted for their special rigor of life. A short time, however, after the letter was dispatched he seems to have had an internal illumination which set at rest forever any doubts he might have as to what his method of living was to be. He then understood “that it was God's will that like St. Alexis he should abandon his country, his parents, and whatever is flattering in the world to lead a new sort of life, a life most painful, most penitential, not in a wilderness nor in a cloister, but in the midst of the world, devoutly visiting as a pilgrim the famous places of Christian devotion “. He repeatedly submitted this extraordinary inspiration to the judgment of experienced confessors and was told he might safely conform to it. Through the years that followed he never wavered in the conviction that this u as the path appointed for him by God. He set forward on his life's journey clad in an old coat, a rosary about his neck, another between his fingers, his arms folded over a crucifix which lay upon his breast. In a small wallet he carried a Testament, a breviary, which it was his wont to recite daily, a copy of the “Imitation of Christ”, and some other pious books Clothing other than that which covered his person he had none. He slept on the ground and for t he most part in the open air. For food he was satisfied with a piece of bread or some herbs, frequently taken but once a day, and either provided by charity or gotten from some refuse heap. He never asked for alms and was anxious to give away to the poor whatever he received in excess of his scanty wants. The first seven of the thirteen remaining years of his life were spent in pilgrimages to the more famous shrines of Europe. He visited in this way Loreto, Assisi, Naples, Bari, Fabriano in Italy; Einsiedeln in Switzerland; Compostella in Spain; Parav-le-Monial in France. The last six years he spent in Rome, leaving it only once a year to visit the Holy House of Loreto. His unremitting and ruthless self-denial, his unaffected humility, unhesitating obedience and perfect spirit of union with God in prayer disarmed suspicion not unnaturally aroused as to the genuineness of a Divine call to so extraordinary a way of existence. Literally worn out by his sufferings and austerities, on the 16th of April 1783, he sank down on the steps of the church of Santa Maria dei Monti in Rome and, utterly exhausted, was carried to a neighboring house where he died. His death was followed by a multitude of unequivocal miracles attributed to his intercession. The life written by his confessor, Marconi, an English version of which bears the date of 1785, witnesses to 136 miraculous cures as having been certified to up to 6 July, 1783. So remarkable, indeed, was the character of the evidence for some of the miracles that they are said to have had no inconsiderable part in finally determining the conversion of the celebrated American convert, Father John Thayer, of Boston who was in Rome at the time of the saint's death. Benedict was proclaimed Venerable by Pius IX in 1859 and canonized by Leo XIII 8 December, 1881. His feast is kept on the 16th of April, the day of his death.

Biog. Univ. (Paris, 1811-28); Biog. Eccles. Completa (Madrid, l857); Life of Venerable Benedict Joseph Labre, French tr., BARNARD (London, 1785); Life of the Venerable Servant of God, Benedict Joseph Labre (Oratorian Series, London, 1850).

JOSEPH F. DELANY

The Benedictus (Canticle of Zachary)

Given in Luke 1:68-79, is one of the three great canticles in the opening chapters of this Gospel, the other two being the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis. The Benedictus was the song of thanksgiving uttered by Zachary on the occasion of the birth of his son, St. John the Baptist. It is Jewish in form, but Christian in sentiment. The local colouring and nationalistic character of the first half are so noticeable that Loisy has conjectured that it existed previously as a simple psalm, which Zachary adapted, his additions being, he contends, easily discernible. (Revue d'hist. et de lit. relig., May-June, 1903, p. 289). There are, however, grave objections to this view, and an opposite theory has been put forth that the Benedictus was composed with special reference to the names of Elizabeth, Zachary, and John, for Elizabeth, Jusjurandum quod juravit; Zachary, Memorari (testamenti sui sancti); and John, Ad faciendam misericordiam.

The whole canticle naturally falls into two parts. The first (verses 68-75) is a song of thanksgiving for the realization of the Messianic hopes of the Jewish nation; but to such realization is given a characteristically Christian tone. As of old, in the family of David, there was power to defend the nation against their enemies, now again that of which they had been so long deprived, and for which they had been yearning, was to be restored to them, but in a higher and spiritual sense. The horn is a sign of power, and the “horn of salvation” signified the power of delivering or “a mighty deliverance”. While the Jews had impatiently borne the yoke of the Romans, they had continually sighed for the time when the House of David was to be their deliverer. The deliverance was now at hand, and was pointed to by Zachary as the fulfilment of God's oath to Abraham; but the fulfilment is described as a deliverance not for the sake of worldly power, but that “we may serve him without fear, in holiness and justice all our days”.

The second part of the canticle is an address by Zachary to his own son, who was to take so important a part in the scheme of the Redemption; for he was to be a prophet, and to preach the remission of sins before the coming or the Orient, or Dawn, from on high. The prophecy that he was to “go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways” (v. 76) was of course an allusion to the well-known words of Isaias (xl, 3) which St. John himself afterwards applied to his own mission (John, i, 23); and which all the three Synoptics adopt (Matt., iii, 3; Mark, i, 2; Luke, iii, 4). It is probably due to the first part of the canticle, as a song of thanksgiving for the coming of the Redeemer, that it finds an appropriate place in the office of the Church every morning at Lauds. It is believed to have been first introduced by St. Benedict (Beaume, I, 253). According to Durandus, the allusion to Christ's coming under the figure of the rising sun had also some influence on its adoption. It is also used in various other liturgical offices, notably at a funeral, at the moment of interment, when words of thanksgiving for the Redemption are specially in place as an expression of Christian hope.

BERNARD WARD

St. Bernard of Clairvaux

Born in 1090, at Fontaines, near Dijon. France; died at Clairvaux, 21 August, 1153. His parents were Tescelin, lord of Fontaines, and Aleth of Montbard, both belonging to the highest nobility of Burgundy. Bernard, the third of a family of seven children, six of whom were sons, was educated with particular care, because, while yet unborn, a devout man had foretold his great destiny. At the age of nine years, Bernard was sent to a much renowned school at Chatillon-sur-Seine, kept by the secular canons of Saint-Vorles. He had a great taste for literature and devoted himself for some time to poetry. His success in his studies won the admiration of his masters, and his growth in virtue was no less marked. Bernard's great desire was to excel in literature in order to take up the study of Sacred Scripture, which later on became, as it were, his own tongue. “Piety was his all,” says Bossuet. He had a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin, and there is no one who speaks more sublimely of the Queen of Heaven. Bernard was scarcely nineteen years of age when his mother died. During his youth, he did not escape trying temptations, but his virtue triumphed over them, in many instances in a heroic manner, and from this time he thought of retiring from the world and living a life of solitude and prayer.

St. Robert, Abbot of Molesmes, had founded, in 1098, the monastery of Cîteaux, about four leagues from Dijon, with the purpose of restoring the Rule of St. Benedict in all its rigour. Returning to Molesmes, he left the government of the new abbey to St. Alberic, who died in the year 1109. St. Stephen had just succeeded him (1113) as third Abbot of Cîteaux, when Bernard with thirty young noblemen of Burgundy, sought admission into the order. Three years later, St. Stephen sent the young Bernard, at the head of a band of monks, the third to leave Cîteaux, to found a new house at Vallée d'Absinthe, or Valley of Bitterness, in the Diocese of Langres. This Bernard named Claire Vallée, of Clairvaux, on the 25th of June, 1115, and the names of Bernard and Clairvaux thence became inseparable. During the absence of the Bishop of Langres, Bernard was blessed as abbot by William of Champeaux, Bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne, who saw in him the predestined man, servum Dei. From that moment a strong friendship sprang up between the abbot and the bishop, who was professor of theology at Notre Dame of Paris, and the founder of the cloister of St. Victor.

The beginnings of Clairvaux were trying and painful. The regime was so austere that Bernard's health was impaired by it, and only the influence of his friend William of Champeaux, and the authority of the General Chapter could make him mitigate his austerities. The monastery, however, made rapid progress. Disciples flocked to it in great numbers, desirous of putting themselves under the direction of Bernard. His father, the aged Tescelin, and all his brothers entered Clairvaux as religious, leaving only Humbeline, his sister, in the world and she, with the consent of her husband, soon took the veil in the Benedictine Convent of Jully. Clairvaux becoming too small for the religious who crowded there, it was necessary to send out bands to found new houses. n 1118, the Monastery of the Three Fountains was founded in the Diocese of Châlons; in 1119, that of Fontenay in the Diocese of Auton (now Dijon) and in 1121, that of Foigny, near Veirins, in the Diocese of Lain (now Soisson), Notwithstanding this prosperity, the Abbot of Clairvaux had his trials. During an absence from Clairvaux, the Grand Prior of Cluny, Bernard of Uxells, sent by the Prince of Priors, to use the expression of Bernard, went to Clairvaux and enticed away the abbot's cousin, Robert of Châtillon. This was the occasion of the longest, and most touching of Bernard's letters.

In the year 1119, Bernard was present at the first general chapter of the order convoked by Stephen of Cîteaux. Though not yet thirty years old, Bernard was listened to with the greatest attention and respect, especially when he developed his thoughts upon the revival of the primitive spirit of regularity and fervour in all the monastic orders. It was this general chapter that gave definitive form to the constitutions of the order and the regulations of the “Charter of Charity” which Pope Callixtus II confirmed 23 December, 1119. In 1120 Bernard composed his first work “De Gradibus Superbiae et Humilitatis” and his homilies which he entitles “De Laudibus Mariae”. The monks of Cluny had not seen, with satisfaction, those of Cîteaux take the first place among the religious orders for regularity and fervour. For this reason there was a temptation on the part of the “Black Monks” to make it appear that the rules of the new order were impracticable. At the solicitation of William of St. Thierry, Bernard defended himself by publishing his “Apology” which is divided into two parts. In the first part he proves himself innocent of the invectives against Cluny, which had been attributed to him, and in the second he gives his reasons for his attack upon averred abuses. He protests his profound esteem for the Benedictines of Cluny whom he declares he loves equally as well as the other religious orders. Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, answered the Abbot of Clairvaux without wounding charity in the least, and assured him of his great admiration and sincere friendship. In the meantime Cluny established a reform, and Suger himself, the minister of Louis le Gros, and Abbot of St. Denis, was converted by the apology of Bernard. He hastened to terminate his worldly life and restore discipline in his monastery. The zeal of Bernard did not stop here; it extended to the bishops, the clergy, and the faithful, and remarkable conversions of persons engaged in worldly pursuits were among the fruits of his labours. Bernard's letter to the Archbishop of Sens is a real treatise “De Officiis Episcoporum”. About the same time he wrote his work on “Grace and Free Will”.

In the year 1128, Bernard assisted at the Council of Troyes, which had been convoked by Pope Honorius II, and was presided over by Cardinal Matthew, Bishop of Albano. The purpose of this council was to settle certain disputes of the bishops of Paris, and regulate other matters of the Church of France. The bishops made Bernard secretary of the council, and charged him with drawing up the synodal statutes. After the council, the Bishop of Verdun was deposed. There then arose against Bernard unjust reproaches and he was denounced even in Rome, as a monk who meddled with matters that did not concern him. Cardinal Harmeric, on behalf of the pope, wrote Bernard a sharp letter of remonstrance. “It is not fitting” he said “that noisy and troublesome frogs should come out of their marshes to trouble the Holy See and the cardinals”. Bernard answered the letter by saying that, if he had assisted at the council, it was because he had been dragged to it, as it were, by force. “Now illustrious Harmeric”, he added, “if you so wished, who would have been more capable of freeing me from the necessity of assisting at the council than yourself? Forbid those noisy troublesome frogs to come out of their holes, to leave their marshes . . . Then your friend will no longer be exposed to the accusations of pride and presumption”. This letter made a great impression upon the cardinal, and justified its author both in his eyes and before the Holy See. It was at this council that Bernard traced the outlines of the Rule of the Knights Templars who soon became the ideal of the French nobility. Bernard praises it in his “De Laudibus Novae Militiae”.

The influence of the Abbot of Clairvaux was soon felt in provincial affairs. He defended the rights of the Church against the encroachments of kings and princes, and recalled to their duty Henry Archbishop of Sense, and Stephen de Senlis, Bishop of Paris. On the death of Honorius II, which occurred on the 14th of February, 1130, a schism broke out in the Church by the election of two popes, Innocent II and Anacletus II. Innocent II having been banished from Rome by Anacletus took refuge in France. King Louis le Gros convened a national council of the French bishops at Etampes, and Bernard, summoned thither by consent of the bishops, was chosen to judge between the rival popes. He decided in favour of Innocent II, caused him to be recognized by all the great Catholic powers, went with him into Italy, calmed the troubles that agitated the country, reconciled Pisa with Genoa, and Milan with the pope and Lothaire. According to the desire of the latter, the pope went to Liège to consult with the emperor upon the best means to be taken for his return to Rome, for it was there that Lothaire was to receive the imperial crown from the hands of the pope. From Liège, the pope returned to France, paid a visit to the Abbey of St. Denis, and then to Clairvaux where his reception was of a simple and purely religious character. The whole pontifical court was touched by the saintly demeanor of this band of monks. In the refectory only a few common fishes were found for the pope, and instead of wine, the juice of herbs was served for drink, says an annalist of Cîteaux. It was not a table feast that was served to the pope and his followers, but a feast of virtues. The same year Bernard was again at the Council of Reims at the side of Innocent II, whose oracle he was; and then in Aquitaine where he succeeded for the time in detaching William, Count of Poitiers, from the cause of Anacletus.

In 1132, Bernard accompanied Innocent II into Italy, and at Cluny the pope abolished the dues which Clairvaux used to pay to this celebrated abbey—an action which gave rise to a quarrel between the “White Monks” and the “Black Monks” which lasted twenty years. In the month of May, the pope supported by the army of Lothaire, entered Rome, but Lothaire, feeling himself too weak to resist the partisans of Anacletus, retired beyond the Alps, and Innocent sought refuge in Pisa in September, 1133. In the meantime the abbot had returned to France in June, and was continuing the work of peacemaking which he had commenced in 1130. Towards the end of 1134, he made a second journey into Aquitaine, where William X had relapsed into schism. This would have died out of itself if William could have been detached from the cause of Gerard, who had usurped the See of Bordeaux and retained that of Angoul=EAme. Bernard invited William to the Mass which he celebrated in the Church of La Couldre. At the moment of the Communion, placing the Sacred Host upon the paten, he went to the door of the church where William was, and pointing to the Host, he adjured the Duke not to despise God as he did His servants. William yielded and the schism ended. Bernard went again to Italy, where Roger of Sicily was endeavouring to withdraw the Pisans from their allegiance to Innocent. He recalled the city of Milan, which had been deceived and misled by the ambitious prelate Anselm, Archbishop of Milan, to obedience to the pose, refused the Archbishopric of Milan, and returned finally to Clairvaux. Believing himself at last secure in his cloister Bernard devoted himself with renewed vigour to the composition of those pious and learned works which have won for him the title of “Doctor of the Church”. He wrote at this time his sermons on the “Canticle of Canticles”.

In 1137 he was again forced to leave his solitude by order of the pope to put an end to the quarrel between Lothaire and Roger of Sicily. At the conference held at Palermo, Bernard succeeded in convincing Roger of the rights of Innocent II and in silencing Peter of Pisa who sustained Anacletus. The latter died of grief and disappointment in 1138, and with him the schism. Returning to Clairvaux, Bernard occupied himself in sending bands of monks from his too-crowded monastery into Germany, Sweden, England, Ireland, Portugal, Switzerland, and Italy. Some of these, at the command of Innocent II, took possession of Three Fountains Abbey, near the Salvian Waters in Rome, from which Pope Eugenius III was chosen. Bernard resumed his commentary on the “Canticle of Canticles”, assisted in 1139, at the Second General Lateran Council and the Tenth Oecumenical, in which the surviving adherents of the schism were definitively condemned. About the same time, Bernard was visited at Clairvaux by St. Malachi, metropolitan of the Church in Ireland, and a very close friendship was formed between them. St. Malachi would gladly have taken the Cistercian habit, but the sovereign pontiff would not give his permission. He died, however, at Clairvaux in 1148.

In the year 1140, we find Bernard engaged in other matters which disturbed the peace of the Church. Towards the close of the eleventh century, the schools of philosophy and theology, dominated by the passion for discussion and a spirit of independence which had introduced itself into political and religious questions, became a veritable public arena, with no other motive than that of ambition. This exaltation of human reason and rationalism found an ardent and powerful adherent in Abelard, the most eloquent and learned man of the age after Bernard. “The history of the calamities and the refutation of his doctrine by St. Bernard”, says Ratisbonne, “form the greatest episode of the twelfth century”. Abelard's treatise on the Trinity had been condemned in 1121, and he himself had thrown his book into the fire. But in 1139 he advocated new errors. Bernard, informed of this by William of St. Thierry, wrote to Abelard who answered in an insulting manner. Bernard then denounced him to the pope who caused a general council to be held at Sens. Abelard asked for a public discussion with Bernard; the latter showed his opponent's errors with such clearness and force of logic that he was unable to make any reply, and was obliged, after being condemned, to retire. he pope confirmed the judgment of the council, Abelard submitted without resistance, and retired to Cluny to live under Peter the Venerable, where he died two years later.

Innocent II died in 1143. His two successors, Celestin II and Lucius, reigned only a short time, and then Bernard saw one of his disciples, Bernard of Pisa, Abbott of Three Fountains, and known thereafter as Eugenius III, raised to the Chair of St. Peter. Bernard sent him, at his own request, various instructions which compose the “Book of Consideration”, the predominating idea of which is that the reformation of the Church ought to commence with the sanctity of the head. Temporal matters are merely accessories; the principal are piety, meditation, or consideration, which ought to precede action. The book contains a most beautiful page on the papacy, and has always been greatly esteemed by the sovereign pontiffs, many of whom used it for their ordinary reading.

Alarming news came at this time from the East. Edessa had fallen into the hands of the Turks, and Jerusalem and Antioch were threatened with similar disaster. Deputations of the bishops of Armenia solicited aid from the pope, and the King of France also sent ambassadors. The pope commissioned Bernard to preach a new Crusade and granted the same indulgences for it which Urban II had accorded to the first. A parliament was convoked at Vezelay in Burgundy in 1134, and Bernard preached before the assembly. The King, Louis le Jeune, Queen Eleanor, and the princes and lords present prostrated themselves at the feet of the Abbot of Clairvaux to receive the cross. The saint was obliged to use portions of his habit to make crosses to satisfy the zeal and ardour of the multitude who wished to take part in the Crusade. Bernard passed into Germany, and the miracles which multiplied almost at his every step undoubtedly contributed to the success of his mission. The Emperor Conrad and his nephew Frederick Barbarossa, received the pilgrims' cross from the hand of Bernard, and Pope Eugenius, to encourage the enterprise, came in person to France. It was on the occasion of this visit, 1147, that a council was held at Paris, at which the errors of Gilbert de la Porée, Bishop of Poitiers, were examined. He advanced among other absurdities that the essence and the attributes of God are not God, that the properties of the Persons of the Trinity are not the persons themselves in fine that the Divine Nature did not become incarnate. The discussion was warm on both sides. The decision was left for the council which was held at Reims the following year (1148), and in which Eon de l'Etoile was one of the judges. Bernard was chosen by the council to draw up a profession of faith directly opposed to that of Gilbert, who concluding by stating to the Fathers: “If you believe and assert differently than I have done I am willing to believe and speak as you do”. The consequence of this declaration was that the pope condemned the assertions of Gilbert without denouncing him personally. After the council the pope paid a visit to Clairvaux, where he held a general chapter of the order and was able to realize the prosperity of which Bernard was the soul.

The last years of Bernard's life were saddened by the failure of the Crusade he had preached, the entire responsibility for which was thrown upon him. He had accredited the enterprise by miracles, but he had not guaranteed its success against the misconduct and perfidy of those who participated in it. Lack of discipline and the over-confidence of the German troops, the intrigues of the Prince of Antioch and Queen Eleanor, and finally the avarice and evident treason of the Christian nobles of Syria, who prevented the capture of Damascus, appear to have been the cause of disaster. Bernard considered it his duty to send an apology to the pope and it is inserted in the second part of his “Book of Consideration”. There he explains how, with the crusaders as with the Hebrew people, in whose favour the Lord had multiplies his prodigies, their sins were the cause of their misfortune and miseries. The death of his contemporaries served as a warning to Bernard of his own approaching end The first to die was Suger (1152), of whom the Abbot wrote to Eugenius III: “If there is any precious vase adorning the palace of the King of Kings it is the soul of the venerable Suger”. Thibaud, Count of Champagne, Conrad, Emperor of Germany, and his son Henry died the same year. From the beginning of the year 1153 Bernard felt his death approaching. The passing of Pope Eugenius had struck the fatal blow by taking from him one whom he considered his greatest friend and consoler. Bernard died in the sixty-third year of his age, after forty years spent in the cloister. He founded one hundred and sixty-three monasteries in different parts of Europe; at his death they numbered three hundred and forty-three. He was the first Cistercian monk placed on the calendar of saints and was canonized by Alexander III, 18 January 1174. Pope Pius VIII bestowed on him the title of Doctor of the Church. The Cistercians honour him as only the founders of orders are honoured, because of the wonderful and widespread activity which he gave to the Order of Cîteaux.

The works of St. Bernard are as follows:

• “De Gradibus Superbiae”, his first treatise;
• “Homilies on the Gospel 'Missus est'” (1120);
• “Apology to William of St. Thierry” against the claims of the monks of Cluny;
• “On the Conversion of Clerics”, a book addressed to the young ecclesiastics of Paris (1122);
• “De Laudibus Novae Militiae”, addressed to Hughes de Payns, first Grand Master and Prior of Jerusalem (1129). This is a eulogy of the military order instituted in 1118, and an exhortation to the knights to conduct themselves with courage in their several stations.
• “De amore Dei” wherein St. Bernard shows that the manner of loving God is to love Him without measure and gives the different degree of this love;
• “Book of Precepts and Dispensations” (1131), which contains answers to questions upon certain points of the Rule of St. Benedict from which the abbot can, or cannot, dispense;
• “De Gratiâ et Libero Arbitrio” in which the Catholic dogma of grace and free will is proved according to the principles of St. Augustine;
• “Book of Considerations”, addressed to Pope Eugenius III;
• “De Officiis Episcoporum”, addressed to Henry, Archbishop of Sens.

His sermons are also numerous:

• “On Psalm 90, 'Qui habitat'” (about 1125);
• “On the Canticle of Canticles”. St. Bernard explained in eighty-six sermons only the first two chapters of the Canticle of Canticles and the first verse of the third chapter.
• There are also eighty-six “Sermons for the Whole Year”; his “Letters” number 530.

Many other letters, treatises, etc., falsely attributed to him are found among his works, such as the “l'Echelle du Cloître”, which is the work of Guigues, Prior of La Grande Chartreuse, les Méditations, l'Edification de la Maison intérieure, etc.

M. GILDAS

Bernard of Cluny

Bernard of Cluny (or of Morlaix), a Benedictine monk of the first half of the twelfth century, poet, satirist, and hymn-writer, author of the famous verses “On the Contempt of the World”. His parentage, native land, and education are hidden in obscurity. The sixteenth-century writer John Pits (Scriptores Angliae, Saec. XII) says that he was of English birth. He is frequently called Morlanensis, which title most writers have interpreted to mean that he was a native of Morlaix in Brittany, though some credit him to Murlas near Puy in Béarn. A writer in the “Journal of Theological Studies” (1907), VIII, 354-359 contends that he belonged to the family of the Seigneurs of Montpellier in Languedoc, and was born at Murles, a possession of that distinguished family; also that he was at first a monk of St. Sauveur d'Aniane, whence he entered Cluny under Abbot Pons (1109-22). It is certain that he was a monk at Cluny in the time of Peter the Venerable (1122-56), for his famous poem is dedicated to that abbot. It may have been written about 1140. He left some sermons and is said to be the author of certain monastic regulations known as the “Consuetudines Cluniacenses”, also of a dialogue (Colloquium) on the Trinity. The “De Contemptu Mundi” contains about 3,000 verses, and is for the most part a very bitter satire against the moral disorders of the monastic poet's time. He spares no one; priests, nuns, bishops, monks, and even Rome itself are mercilessly scourged for their shortcomings. For this reason it was first printed by Matthias Flaccus as one of his testes veritatis, or witnesses of the deep-seated corruption of the medieval Church (Varia poemata de corrupto ecclesiae statu, Basle, 1557), and was often reprinted by Protestants in the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This Christian Juvenal does not proceed in an orderly manner against the vices and follies of his age. It has been well said that he seems to eddy about two main points: the transitory character of all material pleasures and the permanency of spiritual joys. Bernard of Cluny is indeed a lyrical writer, swept from one theme to another by the intense force of ascetic meditation and by the majestic power of his own verse, in which there lingers yet a certain fierce intoxication of poetic wrath. His highly wrought pictures of heaven and hell were probable known to Dante; the roasting cold, the freezing fire, the devouring worm, the fiery floods, and again the glorious idyl of the Golden Age and the splendours of the Heavenly Kingdom are couched in a diction that rises at times to the height of Dante's genius. The enormity of sin, the charm of virtue, the torture of an evil conscience, the sweetness of a God-fearing life alternate with heaven and hell as the themes of his majestic dithyramb. Nor does he dwell in generalities; he returns again and again to the wickedness of woman (one of the fiercest arraignments of the sex), the evils of wine, money, learning, perjury, soothsaying, etc.; this master of an elegant, forceful, and abundant Latinity cannot find words strong enough to convey his prophetic rage at the moral apostasy of his generation, in almost none of whom does he find spiritual soundness. Youthful and simoniacal bishops, oppressive agents of ecclesiastical corporations, the officers of the Curia, papal legates, and the pope himself are treated with no less severity than in Dante or in the sculptures of medieval cathedrals. Only those who do not know the utter frankness of certain medieval moralists could borrow scandal from his verses. It may be added that in medieval times “the more pious the chronicler the blacker his colours”. The early half of the twelfth century saw the appearance of several new factors of secularism unknown to an earlier and more simply religious time: the increase of commerce and industry resultant from the Crusades, the growing independence of medieval cities, the secularization of Benedictine life, the development of pageantry and luxury in a hitherto rude feudal world, the reaction from the terrible conflict of State and Church in the latter half of the eleventh century. The song of the Cluniac is a great cry of pain wrung from a deeply religious and even mystical soul at the first dawning consciousness of a new order of human ideals and aspirations. The turbid and irregular flow of his denunciation is halted occasionally in a dramatic way by glimpses of a Divine order of things, either in the faraway past or in the near future. The poet-preacher is also a prophet; Antichrist, he says, is born in Spain; Elijah has come to life again in the Orient. The last days are at hand, and it behoves the true Christian to awake and be ready for the dissolution of an order now grown intolerable, in which religion itself is henceforth represented by cant and hypocrisy.

The metre of this poem is no less unique than its diction; it is a dactylic hexameter in three sections, devoid of caesura, with tailed rhymes and a feminine leonine rhyme between the two first sections; the verses are technically known as leonini cristati trilices dactylici, and are so difficult to construct in great numbers that the writer claims Divine inspiration (the impulse and inflow of the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding) as the chief agency in the execution of so long an effort of this kind. It is, indeed, a solemn and stately verse, rich and sonorous, not meant, however, to be read at one sitting, at the risk of surfeiting the appetite. Bernard of Cluny is an erudite writer, and his poem leaves an excellent impression of the Latin culture of the Benedictine monasteries of France and England in the first half of the twelfth century. The modern interest of English-speaking circles in this semi-obscure poet centres in the lovely hymns of exceptional piety, warmth, and delicacy of sentiment dispersed through his lurid satire; one of them, “Jerusalem the Golden”, has become particularly famous.

THOMAS J. SHAHAN

St. Blaise

The ninth-century martyrologies of Europe in their lists, which are accompanied by historical notices, give on 15 February the name of St. Blasius, Bishop of Sebaste and martyr. The Greek synaxaria mention him under 11 February. In the oldest known recension of the so-called martyrology of St. Jerome the name of St. Blasius does not appear; it is only in the later, enlarged catalogues that he is mentioned. The historical notices concerning him in the above-mentioned martyrologies and synaxaria rest on the legendary Acts. All the statements agree that St. Blasius was Bishop of Sebaste in Armenia and most of the acounts place his martyrdom in the reign of Licinius (about 316). As these reports may rest on old traditions which are bound up with the veneration of the saint in the Church liturgy, they are not to be absolutely rejected.

It can perhaps be assumed that St. Blasius was a bishop and that he suffered martyrdom at the beginning of the fourth century. All the particulars concerning his life and martyrdom which are found in the Acts are purely legendary and have no claim to historical worth. There are besides various recensions of the text of the Acts. According to the legend Blasius was a physician at Sebaste before he was raised to the episcopal see. At the time of the persecution under Licinius he was taken prisoner at the command of the governor, Agricolaus. The hunters of the governor found him in the wilderness in a cave to which he had retired and while in prison he performed a wonderful cure of a boy who had a fishbone in his throat and who was in danger of choking to death. After suffering various forms of torture St. Blasius was beheaded; the Acts relate also the martyrdom of seven women.

The veneration of the Oriental saint was brought at an early date into Europe, as is shown by the recitals in the historical martyrologies of the ninth century, and the Latin recension of the legend of St. Blasius; so that Blasius became one of the most popular saints of the Middle Ages. The actual reason for the unusual veneration has not yet been made clear. Most probably one ground was that according to the legend he was a physician and wonderful cures were ascribed to him; for this reason the faithful sought his help and intercession when ill. Numberless churches and altars were dedicated to him and many localities (Taranto, Ragusa, the Abbey of St. Blasius in the Black Forest, etc.) claimed to possess some of his relics. He was also one of the Fourteen Holy Martyrs. In many places on the day of his feast the blessing of St. Blasius is given: two candles are consecrated, generally by a prayer, these are then held in a crossed position by a priest over the heads of the faithful or the people are touched on the throat with them. In other places oil is consecrated in which the wick of a small candle is dipped and the throats of those present are touched with the wick. At the same time the following blessing is given: “Per intercessionem S. Blasii liberet te Deus a malo gutteris et a quovis alio malo” (May God at the intercession of St. Blasius preserve you from throat troubles and every other evil). In some dioceses is added: “in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus” and the priest makes the sign of the cross over the faithful. In the Latin Church his feast falls on 3 February, in the Oriental Churches on 11 February. He is represented holding two crossed candles in his hand (the Blessing of St. Blasius), or in a cave surrounded by wild beasts, as he was found by the hunters of the governor.

J. P. KIRSCH

Blasphemy

(Greek blaptein, “to injure”, and pheme, “reputation”) signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem. In this broad sense the term is used by Bacon when in his “Advancement of Learning” he speaks of “blasphemy against learning”. St. Paul tells of being blasphemed (I Cor., iv, 13) and the Latin Vulgate employs the word blasphemare to designate abusive language directed either against a people at large (II Kings, xxi, 21; I Par., xx, 7) or against individuals (I Cor., x, 30; Tit., iii, 2).

MEANING

While etymologically blasphemy may denote the derogation of the honour due to a creature as well as of that belonging to God, in its strict acceptation it is used only in the latter sense. Hence it has been defined by Suarez as “any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God: (De Relig., tract. iii, lib. I, cap. iv, n. 1). It is to be noted that according to the definition (1) blasphemy is set down as a word, for ordinarily it is expressed in speech, though it may be committed in thought or in act. Being primarily a sin of the tongue, it will be seen to be opposed directly to the religious act of praising God. (2) It is said to be against God, though this may be only mediately, as when the contumelious word is spoken of the saints or of sacred things, because of the relationship they sustain to God and His service.

Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is expressed, may be of three kinds.

1. It is heretical when the insult to God involves a declaration that is against faith, as in the assertion: “God is cruel and unjust” or “The noblest work of man is God”.
2. It is imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon the Supreme Being as when one would say: “Away with God”.
3. It is simply contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: “Thou has conquered, O Galilaean”.

Again, blasphemy may be (1) either direct, as when the one blaspheming formally intends to dishonour the Divinity, or (2) indirect, as when without such intention blasphemous words are used with advertence to their import.

THE MALICE OF BLASPHEMY

Blasphemy is a sin against the virtue of religion by which we render to God the honour due to Him as our first beginning an last end. St. Thomas says that it is to be regarded as a sin against faith inasmuch as by it we attribute to God that which does not belong to Him, or deny Him that which is His (II-II, Q. xiii, art. I). De Lugo and others deny that this is an essential element in blasphemy (De just. et jure caeterisque virt. card., lib. II, c. xiv, disp. v, n. 26), but as Escobar (Theol. mor., lib. xxviii, c. xxxii, n. 716 sqq.) observes, the contention on this point concerns words only, since the followers of St. Thomas see in the contempt expressed in blasphemy the implication that God is contemptible—an implication in which all will allow there is attributed to God that which does not belong to Him. What is here said is of blasphemy in general; manifestly that form of the sin described above as heretical is not only opposed to the virtue of religion but that of faith as well. Blasphemy is of its whole nature (ex toto genere suo) a mortal sin, the gravest that may be committed against religion. The seriousness of an affront is proportioned to the dignity of the person towards whom it is directed. Since then the insult in blasphemy is offered to the ineffable majesty of God, the degree of its heinousness must be evident. Nevertheless because of slight or no advertence blasphemy may be either a venial sin only or no sin at all. Thus many expressions voiced in anger escape the enormity of a grave sin, except as is clear, when the anger is vented upon God. Again, in the case where blasphemous speech is uttered inadvertently, through force of habit, a grave sin is not committed as long as earnest resistance is made to the habit. If, however, no such effort is put forth there cannot but be grave guilt, though a mortal sin is not committed on the occasion of each and every blasphemous outburst. It has been said that heretical blasphemy besides a content directed against religion has that which is opposed to the virtue of faith. Similarly, imprecatory blasphemy is besides a violation of charity. These forms of the sin being specifically distinct from the simpler kind, it is necessary to specify their character in confession. Whether blasphemy has been direct or indirect, however, calls not for specification on the part of the penitent, since both these forms are specifically the same, though clearly differing in the degree of malice. The question has been raised whether blasphemy against the saints differs in kind from that uttered immediately against God. While De Lugo thinks that such a difference obtains (De Poenit., disp. xvi, n. 178 sqq.) the opposite opinion of St. Alphonsus seems more tenable, for as the latter theologian observes, the saints, ordinarily speaking, are not blasphemed because of their own excellence but because of their close relationship to God (Theol. Moral., lib. IV, n. 132).

THE PENALTIES ATTACHED TO BLASPHEMY

In the Old Law the blasphemer was punished by death. So God appointed on the occasion of the blasphemy of Salumith's son: “The man that curseth His God, shall bear his sin: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die” (Lev., xxiv, 15-16). Upon hearing blasphemy the Jews were wont in detestation of the crime to rend their clothes (IV Kings, xviii, 37, xix, l; Matt., xxvi, 65).

Among the Athenians blasphemy was actionable and according to Plutarch, Alcibiades was made to suffer the confiscation of his goods for ridiculing the rites of Ceres and Proserpine (Plutarch, Alcibiades). Among the ancient Romans blasphemy was punishable, though not by death. In the time of Justinian we find most severe enactments against this sin. In a constitution of A. D. 538 the people are called upon to abstain from blasphemy, which provokes God to anger. The prefect of the city is commanded to apprehend all such as shall persist in their offence after this admonition and put them to death, that so the city and the empire may not suffer because of their impiety (Auth. Col., Tit. vii, 7 November). Among the Visigoths, anyone blaspheming the name of Christ or expressing contempt of the Trinity had his head shorn, was subjected to a hundred stripes, and suffered perpetual imprisonment in chains. Among the Franks, according to a law enacted at the Diet of Aachen, A. D. 818, this sin was a capital offence. In the Gospels blasphemy is described as one of “the things that defile a man” (Matt., xv, 20; Mark, vii, 21-23).

Medieval canon law punished the blasphemer most severely. By a decree of the thirteenth century one convicted of blasphemy was compelled to stand at the door of the church during the solemnities of the Mass for seven Sundays, and on the last of these days, divested of cloak and shoes, he was to appear with a rope about his neck. Obligations of fasting and alms-giving were likewise imposed under heaviest penalties (Decret., lib. V, tit. xxvi). The rigours of the ancient discipline were insisted upon by Pius V in his Constitution “Cum primum apostolatus” (p. 10). According to the law herein laid down, the layman found guilty of blasphemy was fined. The fine was increased upon his second offence, and upon his third he was sent into exile. If unable to pay the fine, he was upon the first conviction condemned to stand before the door of the church, his hands tied behind him. For the second offence he was flogged, and for the third his tongue was pierced, and he was sentenced to the galleys. The blasphemous cleric, if possessed of a benefice, lost upon his first offence a year's income; upon his second he was deprived of his benefice and exiled. If enjoying no benefice, he was first subjected to a fine and bodily punishment; on repeating the offence he was imprisoned, and still persisting, he was degraded and condemned to the galleys.

BLASPHEMY IN CIVIL LAW

Blasphemy cognizable by common law is defined by Blackstone to be “denying the being or providence of God, contumelious reproaches of our Saviour Jesus Christ, profane scoffing at the Holy Scripture, or exposing it to contempt or ridicule”. The United States once had many penal statutes against blasphemy, which were declared constitutional as not subversive of the freedom of speech or liberty of the press (Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. IV, 582). In the American Decisions (Vol. V, 335) we read that “Christianity being recognized by law therefore blasphemy against God and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures are punishable at Common Law”, Accordingly where one uttered the following words “Jesus Christ was a bastard and his mother was a whore”, it was held to be a public offence, punishable by the common law. The defendant found guilty by the court of common pleas of the blasphemy above quoted was sentenced to imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Sum. Theol., II-II, Q. xiii, a. 3; Q. ev. a, 2ad, 3am; Q. lxxx, a. 3; I-II, Q. x, a. 2; ST. LIGUORI, Theol. moral., lib. IV, tract. ii, c. i

JOHN WEBSTER MELODY

The Blessed

There are at present two ways in which the Church allows public worship to be paid those who have lived in the fame of sanctity or died as martyrs. Of these some are beatified, others are canonized. (See BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION). Beatification is a permission for public worship restricted to certain places and to certain acts. In the more recent discipline of the Church, the pope alone can beatify, though formerly bishops could grant the honour of beatification to those of the faithful who had shed their blood for Christ or lived lives of heroic virtue. All those permissions for public worship which in the early ages of the Church were granted to particular churches and spread thence with the sanction of other bishops to other congregations, to be finally made a matter a precept for the universal Church by the Roman pontiff, constituted beatification and canonization in the exact sense of the word. It was only beatification while the cult, of the martyr for instance, was restricted to the place where he had suffered, but became canonization when it was received in the entire Church. The difference between canonization and beatification lies in the presence or absence of two elements which are found united in canonization and either separate or entirely absent from beatification, though generally only one is lacking. These elements are:

1. the precepts regarding public worship, and
2. its extention to the whole Church.

In exceptional cases one or other of these is wanting; sometimes the cult of the beatified is not only permitted but enjoined, though not for the universal Church, and in other instances it is permitted for the whole Church but not enjoined. The case of St. Rose of Lima is an instance of the occurrence of both elements, though that did not of itself suffice for her canonization, as one of the elements was not really complete. When Clement X chose her as patronof all America, the Philippines, and the Indies, and by the same act allowed her cultus in the entire Church, it was clearly a case where a cultus was enjoined in America and merely allowed for the remainder of the Church.

The nature of beatification makes it evident that the worship of the blessed is restricted to certain places and persons, and may be given only after permission. Such permission is usually granted to those persons or places which have in some way been connected with the blessed. In the case of a religious, it is granted to the members of the order or congregation to which he belonged; if a canon of a church, that church or chapter receives the permission; if a martyr, a bishop, or resident of some place for a long period, the concession is made to the place of his martyrdom or to his see or to the place that he adorned with his virtues. In some cases the place of his birth or burial is included. And in all these instances it may be that the concession is made only to the mother church, or to the church in which his body lies, or it may be extended to the whole city or diocese. With Benedict XIV (De canonizatione de SS., Lib. IV, part. II, cap. i, n. 12) we may add that such grants are affixed to the day on which the blessed died or to some other determined day. When this cultus is allowed to certain persons or places it is still further restricted with respect to the manner in which it is to be given, and not all acts of worship which the customs and discipline of the Church allow to be paid canonized saints may be used in the worship of the beatified. Benedict XIV (loc. cit., c. ii) treats the question at length and with regard to the inquiry as to whether a votive Mass may be said in honour of the blessed in places where the cultus has been granted decides in the negative against Castropalao and Del Bene. His opinion has since been confirmed by the decree of Alexander VII of 27 September, 1659, in which decree the pope settled many questions regarding the worship of the blessed. It may be remarked that ordinarily votive Masses cannot be said in honour of the blessed, though for several centuries they have been said in virtue of special indults. The oldest indult which Benedict XIV quotes in this connection is that granted by Clement VII to the Dominicans of the Convent of Forlì, 25 January, 1526, to celebrate the Mass of Blessed James Salomonio “as often during the year as their devotion may move them to do so”. Besides this indult there is another granted by Alexander VII at the request of Ferdinand Gonzaga, Prince of Castiglione, on 22 May, 1662, “to celebrate votive Masses in honour of Blessed Aloysius (Gonzaga) in the collegiate mother church of the town of Castiglione during the year.” And this indult, a few months afterwards, was extended so as to allow “votive Masses of the same Blessed Aloysius to be celebrated in the church of the Regular Clerics of the Society of Jesus during the year on days not impeded by the rubrics”.

Alexander VII further ordered that images of the blessed should not be exposed in any church, sanctuary, or oratory whatever, and especially in those in which Mass or other Divine services are held, without previous consultation with the Holy See. This rule is of such strict interpretation that in virtue of the granting of this indult it cannot be presumed that permission is had to place the images of the blessed upon the altars. They may be placed upon the walls of the church only. However, an indult permitting a contrary use is not of altogether rare occurrence in the recent discipline of the Church, and it is to be remarked that even in the time of Alexander VII a decree of the Congregation of Rites of 17, April, 1660, declared that the concession of an indult to say the Mass and Office of a blessed implied permission to place his picture or statue upon the altar, though the opposite does not hold. The same pope also decided that the names of the blessed should be entered in no catalogue except those proper to the persons who had received permission to honour then with cultus and a Mass and Office. He ruled too that no prayers should be addressed the blessed in public services except those granted and approved by the Holy See and that their relics should not be carried in procession. It must, however, be observed here in passing that Alexander VII, as he especially declares in his decrees, did not intend to do away with any cultus that had been rendered to the blessed with the common consent of the Church, or from time immemorial, or approved by the writings of the Fathers and the saints, or even one which had been tolerated by the Holy See and the different ordinaries for more than a hundred years. In addition to all this, we have other decrees of the Congregation of Rites, such as : that the names of the blessed are not to be enrolled in the martyrology; that neither altars nor churches may be dedicated to them; that they may not be chosen as local patrons. It must not be forgotten that exceptions may be made by indult even in these cases. Recently, to quote an instance, Pius X at the request of the English bishops, in the matter of the English martyrs whom Leo XIII had beatified, granted that in each diocese an altar might be erected to each of the nine principal martyrs whose names are mentioned in the decree, the churches in which they were to be erected being designated by the bishops. Beatification is an entirely different matter from canonization, and is but a step to it, being in no wise an irreformable decision of ecclesiastical authority. The observation of Benedict XIV then goes without saying, that the blessed are not to be given the title of saints; further that the distinctive signs which ecclesiastical use has made customary in regard to statues and pictures of saints cannot be used in the case of blessed, who are not to be represented with the aureola, but with rays above (op. cit., Lib. I, c, xxxvii).

To conclude, we may observe that in the cultus of the blessed great attention must be given to the indult which in each specific instance determines, according to the wishes of the sovereign pontiff, the restrictions with regard to persons, places, and acts of worship. This matter, and very justly so, has been made the subject of special legislation on the part of the Congregation of Rites which decreed on 5 October, 1652, that no one could go beyond the limits set by the words of the indults of the Holy See in regard to beatification. The solemnities of beatification cannot be compared with those of canonization. They are briefly as follows: On the day on which beatification takes place Mass is said in St. Peter's in presence of the entire Congregation of Rites. After the Gospel, instead of a homily, the secretary of the Congregation reads the pope's decree, on the conclusion of which the painting of the newly beatified, which stands over the altar, is uncovered and the Mass is finished. About the hour of Vespers the Holy Father comes down to the basilica to venerate the new blessed. After the beatification permission is granted to celebrate solemn triduums, and by a special decree Mass and Office are allowed to be said yearly on a fixed day, but with restrictions as to place, and it is permitted to insert the name in the special martyrologies. The expenses of a beatification from the first steps to the conclusion approximate 100,000 lire ($20,000). (See BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION).

CAMILLUS BECCARI

St. Bonaventure

Doctor of the Church, Cardinal-Bishop of Albano, Minister General of the Friars Minor, born at Bagnorea in the vicinity of Viterbo in 1221; died at Lyons, 16 July, 1274.

Nothing is known of Bonaventure's parents save their names: Giovanni di Fidanza and Maria Ritella. How his baptismal name of John came to be changed to that of Bonaventure is not clear. An attempt has been made to trace the latter name to the exclamation of St. Francis, O buona ventura, when Bonaventure was brought as an infant to him to be cured of a dangerous illness. This derivation is highly improbable; it seems based on a late fifteenth. century legend. Bonaventure himself tells us (Legenda S. Francisci Prolog.) that while yet a child he was preserved from death through the intercession of St. Francis, but there is no evidence that this cure took place during the lifetime of St. Francis or that the name Bonaventuro originated in any prophetical words of St. Francis. It was certainly borne by others before the Seraphic Doctor. No details of Bonaventure's youth have been preserved. He entered the Order of Friars Minor in 1238 or 1243; the exact year is uncertain. Wadding and the Bollandists bold for the later date, but the earlier one is supported by Sbaradea, Bonelli, Panfilo da Magliano, and Jeiler, and appears more probable. It is certain that Bonaventure was sent from the Roman Province, to which he belonged, to complete his studies at the University of Paris under Alexander of Hales, the great founder of the Franciscan School. The latter died in 1246, according to the opinion generally received, though not yet definitely established, and Bonaventure seems to have become his pupil about 1242. Be this as it may, Bonaventure received in 1248 the “licentiate” which gave him the right to teach publicly as Magister regens, and he continued to lecture at the university with great success until 1256, when he was compelled to discontinue, owing to the then violent outburst of opposition to the Mendicant orders on the part of the secular professors at the university. The latter, jealous, as it seems, of the academic successes of the Dominicans and Franciscans, sought to exclude them from teaching publicly. The smouldering elements of discord had been fanned into a flame in 1265, when Guillamne do Saint-Amour published a work entitled “The Perils of the Last Times”, in which he attacked the Friars with great bitterness. It was in connexion with this dispute that Bonaventure wrote his treatise, “De paupertate Christi”. It was not, however, Bonaventure, as some have erroneously stated, but Blessed John of Parma, who appeared before Alexander IV at Anagni to defend the Franciscans against their adversary. The Holy See having, as is well known, re-established the Mendicants in all their privileges, and Saint-Amour's book having been formally condemned, the degree of Doctor was solemnly bestowed on St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas at the university, 23 October, 1267.

In the meantime Bonaventure, though not yet thirty-six years old, had on 2 February, 1257, been elected Minister General of the Friars Minor — an office of peculiar difficulty, owing to the fact that the order was distracted by internal dissensions between the two factions among the Friars designated respectively the Spirituales and the Relaxti. The former insisted upon the literal observance of the original Rule, especially in regard to poverty, while the latter wished to introduce innovations and mitigations. This lamentable controversy had moreover been aggravated by the enthusiasm withwhich many of the “Spiritual” Friars had adopted the doctrines connected with the name of Abbot Joachim of Floris and set forth in the so-called “Evangelium aeternum”. The introduction to this pernicious book, which proclaimed the approaching dispensation of the Spirit that was to replace the Law of Christ, was falsely attributed to Bl. John of Parma, who in 1267 had retired from the government of the order in favour of Bonaventure. The new general lost no time in striking vigorously at both extreme within the order. On the one hand, he proceeded against several of the Joachimite “Spirituals” as heretics before an ecclesiastical tribunal at Cittâ-della-Pieve; two of their leaders were condemned to perpetual imprisonment, and John of Parma was only saved from a like fate through the personal intervention of Cardinal Ottoboni, afterwards Adrian V. On the other hand, Bonaventure had, in an encyclical letter issued immediately after his election, outlined a programme for the reformation of the Re1axti. These reforms he sought to enforce three years later at the General Chapter of Narbonne when the constitutions of the order which he had revised were promulgated anew. These so-called “Constitutiones Narbonenses” are distributed under twelve heads, corresonding to the twelve chapters of the Rule, of which they form an enlightened and prudent exposition, and are of capital importance in the history of Franciscan legislation. The chapter which issued this code of laws requested Bonaventure to write a “legend” or life of St. Francis which should supersede those then in circulation. This was in 1260. Three years later Bonaventure, having in the meantime visited a great part of the order, and having assisted at the dedication of the chapel on La Verna and at the translation of the remains of St Clare and of St. Anthony, convoked a general chapter of the order of Pisa at which his newly composed life of St. Francis was officially approved as the standard biography of the saint to the exclusion of all others. At this chapter of 1263, Bonaventure fixed the limits of the different provinces of the order and, among other ordinances, prescribed that at nightfall a bell should be rung in honour of the Annunciation, a pious practice from which the Angelus seems to have originated. There are no grounds, however, for the assertion that Bonaventure in this chapter prescribed the celebration of the feast of the Immaculate Conception in the order. In 1264, at the earnest request of Cardinal Cajetan, Bonaventure consented to resume the direction of the Poor Clares which the Chapter of Pisa had entirely renounced the year before. He required the Clares, however, to acknowledge occasionally in writing that the favours tendered them by the Friars were voluntary acts of charity not arising from any obligation whatsoever. It is said that Pope Urban IV acted at Bonaventure's suggestion in attempting to establish uniformity of observance throughout all the monastenes of Clares. About this time (1264) Bonaventure founded at Rome the Society of the Gonfalone in honour of the Blessed Virgin which, if not the first confraternity instituted in the Church, as some have claimed, was certainly one of the earliest. In 1265 Clement IV, by a Bull dated 23 November, nominated Bonaventure to the vacant Archbishopric of York, but the saint, in keeping with his singular humility, steadfastly refused this honour and the popo yielded.

In 1266 Bonaventure convened a general chapter in Paris at which, besides other enactments, it was decreed that all the “legends” of St. Francis written before that of Bonaventure should be forthwith destroyed, just as the Chapter of Narbonne had in 1260 ordered the destruction of all constitutions before those then enacted. This decree has excited much hostile enticism. Some would fain see in it a deliberate attempt on Bonaventure's part to close the primitive sources of Franciscan history, to suppress the real Francis, and substitute a counterfeit in his stead. Otbers, however, regard the decree in question as a purely liturgical ordinance intended to secure uniformity in the choir “legends”. Between these two conflicting opinions the truth seems to be that this edict was nothing more than another heroic attempt to wipe out the old quarrels and start afresh. One cannot but regret the circumstances of this decree, but when it is recalled that the appeal of the contending parties was ever to the words and actions of St. Francis as recorded in the earlier “legends”, it would be unjust to accuse the chapter of “literary vandalism” in seeking to proscribe the latter. We have no details of Bonaventure's life between 1266 and 1269. In the latter year he convoked his fourth general chapter at Assisi, in which it was enacted that a Mass be sung every Saturday throughout the order in honour of the Blessed Virgin, not, however, in honour of her Immaculate Conception as Wadding among others has erroneously stated. It was probably soon after this chapter that Bonaventure composed his “Apologia pauperum”, in which he silences Gerard of Abbeville who by means of an anonymous libel had revived the old university feud against the Friars. Two years later, Bonaventure was mainly instrumental in reconciling the differences among the cardinals assembled at Viterbo to elect a successor to Clement IV, who had died nearly three years before; it was on Bonaventure's advice that, 1 September, 1271, they unanimously chose Theobald Visconti of Piacenza who took the title of Gregory X. That the cardinals seriously authorized Bonaventure to nominate himself, as some writers aver, is most improbable. Nor is there any truth in the popular story that Bonaventure on arriving at Viterbo advised the citizens to lock up the cardinals with a view to hastening the election. In 1272 Bonaventure for the second time convened a general chapter at Pisa in which, apart from general enactments to further regular observances new decrees were issued respecting the direction of the Poor Clares, and a solemn anniversary was instituted on 25 August in memory of St. Louis. This was thc first step towards the canonization of the holy king. who had been a special friend of Bonaventure, and at whose request Bonaventure composed his “Office of the Passion”. On 23 June, 1273, Bonaventure. much against his will, was created Cardinal-Bishop of Albano, by Gregory X. It is said that the pope's envoys who brought him the cardinal's hat found the saint washing dishes outside a convent near Florence and were requested by him to bang it on a tree nearby until his hands were free to take it. Bonaventure continued to govern the Order of Friars Minor until 20 May, 1274, when at the General Chapter of Lyons, Jerome of Ascoli, afterwards Nicholas IV, was elected to succeed him. Meanwhile Bonaventure had been charged by Gregory X to prepare the questions to be discussed at the Fourteenth Oemnenical Council, which opened at Lyons 7 May, 1274.

The pope himself presided at the council, but he confided the direction of its deliberations to Bonaventure, especially charging him to confer with the Greeks on the points relating to the abjuration of their schism. It was largely due to Bonaventure's efforts and to those of the Friars whom he had sent to Constantinople, that the Greeks accepted the union effected 6 July, 1274. Bonaventure twice addressed the assembled Fathers, on 18 May, during a session of the Council, when he preached on Baruch, v, 5, and on 29 June, during pontifical Mass celebrated by the pope. While the council was still in session, Bonaventure died, Sunday, 15 July, 1274. The exact cause of his death is unknown, but if we may credit the chronicle of Peregrinus of Bologna. Bonaventure's secretary, which has recently (1905) been recovered and edited, the saint was poisoned. He was buried on the evening following his death in the church of the Friars Minor at Lyons, being honoured with a splendid funeral which was attended by the pope, the King of Aragon, the cardinals, and the other members of the council. The funeral oration was delivered by Pietro di Tarantasia, O.P., Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, afterwards Innocent V, and on the following day during the fifth session of the council, Gregory X spoke of the irreparable loss the Church had sustained by the death of Bonaventure, and commanded all prelates and priests throughout the whole world to celebrate Mass for the repose of his soul.

Bonaventure enjoyed especial veneration even during his lifetime because of his stainless character and of the miracles attributed to him. It was Alexander of Hales who said that Bonaventure seemed to have escaped the curse of Adam's sin. And the story of St. Thomas visiting Bonaventure's cell while the latter was writing the life of St. Francis and finding him in an ecstasy is well known. “Let us leave a saint to work for a saint”, said the Angelic Doctor as he withdrew. When, in 1434, Bonaventure's remains were translated to the new church erected at Lyons in honour of St. Francis, his head was found in a perfect state of preservation, the tongue being as red as in life. This miracle not only moved the people of Lyons to choose Bonaventure as their special patron, but also gave a great impetus to the process of his canonization. Dante, writing long before, had given expression to the popular mind by placing Bonaventure among the saints in his “Paradiso”, and no canonization was ever more ardently or universally desired than that of Bonaventure. That its inception was so long delayed was mainly due to the deplorable dissensions within the order after Bonaventure's death. Finally on 14 April, 1482, Bonaventure was enrolled in the catalogue of the saints by Sixtus IV. In 1562 Bonaventure's shrine was plundered by the Huguenots and the urn containing his body was burned in the public square. His head was preserved through the heroism of the superior, who hid it at the cost of his life but it disappeared during the French Revolution and every effort to discover it has been in vain. Bonaventure was inscribed among the principal Doctors of the Church by Sixtus V. 14 March, 1557. His feast is celebrated 14 July.

Bonaventure, as Hefele remarks, united in himself the two elements whence proceed whatever was noble and sublime, great and beautiful, in the the Middle Ages, viz., tender piety and profound learning. These two qualities shine forth conspicuously in his writings. Bonaventure wrote on almost every subject treated by the Schoolmen, and his writings are very numerous. The greater number of them deal with philosophy and theology. No work of Bonaventure's is exclusively philosophical, but in his “Commentary on the Sentences”, his “Breviloquium”, his “Itinerarium Nentis in Deum” and his “De reductione Artium ad Theologiam”, he deals with the most important and difficult questions of philosophy in such a way that these four works taken together contain the elements of a complete system of philosophy, and at the same time bear striking witness to the mutual interpenetration of philosophy and theology which is a distinguishing mark of the Scholastic period. The Commentary on the “Sentences” remains without doubt Bonaventure's greatest work; all his other wntings are in some way subservient to it. It was written, superiorum praecepto (at the command of his superiors) when he was only twenty-seven and is a theological achievement of the first rank. It comprises more than four thousand pages in folio and treats extensively and profoundly of God and the Trinity, the Creation and Fall of Man, the Incarnation and Redemption, Grace, the Sacraments, and the Last Judgment, that is to say, traverses the entire field of Scholastic theology. Like the other medieval Summas, Bonaventure's “Commentary” is divided into four books. In the first, second, and fourth Bonaventure can compete favourably with the best commentaries on the Sentences, but it is admitted that in the third book he surpasses all others. The “Breviloquium”, written before 1257, is, as its name implies, a shorter work. It is to some extent a summary of the “Commentary” containing as Scheeben says, the quintessence of the theology of the time, and is the most sublime compendium of dogma in our possession. It is perhaps the work which will best give a popular notion of Bonaventure's theology; in it his powers are seen at their best. Whilst the “Breviloqulum” derives all things from God, the “Itinerarium Mentis in Deum” proceeds in the opposite direction, bringing all things back to their Supreme End. The latter work, which formed the delight of Gerson for more than thirty years, and from which Bl. Henry Suso drew so largely, was written on Mount la Verna in 1259. The relation of the finite and infinite, the natural and supernatural, is again dealt with by Bonaventure, in his “De reductione Artium ad Theologiam”, a little work written to demonstrate the relation which philosophy and the arts bear to theology, and to prove that they are all absorbed in it as into a natural centre. It must not be inferred, however, that philosophy in Bonaventure's view does not possess an existence of its own. The passages in Bonaventure's works on which such an opinion might be founded only go to prove that he did not regard philosophy as the chief or last end of scientific research and speculation. Moreover, it is only when compared with theology that he considers philosophy of an inferior order. Considered in itself, philosophy is, according to Bonaventure, a true science, prior in point of time to theology. Again, Bonaventure's pre-eminence as a mystic must not he suffered to overshadow his labours in the domain of philosophy, for he was undoubtedly one of the greatest philosophers of the Middle Ages.

Bonaventure's philosophy, no less than his theology, manifests his profound respect for tradition. He regarded new opinions with disfavour and ever strove to follow those generally received in his time. Thus, between the two great influences which determined the trend of Scholasticism about the middle of the thirteenth century, there can he no doubt that Bonaventure ever remained a faithful disciple of Augustine and always defended the teaching of that Doctor; yet he by no means repudiated the teaching of Aristotle. While basing his doctrine on that of the old school, Bonaventure borrowed not a little from the new. Though he severely criticized the defects of Aristotle, he is said to have quoted more frequently from the latter than any former Scholastic had done. Perhaps he inclined more, on the whole, to some general views of Plato than to those of Aristotle, but he cannot therefore be called a Platonist. Although he adopted the hylomorphic theory of matter and form, Bonaventure, following Alexander of Hales, whose Summa he appears to have had before him in composing his own works, does not limit matter to corporeal beings, but holds that one and the same kind of matter is the substratum of spiritual and corporeal beings alike. According to Bonaventure, materia prima is not a mere indeterminatnm quid, but contains the rationes seminales infused by the Creator at the beginning, and tends towards the acquisition of those special forms which it ultimately assumes. The substantial form is not in Bonaventure's opinion, essentially, one, as St. Thomas taught. Another point in which Bonaventure, as representing the Franciscan school, is at variance with St. Thomas is that which concerns the possibility of creation from eternity. He declares that reason can demonstrate that the world was not created ab aeterno. In his system of ideology Bonaventure does not favour either the doctrine of Plato or that of the Ontologists. It is only by completely misunderstanding Bonaventure's teaching that any ontologistic interpretation can he read into it. For he is most emphatic in rejecting any direct or immediate vision of God or of His Divine attributes in this life. For the rest, the psychology of Bonaventure differs in no essential point from the common teaching of the Schoolmen. The same is true, as a whole, of his theology.

Bonaventure's theological writings may be classed under four heads: dogmatic, mystic, exegetical, and homiletic. His dogmatic teaching is found chiefly in his “Commentary on the Sentences” and in his “Breviloquium”. Treating of the Incarnation, Bonaventure does not differ substantially from St. Thomas. In answer to the question: “Would the Incarnation have taken place if Adam had not sinned?”, he answers in the negative. Again, notwithstanding his deep devotion to the Blessed Virgin, he favours the opinion which does not exempt her from original sin, quia magis consonat fidei pietati et sanctorum auctoritati. But Bonaventure's treament of this question marked a distinct advance, and he did more perhaps than anyone before Scotus to clear the ground for its correct presentation. His treatise on the sacraments is largely practical and is characterized by a distinctly devotional element. This appears especially in is treatment of the Holy Eucharist. He rejects the doctrine of physical, and admits only a moral, efficacy in the sacraments. It is much to be regretted that Bonaventure's views on this and other controverted questions should be so often misrepresented, even by recent writers. For example, at, least three of the latest and best known manuals of dogma in treating of such questions as “De angelorum natura”, “De scientia Christi”, “De natura distinctionis inter caritatem et gratiam sanctificantem”, “De causalitate sacramentorum”, “De statu parvulorum sine baptismo morientium”, gratuitously attribute opinions to Bonaventure which are entirely at variance with his real teaching. To be sure Bonaventure, like all tbe Scholastics, occasionally put forward opinions not strictly correct in regard to questions not yet defined or clearly settled, but even here his teaching represents the most profound and acceptable ideas of his age and marks a notable stage in the evolution of knowledge. Bonaventure's authority has always been very great in the Church. Apart from his personal influence at Lyons (1274), his writings carried groat weight at the subsequent councils at Vienna (1311), Constance (1417), Basle (14,35), and Florence (1438). At Trent (1546) his writings, as Newman remarks (Apologia, ch. v) had a critical effect on some of the definitions of dogma, and at the Vatican Council (1870), sentences from them were embodied in the decrees concerning papal supremacy and infallibility.

Only a small part of Bonaventure's writings is properly mystical. These are characterized by brevity and by a faithful adherence to the teaching of the Gospel. The perfecting of the soul by the uprooting of vice and the implanting of virtue is his chief concern. There is a degree of prayer in which ecstasy occurs. When it is attained, God is sincerely to be thanked. It must, however, be regarded only as incidental. It is by no means essential to the possession of perfection in the highest degree. Such is the general outline of Bonaventure's mysticism which is largely a continuation and development of what the St. Victors had already laid down. The shortest and most complete summary of it is found in his “De Triplici Via”, often erroneously entitled the “Incendium Amoris”, in which he distinguishes the different stages or degrees of perfect charity. What the “Breviloquium” is to Scholasticism, the “De Triplici Via” is to mysticism: a perfect compendium of all that is best in it. Savonarola made a pious and learned commentary upon it. Perhaps the best known of Bonaventure's other mystical and ascetical writings are the “Soliloquium”, a sort of dialogue containing a rich collection of passages from the Fathers on spiritual questions; the “Lignum vitae”, a series of forty-eight devout meditations on the life of Christ, the “De sex alis seraphim”, a precious opuscule on the virtues of superiors, which Father Claudius Acquaviva caused to be printed separately and circulated throughout the Society of Jesus; the “Vitis mystica”, a work on the Passion, which was for a long time erroneously ascribed to St. Bernard, and “De Perfectione vitae”, a treatise which depicts the virtues that make for religious perfection, and which appears to have been written for the use of Blessed Isabella of France, who had founded a monastery of Poor Clares at Longchamps.

Bonaventure's exegetical works were highly esteemed in the Middle Ages and still remain a treasure house of thoughts and treatises. They include commentaries on the Books of Ecclesiastes and Wisdom and on the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John. In addition to his commentary on the Fourth Gospel, Bonaventure composed “Collationos in Joannem”, ninety-one conferences on subjects relating to it. His “Collationes in Hexameron” is a work of the same kind, but its title, which did not originate with Bonaventure, is somewhat misleading. It consists of an unfinished course of instructions delivered at Paris in 1273. Bonaventure did not intend in these twenty-one discourses to explain the work of the six days, but rather to draw some analogous instructions from the first chapter of Genesis, as a warning to his auditors against some errors of the day. It is an exaggeration to say that Bonaventure had regard only to the mystical sense of Scripture. In such of his writings as are properly exegetical he follows the text, though he also develops the practical conclusions deduced from it, for in the composition of these works he had the advantage of the preacher mainly in view. Bonaventure had conceived the most sublime idea of the ministry of preaching, and notwithstanding his manifold labours in other fields, this ministry ever held an especial place among his labours. He neglected no opportunity of preaching. whether to the clergy, the people, or his own Friars, and Bl. Francis of Fabriano (d. 1322), his contemporary and auditor, bears witness that Bonaventure's renown as a preacher almost surpassed his fame as a teacher. He preached before popes and kings, in Spain and Germany, as well as in France and Italy. Nearly five hundred authentic sermons of Bonaventure have come down to us; the greater part of them were delivered in Paris before the university while Bonaventure was professor there, or after be had become minister general. Most of them were taken down by some of his auditors and thus preserved to posterity. In his sermons he follows the Scholastic method of putting forth the divisions of his subject and then expounding each division according to the different senses.

Besides his philosophical and theological writings, Bonaventure left a number of works referring to the religious life, but more especially to the Franciscan Order. Among the latter is his well-known explanation of the Rule of the Friars Minor; in this work, written at a time when the dissensions vithin the order as to the observance of the Rule were so painfully marked, he adopted a conciliatory attitude, approving neither the interpretation of the Zelanti nor that of the Relaxti. His aim was to promote harmony in essentials. With this end in view, he had chosen a middle course at the outset and firmly adhered to it during the seventeen years of his generalship. If anyone could have succeeded in uniting the order, it would have been Bonaventure; but the via media proved impracticable, and Bonaventure's personality only served to hold in check the elements of discord, subsequently represented by the Conventuals and the Fraticelli. Following upon his explanation of the Rule comes Bonaventure's important treatise embodying the Constitutions of Narbonne already referred to. There is also an answer by Bonaventure to some questions concerning the Rule, a treatise on the guidance of novices, and an opuscule in which Bonaventure states why the Friars Minor preach and hear confessions, besides a number of letters which give us a special insight into the saint's character. These include official letters written by Bonaventure as general to the superiors of the order, as well as personal letters addressed like that “Ad innominatum magistrum” to private individuals. Bonaventure's beautiful “Legend” or life of St. Francis completes the writings in which he strove to promote the spiritual welfare of his brethren. This well-known work is composed of two parts of very unequal value. In the first Bonaventure publishes the unedited facts that he had been able to gather at Assisi and elsewhere; in the other he merely abridges and repeats what others, and especially Celano, had already recorded. As a whole, it is essentially a legenda pacis, compiled mainly with a view to pacifying the unhappy discord still ravaging the order. St. Bonaventure's aim was to present a general portrait of the holy founder which, by the omission of certain points that had given rise to controversy, should be acceptable to all parties. This aim was surely legitimate even though from a critical standpoint the work may not be a perfect biography. Of this “Legenda Major”, as it came to be called, Bonaventure made an abridgment arranged for use in choir and known as the “Legenda Minor”.

Bonaventure was the true heir and follower of Alexander of Hales and the continuator of the old Franciscan school founded by the Doctor Irrefragabilis, but he surpassed the latter in acumen, fertility of imagination, and originality of expression. His proper place is heside his friend St. Thomas, as they are the two greatest theologians of Scholasticism. If it be true that the system of St. Thomas is more finished than that of Bonaventure, it should be borne in mind that, whereas Thomas was free to give himself to study to the end of his days, Bonaventure had not yet received the Doctor's degree when he was called to govern his order and overwhelmed with multifarious cares in consequence. The heavy responsibilities which he bore till within a few weeks of his death were almost incompatible with further study and even precluded his completing what he had begun before his thirty-sixth year. Again, in attempting to make a comparison between Bonaventure and St. Thomas, we should remember that the two saints were of a different bent of mind; each had qualities in which he excelled; one was in a sense the complement of the other; one supplied what the other lacked. Thus Thomas was analytical, Bonaventure synthetical; Thomas was the Christian Aristotle, Bonaventure the true disciple of Augustine; Thomas was the teacher of the schools, Bonaventure of practical life; Thomas enlightened the mind, Bonaventure inflamed the heart; Thomas extended the Kingdom of God by the love of theology, Bonaventure by the theology of love. Even those who hold that Bonaventure does not reach the level of St. Thomas in the sphere of Scholastic speculation concede that as a mystic he far surpasses the Angelic Doctor. In this particular realm of thelogy, Bonaventure equals, if he does not excel, St. Bernard himself. Leo XIII rightly calls Bonaventure the Prince of Mystics: “Having scaled the difficult heights of speculation in a most notable manner, he treated of mystical theology with such perfection that in the common opinion of the learned he is facile princeps in that field.” (Allocutio of 11 October, 1590.) It must not be concluded, however, that Bonaventure's mystical writings constitute his chief title to fame. This conclusion, in so far as it seems to imply a deprecation of his labours in the field of Scholasticism, is opposed to the explicit utterances of several pontiffs and eminent scholars, is incompatible with Bonaventure's acknowledged reputation in the Schools, and is excluded by an intelligent perusal of his works. As a matter of fact, the half of one volume of the ten comprising the Quaracchi edition suffices to contain Bonaventure's ascetic and mystic writings. Although Bonaventure's mystical works alone would suffice fo place him in the foremost rank, yet he may justly be called a mystic rather than a Scholastic only in so far as every subject he treats of is made ultimately to converge upon God. This abiding sense of God's presence which pervades all the writings of Bonaventure is perhaps their fundamental attribute. To it we may trace that all-pervading unction which is their peculiar characteristic. As Sixtus V aptly expresses it: “In writing he united to the highest erudition an equal amount of the most ardent piety; so that whilst enlightening his readers he also touched their hearts penetrating to the inmost recesses of their souls” (Bull, Triumphantis Jerusalem). St. Antoninus, Denis the Carthusian, Louis of Granada, and Father Claude de Ia Colombière, among others, have also noted this feature of Bonaventure's writings. Invariably be aims at arousing devotion as well as imparting knowledge. He never divorces the one from the other, but treats learned subjects devoutly and devout subjects learnedly. Bonaventure, however, never sacrifices truth to devotion, but his tendency to prefer an opinion which arouses devotion to a dry and uncertain speculation may go far towards explaining not a little of the widespread popularity his writings enjoyed among his contemporaries and all succeeding ages. Again Bonaventure is distinguished from the other Scholastics not only by the greater warmth of his religious teaching, but also by its practical tendency as Tritliemius notes (Scriptores Eccles.). Many purely speculative questions are passed over by Bonaventure; there is a directness about all he has written. No useful purpose, he declares, is achieved by mere controversy. He is ever tolerant and modest. Thus while he himself accepts the literal interpretations of the first chapter of Genesis, Bonaventure acknowledges the admissibility of a different one and refers with admiration to the figurative explanation propounded by St. Augustine. He never condemns the opinions of others and emphatically disclaims anything like finality for his own views. Indeed he asserts the littleness of his authority, renounces all claims to originality and calls himself a “poor compiler”. No doubt Bonaventure's works betray some of the defects of the learning of his day, but there is nothing in them that savours of useless subtlety. “One does not find in his pages”, notes Gerson (De Examin. Doctrin.) “vain trifles or useless cavils, nor does he mix as do so many others, worldly digressions with serious theological discussions. “This”, he adds, “is the reason why St. Bonaventure has been abandoned by those Scholastics who are devoid of piety, of whom the number is alas! but too large”. It has been said that Bonaventure's mystical spirit unfitted him for subtle analysis. Be this as it may, one of the greatest charms of Bonaventure's writings is their simple clearness. Though he had necessarily to make use of the Scholastic method, he rose above dialectics, and though his argumentation may at times seem too cumbersome to find approval in our time, yet he writes with an ease and grace of style which one seeks in vain mnong the other Schoolmen. To the minds of his contemporaries impregnated with the mysticism of the Middle Ages, the spirit that breathed in Bonaventure's writings seemed to find its parallel only in the lives of those that stand nearest to the Throne, and the title of “Seraphic Doctor” bestowed upon Bonaventure is an undeniable tribute to his all-absorbing love for God. This title seems to have been first given to hbn in 1333 in the Prologue of the “Pantheologia” by Raynor of Pisa, O.P. He had already received while teaching in Paris the name of Doctor Devotus.

The Franciscan Order has ever regarded Bonaventure as one of the greatest Doctors and from the beginning his teaching found many distinguished expositors within the order, among the earliest being his own pupils, John Peckham later Archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew of Aquasparta, and Alexander of Alexandria (d. 1314), both of whom became ministers general of the order. The last named wrote a “Summa quaestionum S. Bonaventura. Other well-known commentaries are by John of Erfurt (d. 1317), Verilongus (d. 1464), Brulifer (d. c. 1497), do Combos (d. 1570), Trigos'is (d. 1616), Coriolano (d. 1625), Zamora (d. 1649),. Bontemps (d. 1672), Hauzeur (d. 1676), Bonelli (Cl. 1773), etc. From the fourteenth to the sixteenth century the influence of Bonaventure was undoubtedly somewhat overshadowed by that of Duns Scotus, owing largely to the prominence of the latter as champion of the Immaculate Conception in the disputes between the Franciscans and Dominicans. Sixtus V, however, founded a special chair at Rome for the study of St. Bonaventure; such chairs also existed in several universities, notably at Ingelstadt, Salzburg, Valencia, and Osuna. It is worthy of note that the Capuchins forbade their Friars to follow Scotus and ordered them to return to the study of Bonaventure. The centenary celebrations of 1874 appear to have revived interest in the life and work of St. Bonaventure. Certain it is that since then the study of his writings has steadily increased.

Unfortunately not all of Bonaventure's writings have come down to us. Some were lost before the invention of printing. On the other hand, several works have in the course of time been attributed to him which are not his. Such are the “Centiloquium”, the “Speculum Disciplina”, which is probably the work of Bernard of Besse, Bonaventure's secretary; the rhythmical “Philomela”, which seems to be from the pen of John Peckham; the “Stimulus Amoris” and the “Speculum B.V.M.”, written respectively by James of Milan and Conrad of Saxony; “The Legend of St. Clare”, which is by Thomas of Celano; the “Meditationes vitae Christi” composed by a Friar Minor for a Poor Clare, and the “Biblia pauperum” of the Dominican Nicholas of Hanapis. Those familiar with the catalogues of European libraries are aware that no writer since the Middle Ages had been more widely read or copied than Bonaventure. The earliest catalogues of his works are those given by Salimbene (1282), Henry of Ghent (d. 1293), Ubertino of Casale (1305), Ptolemy of Lucca (1327) and the “Chronicle of the XXIV Generals” (1368). The fifteenth century saw no less than fifty editions of Bonaventure's works. More celebrated than any preceding edition was that published at Rome (1588-96) by order of Sixtus V (7 vols. in fol.). It was reprinted with but slight emendations at Metz in 1609 and at Lyons in 1678. A fourth edition appeared at Venice (13 vols. in 4to) 1751, and was reprinted at Paris in 1864. All these editions were very imperfect in so far as they include spurious works and omit genuine ones. They have been completely superseded by the celebrated critical edition published by the Friars Minor at Quaracchi, near Florence. Any scientific study of Bonaventure must be based upon this edition, upon which not only Leo XIII (13 December, 1885) and Pius X (11 April, 1904), but scholars of all creeds have lavished the highest encomiums. Nothing seems to have been omitted which could make this edition perfect and complete. In its preparation the editors visited over 400 libraries and examined nearly 52,000 manuscripts. while the first volume alone contains 20,000 variant readings. It was commenced by Father Fidelis a Fanna (d. 1881) and completed by Father Ignatius Jeiler (d. 1904): “Doctoris Seraphici S. Bonaventurac S. H. B. Episcopi Cardinalis Opera Omnia, — edita studio et cura P. P. Collegii S. Bonaventura in fol. ad Claras Aquas [Quaracchi] 1882-1902”. In this edition the works of the saint are distributed through the ten volumes as follows: the first four contain his great “Commentaries on the Book of Sentences”; the fifth comprises eight smaller scholastic works such as the “Breviloquium” and “Itinerarium”; the sixth and seventh are devoted to his commentaries on Scripture; the eighth contains his mystical and ascetic writings and works having special reference to the order; the ninth his sermons; whilst the tenth is taken up with the index and a short sketch of the saint's life and writings by Father Ignatius Jeiler.

We do not possess any formal, contemporary biography of St. Bonaventure. That written by the Spanish Franciscan, Zamorra, who flourished before 1300, has not been preserved. The references to Bonaventure's life contained in the works of Salimbene (1282) Bernard of Besse (c. 1380) Bl. Francis of Fabriano' (d. 1322), Angelo Clareno (d. 1337), Uhertino of C . 1338), Bartholomew of Pisa (d. 1399) and the “Chronicle of the XXIV Generals” (c. 1368), are in vol. X of the Quaracchi Edition (pp. 39-72).

PASCHAL ROBINSON

The Brethren of the Lord

A group of persons closely connected with the Saviour appears repeatedly in the New Testament under the designation “his brethren” or “the brethren of the Lord” (Matt 12:46, 13:55; Mark 3:31-32, 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12, 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; I Cor 9:5). Four such “brethren” are mentioned by name in the parallel texts of Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (where “sisters” are also referred to), namely, James (also mentioned Gal 1:19), Joseph, or Joses, Simon, and Jude; the incidental manner in which these names are given, shows, however, that the list lays no claim to completeness. Two questions in connexion with these “brethren” of the Lord have long been, and are still now more than ever, the subject of controversy: (1) The identity of James, Jude, and Simon; (2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his “brethren”.

(1) James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Gal 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Gal 1:19: “But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw non, saving James the brother of the Lord”, St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the “apostles” is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause “saving James” be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, “James the brother of the Lord” (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Gal 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. Now there were only two Apostles names James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts 15:6ssq., and Gal 2:9-12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2). James “the brother of the Lord” is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John 19:25 with Matt 27:56, and Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father's name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the “brethren” of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the “brethren” of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.

Of Joseph nothing further is known. Jude is the writer of the last of the Catholic Epistles (Jude 1). He is with good reason identified by Catholic commentators with the “Judas Jacobi” (“Jude the brother of James” in the Douay Version) of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, otherwise known as Thaddeus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18). It is quite in accordance with Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by the addition of his brother's name instead of his father's, when the brother was better known. That such was the case with Jude is inferred from the title “the brother of James”, by which he designates himself in his Epistle. About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matt 10:4-5; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connexion between the three. Be this as it may, it is certain that at least two of the “brethren” of Christ were among the Apostles. This is clearly implied in 1 Cor 9:5: “Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” The mention of Cephas at the end indicates that St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in general, calls special attention to the more prominent ones, the “brethren” of the Lord and Cephas. The objection that no “brethren” of the Lord could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months before Christ's death they did not believe in Him (John 7:3-5), rests on a misunderstanding of the text. His “brethren” believed in his miraculous power, and urged him to manifest it to the world. Their unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in His Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid themselves of the Jewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler. We meet with this idea among the Apostles as late as the day of the Ascension (Acts 1:6). In any case the expression “his brethren” does not necessarily include each and every “brother”, whenever it occurs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts 1:13-14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is made between the Apostles and the “brethren” of the Lord.

(2) The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His “brethren”. But as “brethren” (or “brother”) is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Gen 13:8, 14:14-16; Lev 10:4; 1 Par 15:5-10, 23:21-22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the “brethren” of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestant exegetes. On the orthodox side two views have long been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers, influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels, considered the “brethren” of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold that they were the Lord's cousins. That they were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matt 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matt 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His “brethren”, or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression.

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these “brethren” are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the “brethren” of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the “sister” of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether “sister” here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the MSS. of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other “brethren” may have been more distant than that of the above named four.

The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: “He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son”; and from Luke 2:7: “And she brought forth her firstborn son”. Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children. “Firstborn” (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. “Opening the womb” is there given as the equivalent of “firstborn” (prototokos). An only child was thus no less “firstborn” than the first of many. Neither do the words “he knew her not till she brought forth” imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists.

For the Cousin Theory: St. JEROME, Adv. Helvid. in P.L., XXIII; MILL, Pantheistic Principles, 220-316; VIGOUROUX, Les Livres saints et la critique, V, 397-420; CORLUY, Les frères de N.S.J. C. in Etudes (1878), I, 5, 145; MEINERTZ, Der Jacobusbrief und sein Verfasser (Freiburg im Br., 1905), 6-54; CORNELY, Introductio (Paris, 1897), III, 592 sqq.; SCHEGG, Jacobus der Brüder des Herrn (Munich, 1883); LAGRANGE in Rev. Bibl. (1906), 504, 505. For the Step-Brother Theory : LIGHTFOOT, Comm. on Gal., 252-291. For the Helvidian View : HASTINGS, Dict. Bib., I, 320; ZAHN, Forschungen, VI, Brueder und Vettern Jesu (Leipzig, 1900).

F. BECHTEL

St. Charles Borromeo

Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal-Priest of the Title of St. Prassede, Papal Secretary of State under Pius IV, and one of the chief factors in the Catholic Counter-Reformation, was born in the Castle of Arona, a town on the southern shore of the Lago Maggiore in Northern Italy, 2 October, 1538; died at Milan, 3 November, 1584. His emblem is the word humilitas crowned, which is a portion of the Borromeo shield. He is usually represented in art in his cardinal's robes, barefoot, carrying the cross as archbishop; a rope round his neck, one hand raised in blessing, thus recalling his work during the plague. His feast is kept on 4 November. His father was Count Giberto Borromeo, who, about 1530, married Margherita de Medici. Her younger brother was Giovanni Angelo, Cardinal de' Medici, who became pope in 1559 under the title of Pius IV. Charles was the second son, and the third of six children, of Giberto and Margherita. Charles' mother died about the year 1547, and his father married again.

His early years were passed partly in the Castle of Arona, and partly in the Palazzo Borromeo at Milan. At the age of twelve his father allowed him to receive the tonsure, and, upon the resignation of his uncle, Julius Caesar Borromeo, he became titular Abbot of Sts. Gratinian and Felinus ar Arona.

When he received the tonsure he was sent by his father to Milan, where he studied Latin under J.J. Merla. In October, 1552, he left Arona for the University of Pavia, where he had as his tutor Francesco Alciato, afterwards cardinal. His correspondence shows that he was allowed a small sum by his father, and that often he was in straitened circumstances, which caused him considerable inconvenience. It was not only that he himself suffered, but that his retinue also were not suitably clothed. Charles evidently felt bitterly his humiliation, but he does not seem to have shown impatience. Leaving Pavia to meet his uncle, Cardinal de' Medici, at Milan, he was, within a few weeks called upon to attend the funeral of his father, who died early in August, 1558, and was buried in the church of Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan.

Fresh responsibilities at once came to Charles, for though he was not the elder son, yet, at the request of his family, including even his brother, he assumed charge of all the family business. The question of possession of the Castle of Arona was one of great difficulty, as it was claimed by both France and Spain. Charles conducted the negotiations with great energy and diplomatic skill, and as a consequence of the Peace of Cambrai (3 April, 1559) the castle was handed over to Count Francesco Borromeo, in the name of his nephew, Federigo Borromeo, to be held by him for the King of Spain. He also did much to restore to their ancient monastic discipline the religious of his Abbey of Sts. Gratinian and Felinus. Though his studies were so often interrupted, yet his seriousness and attention enabled him to complete them with success, and in 1559 he maintained his thesis for the doctorate of civil and canon law.

In the summer of 1559, Paul IV died, and the conclave for the election of his successor, which began on 9 September, was not concluded till December, when Cardinal Giovanni Angelo de' Medici was elected and took the name of Pius IV. On the 3rd of January, 1560, Charles received a message by a courier from the pope, asking him to proceed at once to Rome. He started immediately for the Eternal City, but though he travelled rapidly he was not in time for the pope's coronation (6 January). On 22 January he wrote to Count Guido Borromeo that the pope had given him the charge of the administration of all the papal states. On 31 January he was created cardinal-deacon, together with Giovanni de' Medici, son of the Duke of Florence, and Gianantonio Serbellone, cousin of the pope. Charles was given the title of Sts. Vitus and Modestus, which was in the August following changed to that of St. Martino-ai-Monti. He wished for no rejoicings at Milan; all the celebration was to be at Arona, where were to be said ten Masses de Spiritu Sancto. At this time Cardinal Ippolito d'Este, of Ferrara, resigned the Archbishopric of Milan, and on 8 February the pope named Charles as administrator of the vacant see. In succession he was named Legate of Bologna, Romagna, and the March of Ancona. He was named Protector of the Kingdom of Portugal, of Lower Germany, and the Catholic cantons of Switzerland. Under his protection were placed the orders of St. Francis, the Carmelites, the Humiliati, the Canons Regular of the Holy Cross of Coimbra, the Knights of Jerusalem (or Malta), and those of the Holy Cross of Christ in Portugal. By a motu proprio (22 January, 1561) Pius IV gave him an annual income of 1000 golden crowns from the episcopal mensa of Ferrara.

Charles' office of secretary of state and his care for the business of the family did not prevent him from giving time to study, and even to recreations in the form of playing the lute and violoncello, and a game of ball. He lived at first at the Vatican, but in July, 1562, removed to the Palazzo Colonna, Piazza Sancti Apostoli. Soon after his arrival in Rome he founded at the Vatican an academy, which was a way of providing, by literary work, a distraction from more serious occupations. The members, whether ecclesiastics or laymen, met nearly every evening, and many of their contributions are amongst the works of Charles as “Noctes Vaticanae”. Charles was very soon occupied as secretary of state in using his influence to bring about the re-assembling of the Council of Trent, which had been suspended since 1552. The state of Europe was appalling from an ecclesiastical point of view. Many were the difficulties that had to be overcome — with the emperor, with Philip II of Spain, and, greatest of all, with France, where the demand was made for a national council. Still, in spite of obstacles, the work went on with the view of re-assembling the council, and for the most part it was Charles' patience and devotion that accomplished the object.

It was not until 18 January, 1562, that the council resumed at Trent, with two cardinals, 106 bishops, 4 mitred abbots, and 4 generals of religious orders present. The correspondence which passed between Charles and the cardinal legates at Trent is enormous, and the questions which arose many times threatened to bring about the breaking-up of the council. Difficulties with the emperor, the national principles put forward on behalf of France by the Cardinal Charles of Lorraine, Archbishop of Reims, required from Charles constant attention and the greatest delicacy and skill in treatment. The twenty-fifth, and last, session of the council was held 3 and 4 December, 1563; at it were present 255 Fathers. At a consistory on the 26th of January, 1564, Pius IV confirmed the decrees of the council, and later appointed a congregation of eight cardinals to see to the execution of these decrees. During the sitting of the re-assembled council Charles' elder brother, Count Federigo, had died (28 November, 1562). This event had a very determining result as to Charles, for he immediately resolved to give himself with greater strictness to spiritual matters, and he looked upon his brother's death as a warning to him to give up all worldly things. His resolution was well needed, for, as he was now head of the family, great pressure was brought to bear upon him to give up the ecclesiastical state and to marry. This view was even suggested to him by the pope at the instance of other relatives. Some months passed in these efforts to influence Charles, but finally he resolved to definitely fix himself in the ecclesiastical state by being secretly ordained priest. The ordination took place, by the hands of Cardinal Federigo Cesa, in Santa Maria Maggiore, on the 4th of September, 1563. He writes that he celebrated his first Mass on the Assumption, in St. Peter's, at the altar of the Confession. He said his second Mass at his house, attached to the Gesu, in an oratory where St. Ignatius had been accustomed to celebrate. Charles at this time had as his confessor Father Giovanni Battista Ribera, S.J. On the 7th of December, 1563, the feast of St. Ambrose, he was consecrated bishop in the Sistine Chapel; on the 23rd of March, 1564, he received the pallium, and was preconized on the 12th of May. In the following June his title was changed to that of Santa Prassede.

Meanwhile Charles had provided for the spiritual wants of his diocese. Antonio Roberti, in May, 1560, has, as his vicar, taken possession of his archbishopric, and Charles sent Monsignor Donato, Bishop of Bobbio, as his deputy for episcopal functions. Monsignor Donato soon died, and in his place, Charles commissioned Monsignor Girolamo Ferragato, O.S.A., one of his suffragans, to visit the diocese, and to report on its needs. Ferragato entered Milan, 23 April, 1562; on 24 June of the same year Charles sent to Milan Fathers Palmio and Carvagial, S.J., with the object of preparing the faithful of the diocese, both clergy and laity, for the carrying out of the reforms prescribed by the Council of Trent. While anxious for the spiritual welfare of his flock, he was no less solicitous for his own. There came to him the thought of what was the will of God concerning him, and whether he was to continue as the spiritual father of his diocese or retire to a monastery. It happened in the autumn of 1563, between the sessions of the Council of Trent, that the Cardinal of Lorraine went to Rome, accompanied by Ven. Bartholomew of the Martyrs, O.P., Archbishop of Braga, in Portugal (see BARTHOLOMEW OF BRAGA). Bartholomew had already shown himself to be of a like spirit to Charles, and when Pius IV introduced them, and suggested that he should begin the reform of the cardinals in the person of Charles, Bartholomew answered that if the princes of the Church had all been like Cardinal Borromeo, he would have proposed them as models for the reform of the rest of the clergy. In a private interview, Charles opened his heart to Bartholomew and told him of his thought of retiring to a monastery. Bartholomew applauded his desire, but at the same time declaredhis opinion that it was God's will that he should not abandon his position. Charles was now assured that it was his duty to remain in the world; but all the more he felt he ought to visit his diocese, though the pope always opposed his departure. Bartholomew counselled patience, and represented the assistance he could give to the pope and the whole Church by remaining in Rome. Charles was satisfied, and stayed on, doing the great work necessary by sending zealous deputies. After the Council of Trent he was much occupied with the production of the catechism embodying the teaching of the council, the revision of the Missal and Breviary. He also was a member of a commission for the reform of church music, and chose Palestrina to compose three masses; one of these is the “Missa Papae Marcelli”.

Pastoral solicitude, which is the characteristic chosen for mention in the collect of his feast, made him ever anxious to have the most suitable representatives in Milan. He heard of the excellent qualities of Monsignor Nicolò Ormaneto, of the diocese of Verona, and succeeded in obtaining the consent of his bishop to his transference to Milan. Ormaneto had been in the household of Cardinal Pole, and also the principal assistant of the Bishop of Verona. On the 1st of July, 1564, Ormaneto reached Milan, and at once carried out Charles' instructions by calling together a diocesan synod for the promulgation of the decrees of the Council of Trent. There were 1200 priests at the Synod. It was with the clergy that Charles began the reform, and the many abuses needed skilful and tactful treatment. Father Palmio contributed much in bringing the clergy to a sense of the necessity for reform. The synod was followed by a visitation of the diocese by Ormaneto. In September Charles sent thirty Jesuit Fathers to assist his vicar; three of these were placed over the seminary, which was opened on the 11th of November (feast of St. Martin of Tours). Charles was constantly directing the work of restoration of ecclesiastical discipline, and the education of the young, even down to minute details, was foremost in his thoughts. The manner of preaching, repression of avaricious priests, ecclesiastical ceremonies, and church music are some of the subjects on which Charles wrote many letters. The revival of strict observance of rule in the convents of nuns was another matter to which Charles urged Ormaneto's attention; the setting up of grilles in the convent parlours was ordered, and, to remove material difficulties, Charles ordered his agent, Albonese, to pay the cost of this where the convents, through poverty, were unable to bear the expense. This order brought difficulties with his own relations. Two of his aunts, sisters of Pius IV, had entered the Order of St. Dominic; they resented the setting up of the grilles as casting a slur on their convent. Charles, in a letter (28th of April, 1565) displaying much thought and great tact, strove to bring his aunts to see the good purpose of the order, but without success, and the pope wrote on the 26th of May, 1565, telling them that he had given general orders for the setting up of the grilles, and that it would be pleasing to him that those united to him by ties of blood and affection should set a good example to other convents.

Notwithstanding the support which Charles gave, Ormmaneto was discouraged by the checks with which he met, and wished to return to his own diocese. Charles pressed the pope to allow him to leave Rome, and at the same time encouraged Ormaneto to remain. At last the pope gave his consent to Charles visiting his flock and summoning a provincial council; but, desiring his stay to be short one, he created Charles legate a latere for all Italy. Charles prepared to start, chose canonists to help the council, and wrote to the Court of Spain and Philip II. He left Rome 1 September, and, passing through Florence, Bologna, Modena, and Parma, he made his solemn entry into Milan on Sunday, 23 September, 1565. His arrival was the occasion of great rejoicings, and the people did their utmost to welcome the first resident archbishop for eighty years. On the following Sunday he preached in the Duomo, on the words: “With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you” (Luke 22:15).

On the 15th of October the first provincial council met. It was attended by ten out of the fifteen bishops of the province, those absent being represented by their procurators. Three of these prelates were cardinals, and one, Nicolò Sfondrato of Cremona, was afterwards pope with the title of Gregory XIV. Charles announced that the reform must begin with the prelates: “We ought to walk in front, and our spiritual subjects will follow us more easily.” He commenced by fulfilling all things required in himself, and his wonderful clergy astonished the prelates. The council was finished on the 3rd of November, and Charles sent a mminute report to the pope. On the 6th of November he went to Trent as legate, to meet the Archduchesses Giovanna and Barbara, who were to be married to the Prince of Florence and the Duke of Ferrara. Charles conducted Barbara to Ferrara and Giovanna to Tuscany, where at Fiorenzuola, he received the news of the pope's serious illness. He reached Rome to find that the pope's condition was hopeless, and he at once bade the Holy Father turn all his thoughts to his heavenly home. On the 10th of December Pius IV died, assisted by two saints, Charles and Philip Neri. Onb the 7th of January, 1566, the conclave for the election of his successor was concluded by the election of Cardinal Michele Ghislieri, O.P., of Alessandria, Bishop of Mondovi, who, at the request of Charles, took the name of Pius V. It had been maintained that Charles at first favoured Cardinal Morone, but his letter to the King of Spain (Sylvain, I,309) seems to prove that he did his utmost to secure the election of Cardinal Ghislieri.

Pius V wished to keep Charles to assist him in Rome; but though Charles delayed his departure for some time, in the end his earnest representations obtained permission for him to return to Milan, at least for the summer. He returned to his see, 5 April, 1566, having made a detour to visit the sanctuary of Our Lady of Loreto. Charles showed admirably how the Church had the power to reform from within, and, though the task he had to do was gigantic, he set about its execution with great calmness and confidence. He began with his household, gave up much of his property to the poor, and insisted that in all that concerned him personally the greatest economy should be used; for his position as archbishop and cardinal he required due respect. He practised great mortification, and whatever the Council of Trent or his own provincial council had laid down for the life of the bishops he carried out, not only in the letter, but also in the spirit.

The rules for the management of his household, both in spiritual and temporal affairs, are to be found in the “Acta Ecclesiae Mediolanensis”. The result of the care that was taken of his household was seen in the many members of it who became distinguished bishops and prelates. More than twenty were chosen while members of the cardinal's household; one of these was Dr. Owen Lewis, fellow of New College, Oxford, who taught at Oxford and Douai, and after being vicar-general to St. Charles was made Bishop of Cassano in Calabria.

The administration of the diocese needed to be perfected; he therefore chose a vicar-general of exemplary life, learned in law and ecclesiastical discipline. He also appointed two other vicars, one for civil and the other for criminal causes. He associated with them other officials, all chosen for their integrity, and took care that they should be well paid, so as to preclude all suspicion of venality. Corruption in such matters was specially distasteful to him. Whilst providing for upright officials, the needs of the prisoners were not forgotten, and in time his court was known as the holy tribunal. He so organized his administration that by means of reports and conferences with the visitors and the vicars forane, his pastoral visits were productive of great fruit. The canons of his cathedral chapter were in turn the object of his reforming care. He put before them his plan of giving them definite work in theology and in connexion with the Sacrament of Penance. They welcomed his reforms, as he wrote to Monsignor Bonome: “The result of the way I have taken is very different to that in vogue today” (27 April, 1566). Pius V congratulated Charles on his success and exhorted him to continue the work.

Another great work which was begun at this time was that of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, in order that the children might be carefully and systematically instructed. This work was really the beginning of what is now known as the Sunday school, and there is a remarkable testimony to this in an inscription under a statue outside the Essex Unitarian Church, Kensington, London, where Cardinal Borromeo is mentioned in connexion with the work. The visitation of his flock was steadily carried out and various pious foundations were made to succour the needy and sinners. In 1567 opposition began to be made to his jurisdiction. The officials of the King of Spain announced that they would inflict severe penalties on the archbishop's officers if they imprisoned more laymen, or carried arms. The mmatter was referred to the king, and finally to the pope, who counselled the Senate of Milan to support the ecclesiastical authority. Peace was not restored; and the bargello, or sheriff, of the archbishop was imprisoned. The archbishop announced sentence of excommunication on the captain of justice and several other officials. Much trouble followed, and again the matter was laid before the pope, who decided in favour of the archbishop.

In October, 1567, Charles started to visit three Swiss valleys, Levantina, Bregno, and La Riviera. In most parts, indeed, there was much to reform. The clergy especially were in many cases so lax and careless, and even living scandalous lives, that the people had grown to be equally negligent and sinful. The hardships of this journey were great; Charles travelled on a mule, but sometimes on foot, over most difficult and even dangerous ground. His labours bore great fruit, and a new spirit was put into both clergy and laity. In August, 1568, the second diocesan synod was held, and it was followed in April, 1569, by the second provincial council. In August, 1569, matters came to a head in connexion with the collegiate church of Santa Maria della Scala. This church had been declared by Clement VII, in 1531, exempt from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Milan, provided that the consent of the archbishop was obtained; but this consent had never been obtained, and consequently the exemption did not take effect. Now the governor, the Duke of Albuquerque, had been induced by the opponents of the archbishop to issue an edict declaring that all who violated the king's jurisdiction should receive severe punishment. The canons of La Scala claimed exemption from the archbishop and relied on the secular power to support them. Charles announced his intention of making his visitation in accordance with the wishes of the pope, by sending Monsignor Luigi Moneta to the canons. He was met with opposition and open insult. Early in September Charles himself went, vested for a visitation. The same violent demeanour was again shown. The archbishop took the cross into his own hands and went forward to pronounce the sentence of excommunication. The armed men raised their weapons; the canons closed the door of the church against Charles, who with eyes fixed on the crucifix, recommended himself and these unworthy men to the Divine protection. Charles was indeed in danger of his life, for the canons' supporters opened fire, and the cross in his hand was damaged. His vicar-general then put up the public notice that the canons had incurred censures. This act was followed by blows and cries, removal of the notices, and the declaration that the archbishop was himself suspended from his office. Pius V was shocked at this incident, and only with very great difficulty allowed Charles to deal with these rebellious canons, when they repented.

In October, 1569, Charles was again in great danger. The Order of the Humiliati, of which he was protector, had by his persevering care been induced to accept certain reforms, in 1567. But some of its members strove to bring about a return to their former condition. As Charles would not consent to this, some of the order formed a conspiracy to take his life. On the 26th of October, whilst Charles was at evening prayer with his household, a member of the Humiliati, dressed as a layman, having entered with others of the public who were admitted to the chapel, took his stand four or five yards from the archbishop. The motet “Tempus est ut revertar ad eum qui me misit”, by Orlando Lasso, was being sung; the words “Non turbetur cor vestrum, neque formidet” had just been sung, when the assassin fired his weapon, loaded with ball, and struck Charles, who was kneeling at the altar. Charles, thinking himself mortally wounded, commended himself to God. A panic arose, which allowed the assassin to escape, but Charles motioned to his household to finish the prayers. At their conclusion it was found that the ball had not even pierced his clothes, but some of the shot had penetrated to the skin, and where the ball had struck a slight swelling appeared, which remained through his life.

It was seen how far the unruly-minded had gone, and the serious turn affairs had taken. At once the governor took prompt steps to assure Charles of his sympathy and his wish to find the assassin. Charles would not allow this, and asked the governor to use his efforts to prevent the rights of the Church being infringed. In some measure this occurrence led the canons of La Scala to sue for pardon, and on the 5th of February, 1570, Charles publicly absolved them before the door of his cathedral. Notwithstanding his wish to forgive those who had attempted his life, and his efforts to prevent their prosecution, four of the conspirators (amongst them Farina, who actually fired) were sentenced to death. All being of the clergy, they were handed over to the civil power (29 July, 1570); two were beheaded; Farina and another were hanged.

Charles at this time made a second visit to Switzerland, first visiting the three valleys of his diocese, then over the mountains to see his half-sister Ortensia, Countess d'Altemps. Afterwards he visited all the Catholic cantons, everywhere using his influence to remove abuses both among the clergy and laity, and to restore religious observance in monasteries and convents. He visited Altorf, Unterwalden, Lucerne, Saint Gall, Schwyz, Einsiedeln, where he said that he nowhere except at Loreto, experienced a greater religious feeling (10 September, 1570). Heresy had spread in many of these parts, and Charles sent to them experienced missionaries to win back those who had embraced it

At this time Pius V came to the conclusion that nothing less than the suppression of the Order of the Humiliati was adequate. He therefore issued a Bull (7 February, 1571) suppressing the order and providing for its property. This same year, owing to the short harvest, the whole province suffered from a terrible famine, during which Charles worked with unceasing toil to help the starving, relieving at his own expense as many as 3000 daily for three months. His example induced others to help, the governor, especially, giving large alms. In the summer of 1571 Charles was for somme time seriously ill, in the month of August; having partly recovered, he was making his visitation when he heard of the serious illness of the governor, the Duke of Albuquerque. Charles returned to Milan only in time to console the duchess. He made use of the prayers ordered by Pius V for the success of the Christians against the Turks, to urge on his flock the necessity of averting God's anger by penance. Great were the rejoicings at the victory of Lepanto (7 October, 1571). Charles was especially interested in this expedition by reason of the papal ships being commanded by Marco Antonio Colonna, whose son Fabricio was married to his sister, Anna Borromeo.

The archbishop remained in bad health, suffering from low fever and catarrh. It was feared that consumption would set in; in spite of his illness he prepared for the third diocesan synod, which was held in his absence in April, 1572. He soon afterwards heard of the death of Pius V (1 May, 1572), and, though feeble, he started for the conclave, which lasted one day and resulted in the election of Cardinal Ugo Buoncompagni, with the title of Gregory XIII, 13 May, 1572. As medical treatment had not restored Charles to health, he now abandoned it and returned to his ordinary rule of life, with the result that he was before long quite well. On his homeward journey he again visited Loreto, in November, and reached Milan on 12 November. He at this time resigned the offices of Grand Penitentiary, Archpriest of Santa Maria Maggiore, and other high dignities. In April, 1573, he held his third provincial council.

The new governor of Milan was Don Luigi di Requesens, who had known Charles in Rome. However, as soon as he took office, being urged by the opponents of Charles, he published some letters falsely incriminating Charles in questions of the royal authority and containing much that was contrary to the rights of the Church. Charles protested against their publication; with great reluctance, and after much anxious deliberation, he publicly pronounced, in August, sentence of excommunication explicitly against the grand Chancellor and immplicitly against the governor. As a consequence of this, libels were published in the city against Charles. The governor showed his displeasure by placing restricitions on the meetings of the confraternities, also depriving Charles of the Castle of Arona. Various rumours were in circulation of more wicked plans against Charles, but his tranquillity was maintained, and he carried on his work with his usual care, despite the fact that the governor had placed an armed guard to watch his palace. None of the governor's actions succeeding, the governor was led to ask for absolution, which he obtained by deception. When Gregory XIII learned of this, he compelled the governor to make satisfaction to Charles. This was done, and on 26 November Charles announced that the governor was absolved from all penalties and censures. In this year Charles founded a college for the nobility at Milan.

In August, 1574, Henry III of France was passing through the Diocese of Milan on his way from Poland to take the French throne. Charles met him at Monza. The fourth diocesan synod was in November, 1574. Gregory XIII proclaimed a jubilee for 1575, and on the 8th of December, 1574, Charles left for Rome. He visited many shrines and, having reached Rome, performed the required devotions and started for Milan, in February. He assisted at the death-bed of his brother-in-law, Cesare Gonzaga, and continued the visitation of his province. In 1576 the jubilee was kept in the diocese of Milan. It began on the 2nd of February. Whilst the jubilee was being celebrated, news came of the outbreak of plague in Venice and Mantua. The fourth provincial council was held in May. In August, Don John of Austria, visited Milan. Religious exercises were being carried out, and his arrival was made the occasion of rejoicings and spectacular effects. All at once everything was changed, for the plague appeared in Milan. Charles was at Lodi, at the funeral of the bishop. He at once returned, and inspired confidence in all. He was convinced that the plague was sent as a chatisement for sin, abd sought all the more to give himself to prayer. At the same time he thought of the people. He prepared himself for death, made his will (9 September, 1576), and then gave himself up entirely to his people. Personal visits were paid by him to the plague-stricken houses. In the hospital of St. Gregory were the worst cases; to this he went, and his presence comforted the sufferers. Though he worked so arduously himself, it was only after many trials that the secular clergy of the town were induced to assist him, but his persuasive words at last won them so that they afterwards aided him in every way. It was at this time that, wishing to do penance for his people, he walked in procession, barefooted, with a rope round his neck, at one time bearing in his hand the relic of the Holy Nail.

At the beginning of 1577 the plague began to abate, and though there was a temmporary increase in the number of cases, at last it ceased. The Milanese vowed to build a church dedicated to St. Sebastian, if he would deliver them. This promise was fulfilled. Charles wrote at this time the “Memoriale”, a small work, addressed to his suffragans, which had for its object to recall the lessons given by the cessation of the plague. He also compiled books of devotion for persons of every state of life. By the beginning of 1578 the plague had quite disappeared from all parts. At the end of 1578 the fifth diocesan synod was held. It lasted three days. Charles endeavoured at this time to induce the canons of the cathedral to unite with himself in community life. In this year, on the 16th of August, he began the foundation of the congregation of secular priests under the patronage of Our Lady and St. Ambrose, giving it the title of the Oblates of St. Ambrose. Though he had been helped by various orders of religious, especially by the Jesuits and the Barnabites, one of whom (now Bl. Alexander Sauli) was for many years his constant adviser, yet he felt the need of a body of men who could act as his assistants and, living in community, would be more easily impressed by his spirit and wishes. He was the master mind of this new congregation, and he ever insisted on the need of complete union between himself and its members. It was his delight to be with them, and, looking to him as a father, they were ready to go where he wished, to undertake works of every kind. He placed them in seminaries, schools, and confraternities. The remaining synods were held in 1579 and succeeding years, the last (the eleventh) in 1584.

His first pilgrimage to Turin, to visit the Holy Shroud, was in 1578. About this time he first visited the holy mountain of Varallo to meditate on the mysteries of the Passion in the chapels there. In 1578-9 the Marquis of Ayamonte, the soccessor of Requesens as governor, opposed the jurisdiction of the archbishop, and in September of the latter year Charles went to Rome to obtain a decision on the question of jurisdiction. The dispute arose in consequence of the governor ordering the carnival to be celebrated with additional festivities on the first Sunday of Lent, against the archbishop's orders. The pope confirmed the decrees of the archbishop, and urged the Milanese to submit. The envoys sent by them were so ashamed that they would not themselves present the pope's reply. Gregory XIII had welcomed Charles and rejoiced at his presence. Charles did much work during his stay for his province, especially for Switzerland. In connexion with the rule which Charles drew up for the Oblates of St. Ambrose, it is to be noted that when in Rome he submitted it to St. Philip Neri, who advised Charles to exclude the vow of poverty. Charles defended its inclusion, so St. Philip said, “We will put it to the judgment of Brother Felix”. This brother was a simple Capuchin lay brother at the Capuchins, close to the Piazza Barberini. St. Philip and St. Charles went to him, and he put his finger on the article dealing with the vow of poverty, and said, “This is what should be effaced”. Felix was also a saint, and is known as St. Felix of Cantalicio. Charles returned to Milan by Florence, Bologna, and Venice, everywhere reviving the true ecclesiastical spirit. When he reached Milan the joy of his people was great, for it had been said he would not return. After the beginning of Lent (1580), Charles began his visitation at Brescia; soon after, in April, he was called back to Milan to assist at the death-bed of the governor, Ayamonte. In this year Charles visited the Valtelline valley in the Grisons. In July he was brought to know a youth who afterwards reached great sanctity. He was invited by the Marquis Gonzaga to stay with him, and refused, but while staying at the archpriest's house he met the eldest son of the marquis, Luigi Gonzaga, then twelve years old, now raised to the altars of the Church as St. Aloysius Gonzaga, S.J. Charles gave him his first Communion. The next year (1581) Charles sent to the King of Spain a special envoy in the person of Father Charles Bascape of the Barnabites, charging him to endeavour to come to an understanding on the question of jurisdiction. The result was that a governor, the Duke of Terra Nova, was sent, who was instructed to act in concert with Charles. After this no further controversy arose.

In 1582 Charles started on his last journey to Rome, both in obedience to the decrees of the Council of Trent, and to have the decrees of the sixth provincial council confirmed. This was his last visit, and during it he resided at the monastery attached to his titular church of Santa Prassede, where still are shown pieces of furniture used by him. He left Rome in January, 1583, and travelled by Sienna and Mantua, where he had been commissioned by the pope to pronounce a judgment. A great portion of this year was taken up by visitations. In November he began a visitation as Apostolic visitor of all the cantons of Switzerland and the Grisons, leaving the affairs of his diocese in the hands of Monsignor Owen Lewis, his vicar-general. He began in the Mesoleina Valley; here not only was there heresy to be fought, but also witchcraft and sorcery, and at Roveredo it was discovered that the provost, or rector, was the foremost in sorceries. Charles spent considerable time in setting right this terrible state of things. It was his especial care to leave holy priests and good religious to guide the people. Next he visited Bellinzona and Ascona, working strenuously to extirpate heresy, and meeting with much opposition from the Bishop of Coire. The negotiations were continued into the next year, the last of Charles on earth. All his work bore fruit, and his efforts in these part ensured the preservation of the Faith. The heretics spread false reports that Charles was really working for Spain against the inhabitants of the Grisons. In spite of their falsehoods Charles continued to attack them and to defend Catholics, who had much to suffer.

At the end of 1584 he had an attack of erysipelas in one leg, which obliged to remain in bed. He however has a congress of the rural deans, sixty in number, with whom he fully discussed the needs of the diocese. He also made great exertions to suppress the licentiousness of the carnival. Knowing the needs of the invalids who left the great hospital he determined to found a convalescent hospital. He did not live to see it completed, but his immediate successor saw that the work was executed. During September and early October he was at Novara, Vercelli, and Turin. On the 8th of October he left Turin and thence travelled to Monte Varallo. He was going to prepare for death. His confessor, Father Adorno, was told to join him. On 15 October he began the exercises by making a general confession. On the 18th the Cardinal of Vercelli summoned him to Arona to discuss urgent and important business. The night before Charles spent eight hours in prayer on his knees. On the 20th he was back at Varallo; on the 24th an attack of fever came on; he concealed it at first, but suffering from sickness he was obliged to declare his state. For five days this state lasted, but still he said Mass and gave Communion daily, and carried on his correspondence. He seemed to know that death was at hand and determined to work as long as he had strength left. The foundation of the college at Ascona was not completed, and it was urgent that it should be finished in a short time, so Charles pressed on and started, in spite of his sufferings, on 29 October, having previously paid a farewell visit to the chapels. He was found prostrate in the chapel where the burial of Our Lord was represented. He rode to Arona, thence went by boat to Canobbio, where he stayed the night, said Mass on the 30th, and proceeded to Ascona. He visited the college, and afterwards set out at night for Canobbio, staying a short time at Locarno, where he intended to bless a cemetery, but, finding himself without his pontifical vestments, he abandoned the idea. When he reached Canobbio the fever was decreasing, and he was very weak. The next day he took the boat for Arona and stayed there with the Jesuits, at the novitiate he had founded, and on All Saints' Day he said Mass for the last time, giving Communion to the novices and many of the faithful. The next day he assisted at Mass and received Holy Communion. His cousin, Rene Borromeo, accompanied him on the boat, and that evening he reached Milan. It was not known there that he was ill. He at once was visited by doctors, whose orders he obeyed. He would not allow Mass to be said in his room. A picture of Our Lord in the tomb was before him, together with two others of Jesus at Gethsemani and the body of the dead Christ. The physicians regarded the danger as extreme, and though there was a slight improvement, it was not maintained, and the fever returned with great severity. The archpriest of the cathedral gave him the Viaticum, which he received vested in rochet and stole. The administration of extreme unction was suggested. “At once”, Charles replied. It was at once given, and afterwards he showed but little sign of life. The governor, the Duke of Terra Nova, arrived after great difficulty in getting through the crowds which surrounded and had entered the palace. The prayers for a passing soul were said, the Passion was read, with Father Bascapè and Father Adorno at the bedside, the words “Ecce venio” (Behold I come) being the last words he was heard to utter (3 November, 1584). On the 7th of November his requiem was sung by Cardinal Nicolò Sfondrato, Bishop of Cremona, afterwards Gregory XIV. He was buried at night in the spot which he had chosen.

Devotion to him as a saint was at once shown and gradually grew, and the Milanese kept his anniversary as though he were canonized. This veneration, at first private, became universal, and after 1601 Cardinal Baronius wrote that it was no loger necessary to keep his anniversary by a requiem Mass, and that the solemn Mass of thedau should be sung. Then materials were collected for his canonization, and processes were begun at Milan, Pavia, Bologna, and other places. In 1604 the cause was sent to the Congregation of Rites. Finally, 1 November, 1610, Paul V solemnly canonized Charles Borromeo, and fixed his feast for the 4th day of November.

The position which Charles held in Europe was indeed a very remarkable one. The mass of correspondence both to and by him testifies to the way in which his opinion was sought. The popes under whom he lived - as has been shown above - sought his advice. The sovereigns of Europe, Henry III of France, Philip II, Mary, Queen of Scots, and others showed how they valued his influence. His brother cardinals have written in praise of his virtues. Cardinal Valerio of Verona said of him that he was to the well-born a pattern of virtue, to his brother cardinals an example of true nobility. Cardinal Baronius styled him “a second Ambrose, whose early death, lamented by all good men, inflicted great loss on the Church”.

It is a matter of interest to know that Catholics in England late in the sixteenth or at the beginning of the seventeenth century had circulated some life of St. Charles in England. Doubtless some knowledge of him had been brought to England by Blessed Edmund Campion, S.J., who visited him at Milan in 1580, on his way to England, stopped with him some eight days, and conversed with him every day after dinner. Charles had much to do with England in the days of his assistance to Pius IV, and he had a great veneration for the portrait of Bishop Fisher. Charles also had much to do with Francis Borgia, General of the Jesuits, and with Andrew of Avellino of the Theatines, who gave great help to his work in Milan.

WILLIAM FFRENCH KEOGH

Pope St. Clement I

Pope Clement I (called CLEMENS ROMANUS to distinguish him from the Alexandrian), is the first of the successors of St. Peter of whom anything definite is known, and he is the first of the “Apostolic Fathers “. His feast is celebrated 23 November. He has left one genuine writing, a letter to the Church of Corinth, and many others have been attributed to him.

I. THE FOURTH POPE According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time “most of the Latins” held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (De viris illustr., xv). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope. The early evidence shows great variety. The most ancient list of popes is one made by Hegesippus in the time of Pope Anicetus, c. 160 (Harnack ascribes it to an unknown author under Soter, c. 170), cited by St. Epiphanius (Haer., xxvii, 6). It seems to have been used by St. Irenaeus (Haer., III, iii), by Julius Africanus, who composed a chronography in 222, by the third- or fourth-century author of a Latin poem against Marcion, and by Hippolytus, who see chronology extends to 234 and is probably found in the “Liberian Catalogue” of 354. That catalogue was itself adopted in the “ Liber Pontificalis “. Eusebius in his chronicle and history used Africanus; in the latter he slightly corrected the dates. St. Jerome's chronicle is a translation of Eusebius's, and is our principal means for restoring the lost Greek of the latter; the Armenian version and Coptic epitomes of it are not to be depended on. The varieties of order are as follows:

1. Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass). Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium). Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).
2. Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),
3. Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), “Liberian Catal.”— “Liber. Pont.”].
4. Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine).

At the present time no critic doubts that Cletus, Anacletus, Anencletus, are the same person. Anacletus is a Latin error; Cletus is a shortened (and more Christian) form of Anencletus. Lightfoot thought that the transposition of Clement in the “Liberian Catalogue” was a mere accident, like the similar error “Anicetus, Pius” for “Pius Anicetus”, further on in the same list. But it may have been a deliberate alteration by Hippolytus, on the ground of the tradition mentioned by Tertullian. St. Irenaeus (III, iii) tells us that Clement “saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught y the Apostles “. Similarly Epiphanius tells us (from Hegesippus) that Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul. Now Linus and Cletus had each twelve years attributed to them in the list. If Hippolytus found Cletus doubled by an error.(Cletus XII, Anacletus XII), the accession of Clement would appear to be thirty-six years after the death of the Apostles. As this would make it almost impossible for Clement to have been their contemporary, it may have caused Hippolytus to shift him to an earlier position. Further, St. Epiphanius says (loc. cit. ): “ Whether he received episcopal ordination from Peter in the life-time of the Apostles, and declined the office, for he says in one of his epistles 'I retire, I depart, let the people of God be in peace', (for we have found this set down in certain Memoirs), or whether he was appointed by the Bishop Cletus after he had succeeded the Apostles, we do not clearly know.” The “Memoirs” were certainly those of Hegesippus. It seems unlikely that he is appealed to only for the quotation from the Epistle, c. liv; probably Epiphanius means that Hegesippus stated that Clement had been ordained by Peter and declined to be bishop, but twenty-four years later really exercised the office for nine years. Epiphanius could not reconcile these two facts; Hippolytus seems to have rejected the latter.

Chronology

The date intended by Hegesippus is not hard to restore. Epiphanius implies that he placed the martyrdom of the Apostles in the twelfth year of Nero. Africanus calculated the fourteenth year (for he had attributed one year too little to the reigns of Caligula and Claudius), and added the imperial date for the accession of each pope; but having two years too few up to Anicetus he could not get the intervals to tally with the years of episcopate given by Hegesippus. He had a parallel difficulty in his list of the Alexandrian bishops.

• Hegesippus Africanus (from Eusebius) IntervalReal Dates A D
• Linus 12 Nero 14 12 Nero 12 66
• Cletus 12 Titus 2 12 Vesp 10 78
• Clemens 9 Dom 12 (7) Dom 10 80
• Euaristus 8 Trajan 2 (10) Tajan 2 99
• Alexander 10 Trajan 12 10 Trajan 10 107
• Sixtus 10 Hadrian 3 (9) Hadrian 1 117
• Telesphorus 11 Hadrian 12 (10) Hadrian 11 127
• Hyginus 4 Anton 1 4 Anton 1 138
• Pius 15 Anton 5 15 Anton 5 142
• Anicetus Anton 20 Anton 20 157

If we start, as Hegesippus intended, with Nero 12 (see last column), the sum of his years brings us right for the last three popes. But Africanus has started two years wrong, and in order to get right at Hyginus he has to allow one year too little to each of the preceding popes, Sixtus and Telesphorus. But there is one inharmonious date, Trajan 2, which gives seven and ten years to Clement and Euaristus instead of nine and eight. Evidently he felt bound to insert a traditional date- and in fact we see that Trajan 2 was the date intended by Hegesippus. Now we know that Hegesippus spoke about Clement's acquaintance with the Apostles, and said nothing about any other pope until Telesphorus, “who was a glorious martyr.” It is not surprising, then, to find that Africanus had, besides the lengths of episcopate, two fixed dates from Hegesippus, those of the death of Clement in the second year of Trajan, and of the martyrdom of Telesphorus in the first year of Antoninus Pius. We may take it, therefore, that about 160 the death of St. Clement was believed to have been in 99.

Identity

Origen identifies Pope Clement with St. Paul's fellow-labourer, Phil., iv, 3, and 80 do Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome- but this Clement was probably a Philippian. In the middle of the nineteenth century it was the custom to identity the pope with the consul of 95, T. Flavius Clemens, who was martyred by his first cousin, the Emperor Domitian, at the end of his consulship. But the ancients never suggest this, and the pope is said to have lived on till the reign of Trajan. It is unlikely that he was a member of the imperial family. The continual use of the Old Testament in his Epistle has suggested to Lightfoot, Funk, Nestle, and others that he was of Jewish origin. Probably he was a freedman or son of a freedman of the emperor's household, which included thousands or tens of thousands. We know that there were Christians in the household of Nero (Phil., iv, 22). It is highly probable that the bearers of Clement's letter, Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Vito, were of this number, for the names Claudius and Valerius occur with great frequency in inscriptions among the freedmen of the Emperor Claudius (and his two predecessors of the same gens) and his wife Valeria Messalina. The two messengers are described as “faithful and prudent men, who have walked among us from youth unto old age unblameably “, thus they were probably already Christians and living in Rome before the death of the Apostles about thirty years earlier. The Prefect of Rome during Nero's persecution was Titus Flavius Sabinus, elder brother of the Emperor Vespasian, and father of the martyred Clemens. Flavia Domitilla, wife of the Martyr, was a granddaughter of Vespasian, and niece of Titus and Domitian; she may have died a martyr to the rigours of her banishment The catacomb of Domitilla is shown by existing inscriptions to have been founded by her. Whether she is distinct from another Flavia Domitilla, who is styled “Virgin and Martyr”, is uncertain. (See FLAVIA DOMITILLA and NEREUS AND ACHILLEUS) The consul and his wife had two sons Vespasian and Domitian, who had Quintilian for their tutor. Of their life nothing is known. The elder brother of the martyr Clemens was T. Flavius Sabinus, consul in 82, put to death by Domitian, whose sister he had married. Pope Clement is rep resented as his son in the Acts of Sts. Nereus and Achilleus, but this would make him too young to have known the Apostles.

Martyrdom

Of the life and death of St, Clement nothing is known. The apocryphal Greek Acts of his martyrdom were printed by Cotelier in his “Patres Apost.” (1724, I, 808; reprinted in Migne, P. G., II, 617, best edition by Funk, “Patr. Apost.”, II, 28). They relate how he converted Theodora, wife of Sisinnius, a courtier of Nerva, and (after miracles) Sisinnius himself and four hundred and twenty-three other persons of rank. Trajan banishes the pope to the Crimea, where he slakes the thirst of two thousand Christian confessors by a miracle. The people of the country are converted, seventy-five churches are built. Trajan, in consequence, orders Clement to be thrown into the sea with an iron anchor. But the tide every year recedes two miles, revealing a Divinely built shrine which contains the martyr's bones. This story is not older than the fourth century. It is known to Gregory of Tours in the sixth. About 868 St. Cyril, when in the Crimea on the way to evangelize the Chazars, dug up some bones in a mound (not in a tomb under the sea), and also an anchor. These were believed to be the relics of St. Clement. They were carried by St. Cyril to Rome, and deposited by Adrian II with those of St. Ignatius of Antioch in the high altar of the basilica of St. Clement in Rome. The history of this translation is evidently quite truthful, but there seems to have been no tradition with regard to the mound, which simply looked a likely place to be a tomb. The anchor appears to be the only evidence of identity but we cannot gather from the account that it belonged to the scattered bones. (See Acta SS., 9 March, II, 20.) St. Clement is first mentioned as a martyr by Rufinus (c. 400). Pope Zozimus in a letter to Africa in 417 relates the trial and partial acquittal of the heretic Caelestius in the basilica of St. Clement; the pope had chosen this church because Clement had learned the Faith from St. Peter, and had given his life for it (Ep. ii). He is also called a martyr by the writer known as Praedestinatus (c. 430) and by the Synod of Vaison in 442. Modern critics think it possible that his martyrdom was suggested by a confusion with his namesake, the martyred consul. But the lack of tradition that he was buried in Rome is in favour of his having died in exile.

The Basilica

The church of St. Clement at Rome lies in the valley between the Esquiline and Coelian hills, on the direct road from the Coliseum to the Lateran. It is now in the hands of the Irish Province of Dominicans. With its atrium, its choir enclosed by a wall, its ambos, it is the most perfect model of an early basilica in Rome, though it was built as late as the first years of the twelfth century by Paschal II, after the destruction of this portion of the city by the Normans under Robert Guiscard. Paschal II followed the lines of an earlier church, on a rather smaller scale, and employed some of its materials and fittings The marble wall of the present choir is of the date of John II (533-5). In 1858 the older church was unearthed, below the present building, by the Prior Father Mulooly, O. P. Still lower were found chambers of imperial date and walls of the Republican period. The lower church was built under Constantine (d. 337) or not much later. St. Jerome implies that it was not new in his time: “nominis eius [Clementis] memoriam usque hodie Romae exstructa ecclesia custodit” (De viris illustr., xv). It is mentioned in inscriptions of Damasus (d. 383) and Siricius (d. 398). De Rossi thought the lowest chambers belonged to the house of Clement, and that the room immediately under the altar was probably the original memoria of the saint. These chambers communicate with a shrine of Mithras, which lies beyond the apse of the church, on the lowest level. De Rossi supposed this to be a Christian chapel purposely polluted by the authorities during the last persecution. Lightfoot has suggested that the rooms may have belonged to the house of T. Flavius Clemens the consul, being later mistaken for the dwelling of the pope; but this seems quite gratuitous. In the sanctuary of Mithras a statue of the Good Shepherd was found.

II. PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE WRITINGS

Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement I:

1. The “Second Clementine Epistle to the Corinthians”, discussed under III.
2. Two “Epistles to Virgins”, extant in Syriac in an Amsterdam MS. of 1470. The Greek originals are lost. Many critics have believed them genuine, for they were known in the fourth century to St. Epiphanius (who speaks of their being read in the Churches) and to St. Jerome. But it is now admitted on all hands that they cannot be by the same author as the genuine Epistle to the Corinthians. Some writers, as Hefele and Westcott, have attributed them to the second half Or the second century, but the third is more probable (Harnack, Lightfoot). Harnack thinks the two letters were originally one. They were first edited by Wetstein, 1470, with Latin translation, reprinted by Gallandi, “Bibl. vett. Patr.”, I, and Migne, P. G., I. They are found in Latin only in Mansi, “ Concilia “, I, and Funk “Patres Apost.”, II. See Lightfoot, “Clement of Rome” (London, 1890), I Bardenhewer, “Gesch. der altkirchl. Litt.” (Freiburg im Br., 1902), I; Harnack in “Sitzungsber. der k. preuss. Akad. der Wiss.” (Berlin, 1891), 361 and “Chronol.” (1904), II, 133.
3. At the head of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals stand five letters attributed to St. Clement. The first is the letter of Clement to James translated by Rufinus (see III); the second is another letter to James, found in many MSS. of the “Recognitions”. The other three are the work of Pseudo-Isidore (See FALSE DECRETALS.)
4. Ascribed to Clement are the “ Apostolical Constitutions , “ Apostolic Canons”, and the “Testament of Our Lord”, also a Jacobite Anaphora (Renaudot, Liturg. Oriental. Coll., Paris, 1716, II; Migne, P. a., II). For other attributions see Harnack, “Gesch. der altchr. Lit.” I, 777-80. The “Clementines” or Pseudo-Clementines. (q. v.)

III. THE EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS

The Church of Corinth had been led by a few violent spirits into a sedition against its rulers. No appeal seems to have been made to Rome, but a letter was sent in the name of the Church of Rome by St. Clement to restore peace and unity. He begins by explaining that his delay in writing has been caused by the sudden calamities which, one after another, had just been falling upon the Roman Church. The reference is clearly to the persecution of Domitian. The former high reputation of the Corinthian Church is recalled, its piety and hospitality, its obedience and discipline. Jealousy had caused the divisions; it was jealousy that led Cain, Esau, etc., into sin, it was jealousy to which Peter and Paul and multitudes with them fell victims. The Corinthians are urged to repent after the example of the Patriarchs, and to be humble like Christ himself. Let them observe order, as all creation does. A curious passage on the Resurrection is somewhat of an interruption in the sequence: all creation proves the Resurrection, and so does the phoenix, which every five hundred years consumes itself, that its offspring may arise out of its ashes (23-6). Let us, Clement continues, forsake evil and approach God with purity, clinging to His blessing, which the Patriarchs so richly obtained, for the Lord will quickly come with His rewards, let us look to Jesus Christ, our High-Priest, above the angels at the right hand of the Father (36). Discipline and subordination are necessary as in an army and in the human body, while arrogance is absurd for man is nothing. The Apostles foresaw feuds, and provided for a succession of bishops and deacons; such, therefore cannot be removed at pleasure. The just have always been persecuted. Read St. Paul's first epistle to you, how he condemns party spirit. It is shocking that a few should disgrace the Church of Corinth. Let us beg for pardon- nothing is more beautiful than charity; it was shown by Christ when He gave His Flesh for our flesh, His Soul-for our souls; by living in this love, we shall be in the number of the saved through Jesus Christ, by Whom is glory to God for ever and ever, Amen (58). But if any disobey, he is in great danger; but we will pray that the Creator may preserve the number of His elect in the whole world.—Here follows a beautiful Eucharistic prayer (59-61). The conclusion follows: “We have said enough, on the necessity of repentance, unity, peace, for we have been speaking to the faithful, who have deeply studied the Scriptures, and will understand the examples pointed out, and will follow them. We shall indeed be happy if you obey. We have sent two venerable messengers, to show how great is our anxiety for peace among you” (62-4). “ Finally may the all-seeing God and Master of Spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him for a peculiar people, grant unto every soul that is called after His excellent and holy Name faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, temperance, chastity, and soberness, that they may be well-pleasing unto His Name through our High Priest and Guardian. Jesus Christ, through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honour, both now and for ever and ever, Amen. Now send ye back speedily unto us our messengers Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, together with Fortunatus also, in peace and with joy, to the end that they may the more quickly report the peace and concord which is prayed for and earnestly desired by us, that we also may the more speedily rejoice over your good order. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in all places who have been called by God and through Him, through whom is glory and honour, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and for ever and ever. Amen.” (64-5.)

The style of the Epistle is earnest and simple, restrained and dignified, and sometimes eloquent. The Greek is correct, though not classical. The quotations from the Old Testament are long and numerous. The version of the Septuagint used by Clement inclines in places towards that which appears in the New Testament, yet presents sufficient evidence of independence; his readings are often with A, but are less often opposed to B than are those in the New Testament; occasionally he is found against the Septuagint with Theodotion or even Aquila (see H. B. Swete, Introd. to the 0. T. in Greek, Cambridge 1900). The New Testament he never quotes verbally. Sayings of Christ are now and then given, but not in the words of the Gospels. It cannot be proved, therefore, that he used any one of the Synoptic Gospels. He mentions St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, and appears to imply a second. He knows Romans and Titus, and apparently cites several other of St. Paul's Epistles. But Hebrews is most often employed of all New Testament books. James, probably, and I Peter, perhaps, are referred to. (See the lists of citations in Funk and Lightfoot, Westcott and Zahn on the Canon, Introductions to Holy Scripture, such as those of Cornely, Zahn, etc., and “The New Test. in the Apost. Fathers”, by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Hist. Theology, Oxford, 1906.) The tone of authority with which the letter speaks is noteworthy, especially in the later part (56, 58, etc.): “But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin” (59). “It may, perhaps, seem strange”, writes Bishop Lightfoot, “to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal domination. And yet undoubtedly this is the case. “ (I, 70.)

Doctrine

There is little intentional dogmatic teaching in the Epistle, for it is almost wholly hortatory. A passage on the Holy Trinity is important. Clement uses the Old Testament affirmation “The Lord liveth”, substituting the Trinity thus: “As God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth and the Holy Spirit — the faith and hope of the elect, so surely he that performeth”, etc. (58). Christ is frequently represented as the High-Priest, and redemption is often referred to. Clement speaks strongly of justification by works. His words on the Christian ministry have given rise to much discussion (42 and 44): “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles from Christ. Both [missions] therefore came in due order by the will of God..... So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, having proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons for those who should believe. And this in no new fashion, for it had indeed been written from very ancient times about bishops and deacons; for thus saith the Scripture: 'I will appoint their bishops in justice and their deacons in faith”' (a strange citation of Is., lx, 17). . . . “And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the office of bishop. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they have given a law, so that, if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.” Rothe, Michiels (Origines de l'episcopat, Louvain, 1900, 197), and others awkwardly understand “ if they, the Apostles, should fall asleep “. For epinomen dedokasin, which the Latin renders legem dederunt, Lightfoot reads epimonen dedokasin, “they have provided a continuance “. In any case the general meaning is clear, that the Apostles provided for a lawful succession of ministers. Presbyters are mentioned several times, but are not distinguished from bishops. There is absolutely no mention of a bishop at Corinth, and the ecclesiastical authorities there are always spoken of in the. plural. R. Sohm thinks there was as yet no bishop at Corinth when Clement wrote (so Michiels and many other Catholic writers; Lightfoot leaves the question open), but that a bishop must have been appointed in consequence of the letter; he thinks that Rome was the origin of all ecclesiastical institutions and laws (Kirchenrecht 189). Harnack in 1897 (Chronol., I) upheld the paradox that the Church of Rome was so conservative as to be governed by presbyters until Anicetus; and that when the list of popes was composed, c. 170, there had been a bishop for less than twenty years; Clement and others in the list were only presbyters of special influence.

The liturgical character of parts of the Epistle is elaborately -discussed by Lightfoot. The prayer (59-61) already mentioned, which reminds us of the Anaphora of early liturgies, cannot be regarded, says Duchesne, “as a reproduction of a sacred formulary but it is an excellent example of the style of solemn prayer in which the ecclesiastical leaders of that time were accustomed to express themselves at meetings for worship” (Origines du culte chret., 3rd ed., 50; tr., 50). The fine passage about Creation, 32-3, is almost in the style of a Preface, and concludes by introducing the Sanctus by the usual mention of the angelic powers: “Let us mark the whole host of the angels, how they stand by and minister unto His Will. For the Scripture saith: Ten thousand times ten thousand stood by Him, and thousands of thousands ministered unto Him, and they cried aloud: Holy holy, holy is the Lord of Sabaoth; all creation is full of His glory. Yea, and let us ourselves then being gathered together in concord with intentness of heart, cry unto Him.” The combination of Daniel, Vii, 10, with Is., vi, 3, may be from a liturgical formula. It is interesting to note that the contemporary Apocalypse of St. John (iv, 8) shows the four living creatures, representing all creation, singing the Sanctus at the heavenly Mass.

The historical references in the letter are deeply interesting: “To pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived very near to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even until death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter, who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one or two, but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed Place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance (5). It is obvious that these two Apostles are mentioned because they suffered at Rome. It seems that St. Paul went to Spain as he intended (Rom., xv, 28) and as is declared by the spurious Acts of Peter and by the Muratorian fragment. “Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves. By reason of jealousy women being persecuted, after that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dircae, safely reached the goal in the race of faith, and received a noble reward, feeble though they were in body” (6). The “vast multitude” both of men and women “among ourselves” at Rome refers to the horrible persecution of Nero, described by Tacitus, “Ann.”, XV, xliv. It is in the recent past, and the writer continues: “We are in the same lists, and the same contest awaits us” (7)- he is under another persecution, that of Domitian, covertly referred to as a series of “sudden and repeated calamities and reverses”, which have prevented the letter from being written sooner. The martyrdom of the Consul Clement (probably patron of the pope's own family) and the exile of his wife will be among these disasters.

Date and authenticity

The date of the letter is determined by these notices of persecution. It is strange that even a few good scholars (such as Grotius Grabe, Orsi, Uhlhorn, Hefele, Wieseler) should have dated it soon after Nero. It is now universally acknowledged, after Lightfoot, that it was written about the last year of Domitian (Harnack) or immediately after his death in 96 (Funk). The Roman Church had existed several decades, for the two envoys to Corinth had lived in it from youth to age. The Church of Corinth is called archai (47). Bishops and deacons have succeeded to bishops and deacons appointed by the Apostles (44). Yet the time of the Apostles is “quite lately” and “our own veneration” (5). The external evidence is in accord. The dates given for Clement's episcopate by Hegesippus are apparently 90-99, and that early writer states that the schism at Corinth took place under Domitian (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, xvi, for kata ton deloumenon is meaningless if it is taken to refer to Clement and not to Domitian; besides, the whole of Eusebius's account of that emperor's persecution, III, xvii-xx, is founded on Hegesippus). St. Irenaeus says that Clement still remembered the Apostles, and so did many others, implying an interval of many years after their death. Volkmar placed the date in the reign of Hadrian, because the Book of Judith is quoted, which he declared to have been written in that reign. He was followed by Baur, but not by Hilgenfeld. Such a date is manifestly impossible, if only because the Epistle of Polycarp is entirely modelled on that of Clement and borrows from it freely. It is possibly employed by St. Ignatius, c. 107, and certainly in the letter of the Smyrnaeans on the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, c. 156.

The Epistle is in the name of the Church of Rome but the early authorities always ascribe it to Clement. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote c. 170 to the Romans in Pope Soter's time: “To-day we kept the holy day, the Lord's day, and on it we read your letter- and we shall ever have it to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxx). Hegesippus attributed the letter to Clement. Irenaeus, c. 180-5 perhaps using Hegesippus, says: “ Under this Clement no small sedition took place among the brethren at Corinth and the Church of Rome sent a most sufficient letter to the Corinthians, establishing them in peace, and renewing their faith, and announcing the tradition it had recently received from the Apostles” (III, iii). Clement of Alexandria, c. 200, frequently quotes the Epistle as Clement's, and so do Origen and Eusebius. Lightfoot and Harnack are fond of pointing out that we hear earlier of the importance of the Roman Church than of the authority of the Roman bishop. If Clement had spoken in his own name, they would surely have noted expressly that he wrote not as Bishop of Rome, but as an aged “ presbyter “ who had known the Apostles. St. John indeed was still alive, and Corinth was rather nearer to Ephesus than to Rome. Clement evidently writes officially, with all that authority of the Roman Church of which Ignatius and Irenaeus have so much to say.

The Second Letter to the Corinthians

An ancient homily by an anonymous author has come down to us in the same two Greek MSS. as the Epistle of Clement, and is called the Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. It is first mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxvii), who considered it spurious, as being unknown to the ancients; he is followed (perhaps not independently) by Rufinus and Jerome. Its inclusion as a letter of Clement in the Codex Alexandrinus of the whole Bible in the fifth century is the earliest testimony to a belief in its authenticity; in the sixth century it is quoted by the Monophysite leaders Timothy of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch, and it was later known to many Greek writers. This witness is a great contrast to the very early veneration paid to the genuine letter. Hilgenfeld's theory that it is the letter of Pope Soter to the Corinthians, mentioned by Dionysius in the fragment quoted above, was accepted by many critics, until the discovery of the end of the work by Bryennios showed that it was not a letter at all, but a homily. Still Harnack has again and again defended this view. An apparent reference to the Isthmian Games in ~7 suggests that the homily was delivered at Corinth; but this would be in character if it was a letter addressed to Corinth. Lightfoot and others think it earlier than Marcion, c. 140, but its reference to Gnostic views does not allow us to place it much earlier. The matter of the sermon is a very general exhortation, and there is no definite plan or sequence. Some citations from unknown Scriptures are interesting. The editio princeps of the two “Epistles to the Corinthians” is that of Patrick Young, 1633 (2d ed., 1637), from the famous Codex Alexandrinus (A) of the whole Bible in Greek. A number of editions followed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (enumerated by Funk, Gebhardt, and Lightfoot). in the nineteenth we may notice those of C. J. Hefele (Tubingen, 1st ed., 1839), Jacobson (Oxford, 1st ed., 1840, etc.), Dressel (Leipzig, 1857), in the editions of the Apostolic Fathers by these writers. An edition by Bishop J. B. Lightfoot appeared in 1869 (London and Cambridge), one by J. C. M. Laurent in 1870 (Leipzig), and one by 0. von Gebhardt and A. Harnack in 1875 (Leipzig). All these editions are founded on the one MS., which gives both letters incompletely, and not always legibly. On its doubtful readings Tischendorf wrote in 1873 (Clementis Rom. Epistulae, Leipzig), and he gave a so-called facsimile in 1867 (Appendix codicum celeberrimorum Sinaitici et Vaticani, Leipzig). A photographic reproduction of the whole codex was published at the British Museum in 1879. In 1875 the complete text of both Epistles was published by Bryennios at Constantinople, from-a MS. in the Patriarchal library of that city. It was used in Hilgenfeld's “ Clementis Romani Epistulae” (2d ed., Leipzig, 1876), in the second edition of Gebhardt and Harnack (1876). In Lightfoot's edition of 1877 (London) a Syriac version was also used for the first time. The MS. was written in 1170, and is in the Cambridge University Library. It has been published in full by R. L. Bensley and R. H. Kennett, “The Epistles of St. Clement to the Corinthians in Syriac” (London,1899). Dr. Funk's “Opera Patrum Apostolicorum” first appeared in 1878-81 (Tubingen). The greut and comprehensive posthumous edition of Lightfoot's “ Clement of Rome “ (which contains a photographic facsimile of the Constantinople MS.) was published in 1890 (2 vols. London). The Greek text and English translation are reprinted by Lightfoot, “The Apostolic Fathers” (1 vol., London, 1891). In 1878 Dom Germain Morin discovered a Latin translation of the genuine Epistle in an eleventh-century MS. in the library of the Seminary of Namur (Anecdota Maredsolana, 2 vols., “S. Clementis ad Corinthios Epistulae versio antiquissima”, Maredsous, 1894). The version is attributed to the second century by Harnack and others. It has been employed to correct the text in Funk's latest edition (1901), and by R. Knopf, “ Der erste Clemensbrief “ (in “Texte und Unters.”, New Series, Leipzig, 1899). Besides Lightfoot's excellent English rendering, there is a translation of the two Epistles in “Ante-Nicene Chr. Lit.” (Edinburgh, 1873, I).

JOHN CHAPMAN

St. Kevin (Coemgen)

Abbot of Glendalough, Ireland, b. about 498, the date being very obscure; d. 3 June, 618; son of Coemlog and Coemell. His name signifies fair-begotten. He was baptized by St. Cronan and educated by St. Petroc, a Briton. From his twelfth year he studied under monks, and eventually embraced the monastic state. Subsequently he founded the famous monastery of Glendalough (the Valley of the Two Lakes), the parent of several other monastic foundations. After visiting Sts. Columba, Comgall, and Cannich at Usneach (Usny Hill) in Westmeath, he proceeded to Clonmacnoise, where St. Cieran had died three days before, in 544. Having firmly established his community, he retired into solitude for four years, and only returned to Glendalough at the earnest entreaty of his monks. He belonged to the second order of Irish saints and probably was never a bishop. So numerous were his followers that Glendalough became a veritable city in the desert. His festival is kept throughout Ireland. Glendalough became an episcopal see, but is now incorporated with Dublin. St. Kevin's house and St. Kevin's bed of rock are still to be seen: and the Seven Churches of Glendalough have for centuries been visited by pilgrims.

O'HANLON, Lives of Irish Saints (Dublin, 1875), VI, 28 sqq.; HEALY, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890); LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical Hist. or Ireland (Dublin, 1829), II; OLDEN in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.

COLUMBA EDMONDS.

The Communion of Saints

(communo sanctorum, a fellowship of, or with, the saints), the doctrine expressed in the second clause of the ninth article in the received text of the Apostles' Creed: “I believe . . . the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints”. This, probably the latest, addition to the old Roman Symbol is found in:

• the Gallican Liturgy of the seventh century (P.L., LXXII, 349, 597);
• in some letters of the Pseudo-Augustine (P. L., XXXIX, 2189, 2191, 2194), now credited to St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 543);
• in the “De Spiritu Sancto” (P. L., LXII, 11), ascribed to Faustus of Riez (c. 460);
• in the “Explanatio Symboli” (P. L., LII, 871) of Nicetas of Remesiana (c. 400); and
• in two documents of uncertain date, the “Fides Hieronymi”, and an Armenian confession.

On these facts critics have built various theories. Some hold the addition to be a protest against Vigilantius, who condemned the veneration of the saints; and he connects that protest with Faustus in Southern Gaul and probably also with Nicetas in Pannonia, who was influenced by the “Catecheses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Others see in it at first a reaction against the separatism of the Donatists, therefore an African and Augustinian conception bearing only on church membership, the higher meaning of fellowship with the departed saints having been introduced later by Faustus. Still others think that it originated, with an anti-Donatist meaning, in Armenia, whence it passed to Pannonia, Gaul, the British Isles, Spain, etc., gathering new meanings in the course of its travels till it finally resulted in the Catholic synthesis of medieval theologians. These and many other conjectures leave undisturbed the traditional doctrine, according to which the communion of saints, wheresoever it was introduced into the Creed, is the natural outgrowth of Scriptural teaching, and chiefly of the baptismal formula; still the value of the dogma does not rest on the solution of that historical problem.

Catholic Doctrine

The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (I Cor., i, 2-Greek Text). The damned are thus excluded from the communion of saints. The living, even if they do not belong to the body of the true Church, share in it according to the measure of their union with Christ and with the soul of the Church. St. Thomas teaches (III:8:4) that the angels, though not redeemed, enter the communion of saints because they come under Christ's power and receive of His gratia capitis. The solidarity itself implies a variety of inter-relations: within the Church Militant, not only the participation in the same faith, sacraments, and government, but also a mutual exchange of examples, prayers, merits, and satisfactions; between the Church on earth on the one hand, and purgatory and heaven on the other, suffrages, invocation, intercession, veneration. These connotations belong here only in so far as they integrate the transcendent idea of spiritual solidarity between all the children of God. Thus understood, the communion of saints, though formally defined only in its particular bearings (Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, decrees on purgatory; on the invocation, veneration, and relics of saints and of sacred images; on indulgences), is, nevertheless, dogma commonly taught and accepted in the Church. It is true that the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Pt. I, ch. x) seems at first sight to limit to the living the bearing of the phrase contained in the Creed, but by making the communion of saints an exponent and function, as it were, of the preceding clause, “the Holy Catholic Church”, it really extends to what it calls the Church's “constituent parts, one gone before, the other following every day”; the broad principle it enunciates thus: “every pious and holy action done by one belongs and is profitable to all, through charity which seeketh not her own”.

In this vast Catholic conception rationalists see not only a late creation, but also an ill-disguised reversion to a lower religious type, a purely mechanical process of justification, the substitution of impersonal moral value in lieu of personal responsibility. Such statements are met best, by the presentation of the dogma in its Scriptural basis and its theological formulation. The first spare yet clear outline of the communion of saints is found in the “kingdom of God” of the Synoptics, not the individualistic creation of Harnack nor the purely eschatological conception of Loisy, but an organic whole (Matt., xiii, 31), which embraces in the bonds of charity (Matt., xxii, 39) all the children of God (Matt., xix, 28; Luke, xx, 36) on earth and in heaven (Matt., vi, 20), the angels themselves joining in that fraternity of souls (Luke, xv, 10). One cannot read the parables of the kingdom (Matt., xiii) without perceiving its corporate nature and the continuity which links together the kingdom in our midst and the kingdom to come. The nature of that communion, called by St. John a fellowship with one another (“a fellowship with us”—I John, i, 3) because it is a fellowship with the Father, and with his Son”, and compared by him to the organic and vital union of the vine and its branches (John, xv), stands out in bold relief in the Pauline conception of the mystical body. Repeatedly St. Paul speaks of the one body whose head is Christ (Col., i, 18), whose energizing principle is charity (Eph., iv, 16), whose members are the saints, not only of this world, but also of the world to come (Eph., I, 20; Heb., xii, 22). In that communion there is no loss of individuality, yet such an interdependence that the saints are “members one of another” (Rom., xii, 5), not only sharing the same blessings (I Cor., xii, 13) and exchanging good offices (ibid., xii, 25) and prayers (Eph., vi, 18), but also partaking of the same corporate life, for “the whole body . . . by what every joint supplieth . . . maketh increase . . . unto the edifying of itself in charity” (Eph., iv, 16).

Recent well-known researches in Christian epigraphy have brought out clear and abundant proof of the principal manifestations of the communion of saints in the early Church. Similar evidence, is to be found in the Apostolic Fathers with an occasional allusion to the Pauline conception. For an attempt at the formulation of the dogma we have to come down to the Alexandrian School. Clement of Alexandria shows the “gnostic's” ultimate relations with the angels (Strom., VI, xii, 10) and the departed souls (ibid., VIII, xii, 78); and he all but formulates the thesaurus ecclesiae in his presentation of the vicarious martyrdom, not of Christ alone, but also of the Apostles and other martyrs (ibid., IV, xii, 87). Origen enlarges, almost to exaggeration, on the idea of vicarious martyrdom (Exhort. ad martyr., ch. 1) and of communion between man and angels (De orat., xxxi); and accounts for it by the unifying power of Christ's Redemption), ut caelestibus terrena sociaret (In Levit., hom. iv) and the force of charity, stranger in heaven than upon earth (De orat., xi). With St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom the communion of saints has become an obvious tenet used as an answer to such popular objections as these: what, need of a communion with others? (Basil, Ep. cciii) another has sinned and I shall atone? (Chrysostom, Hom. i, de poenit.). St. John Damascene has only to collect the sayings of the Fathers in order to support the dogma of the invocation of the saints and the prayers for the dead.

But the complete presentation of the dogma comes from the later Fathers. After the statements of Tertullian, speaking of “common hope, fear, joy, sorrow, and suffering” (De poenit., ix and x); of St. Cyprian, explicitly setting forth the communion of merits (De lapsis, xvii); of St. Hilary, giving the Eucharistic Communion as a means and symbol of the communion of saints (in Ps. lxiv, 14), we come to the teaching of Ambrose and St. Augustine. From the former, the thesaurus ecclesiae, the best practical test of the reunion of saints, receives a definite explanation (De poenit., I, xv; De officiis, I, xix). In the transcendent view of the Church taken by the latter (Enchir., lvi) the communion of saints, though never so called by him, is a necessity; to the Civitas Dei must needs correspond the unitas caritatis (De unitate eccl., ii), which embraces in an effective union the saints and angels in heaven (Enarr. in Psalmos, XXXVI, iii, 4), the just on earth (De bapt., III, xvii), and in a lower degree, the sinners themselves, the putrida membra of the mystic body; only the declared heretics, schismatics, and apostates are excluded from the society, though not from the prayers, of the saints (Serm. cxxxvii). The Augustinian concept, though somewhat obscured in the catechetical expositions of the Creed by the Carlovingian and later theologians (P. L., XCIX, CI, CVIII, CX, CLII, CLXXXVI), takes its place in the medieval synthesis of Peter Lombard, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, etc.

Influenced no doubt by early writers like Yvo of Chartres (P. L., CLXII, 606l), Abelard (P. L. CLXXXIII, 630), and probably Alexander of Hales (III, Q. lxix, a, 1), St. Thomas (Expos. in symb. 10) reads in the neuter the phrase of the Creed, communio sanctorum (participation of spiritual goods), but apart from the point of grammar his conception of the dogma is thorough. General principle; the merits of Christ are communicated to all, and the merits of each one are communicated to the others (ibid.). The manner of participation: both objective and intentional, in radice operis, ex intentione facientis (Supp., 71:1). The measure: the degree of charity (Expos. in symb., 10). The benefits communicated: not the sacraments alone but, the superabundant merits of Christ and the saints forming the thesaurus ecclesia (ibid. and Quodlib., II, Q. viii, a. 16). The participants: the three parts of the Church (Expos. in symb., 9); consequently the faithful on earth exchanging merits and satisfactions (>I-II:113:6, and < Suppl., 13:2), the souls in purgatory profiting by the suffrages of the living and the intercession of the saints (Suppl., 71), the saints themselves receiving honour and giving intercession (>II-II:83:4, II-II:83:11, III:25:6), and also the angels, as noted above. Later Scholastics and post-Reformation theologians have added little to the Thomistic presentation of the dogma. They worked rather around than into it, defending such points as were attacked by heretics, showing the religious, ethical, and social value of the Catholic conception; and they introduced the distinction between the body and the soul of the Church, between actual membership and membership in desire, completing the theory of the relations between church membership and the communion of saints which had already been outlined by St. Optatus of Mileve and St. Augustine at the time of the Donatist controversy. One may regret the plan adopted by the Schoolmen afforded no comprehensive view of the whole dogma, bur rather scattered the various components of it through a vast synthesis. This accounts for the fact that a compact exposition of the communion of saints is to be sought less in the works of our standard theologians than in our catechetical, apologetic, pastoral, and even ascetic literature. It may also partly explain, without excusing them, the gross misrepresentations noticed above.

In the Anglo-Saxon Church

That the Anglo-Saxons held the doctrine of the communion of saints may be judged from the following account given by Lingard in his “History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church.” They received the practice of venerating the saints, he says, together with the rudiments the Christian religion; and they manifested their devotion to them both in public and private worship: in public, by celebrating the anniversaries of individual saints, and keeping annually the feast of All-Hallows as a solemnity of the first class; and in their private devotions, by observing the instructions to worship God and then to “pray, first to Saint Mary, and the holy apostles, and the holy martyrs, and all God's saints, that they would intercede for them to God”. In this way they learned to look up to the saints in heaven with feelings of confidence and affection, to consider them as friends and protectors, and to implore their aid in the hour of distress, with the hope that God would grant to the patron what he might otherwise refuse to the supplicant.

Like all other Christians, the Anglo-Saxons held in special veneration “the most holy mother of God, the perpetual virgin Saint Mary” (Beatissima Dei genitrix et perpetua virgo.-Bede, Hom. in Purif.). Her praises were sung by the Saxon poets; hymns in her honour were chanted in the public service; churches and altars were placed under her patronage; miraculous cures were ascribed to her; and four annual feasts were observed commemorating the principal events of her mortal life: her nativity, the Annunciation, her purification, and assumption. Next to the Blessed Virgin in the devotion was Saint Peter, whom Christ had chosen for the leader of the Apostles and to whom he had given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, “with the chief exercise of judicial power in the Church, to the end that all might know that whosoever should separate himself from the unity of Peter's faith or of Peter's fellowship, that man could never attain absolution from the bonds of sin, nor admission through the gates of the heavenly kingdom” (Bede). These words of the Venerable Bede refer, it is true, to Peter's successors as well as to Peter himself, but they also evidence the veneration of Anglo-Saxons for the Prince of the Apostles, a veneration which they manifested in the number of churches dedicated to his memory, in the pilgrimages made to his tomb, and by the presents sent to the church in which his remains rested and to the bishop who sat in his chair. Particular honours were paid also to Saints Gregory and Augustine, to whom they were chiefly indebted for their knowledge of Christianity. They called Gregory their “foster-father in Christ” and themselves “his foster-children in baptism”; and spoke of Augustine as “the first to bring to them the doctrine of faith, the sacrament of baptism, and the knowledge of their heavenly country”. While these saints were honoured by the whole people, each separate nation revered the memory of its own apostle. Thus Saint Aidan in Northumbria, Saint Birinus in Wessex, and Saint Felix in East Anglia were venerated as the protectors of the countries which had been the scenes of their labours. All the saints so far mentioned were of foreign extraction; but the Anglo-Saxons soon extended their devotion to men who had been born and educated among them and who by their virtues and zeal in propagating Christianity had merited the honours of sanctity.

This account of the devotion of the Anglo-Saxons to those whom they looked up to as their friends and protectors in heaven is necessarily brief, but it is amply sufficient to show that they believed and loved the doctrine of the communion of saints.

Protestant Views

Sporadic errors against special points of the communion of saints are pointed out by the Synod of Gangra (Mansi, II, 1103), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (P. G., XXXIII, 1116), St. Epiphanius (ibid., XLII, 504), Asteritis Amasensis (ibid., XL, 332), and St. Jerome (P. L., XXIII, 362). From the forty-second proposition condemned, and the twenty-ninth question asked, by Martin V at Constance (Denzinger, nos. 518 and 573), we also know that Wyclif and Hus had gone far towards denying the dogma itself. But the communion of saints became a direct issue only at the time of the >Reformation. The Lutheran churches, although commonly adopting the Apostles' Creed, still in their original confessions, either pass over in silence the communion of saints or explain it as the Church's “union with Jesus Christ in the one true faith” (Luther's Small Catechism), or as “the congregation of saints and true believers” (Augsburg Confession, ibid., III, 12), carefully excluding, if not the memory, at least the invocation of the saints, because Scripture “propoundeth unto us one Christ, the Mediator, Propitiatory, High-Priest, and Intercessor” (ibid., III, 26). The Reformed churches generally maintain the Lutheran identification of the communion of saints with the body of believers but do not limit its meaning to that body. Calvin (Inst. chret., IV, 1, 3) insists that the phrase of the Creed is more than a definition of the Church; it conveys the meaning of such a fellowship that whatever benefits God bestows upon the believers should mutually communicate to one another. That view is followed in the Heidelberg Catechism, emphasized in the Gallican Confession, wherein communion is made to mean the efforts of believers to mutually strengthen themselves in the fear of God. Zwingli in his articles admits an exchange of prayers between the faithful and hesitates to condemn prayers for the dead, rejecting only the saints' intercession as injurious to Christ. Both the Scotch and Second Helvetic Confessions bring together the Militant and the Triumphant Church, but whereas the former is silent on the signification of the fact, the latter says that they hold communion with each other: “nihilominus habent illae inter sese communionem, vel conjunctionem”.

The double and often conflicting influence of Luther and Calvin, with a lingering memory of Catholic orthodoxy, is felt in the Anglican Confessions. On this point the Thirty-nine Articles are decidedly Lutheran, rejecting as they do “the Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints”, because they see in it “a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God”. On the other hand, the Westminster Confession, while ignoring the Suffering and the Triumphant Church, goes beyond the Calvinistic view and falls little short of the Catholic doctrine with regard to the faithful on earth, who, it says, “being united to one another in love, have communion in each other's gifts and graces”. In the United States, the Methodist Articles of Religion, 1784, as well as the Reformed Episcopal Articles of Religion, 1875, follow the teachings of the Thirty-nine Articles, whereas the teaching of the Westminster Confession is adopted in the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, 1688, and in the Confession of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 1829. Protestant theologians, just as Protestant confessions, waver between the Lutheran and the Calvinistic view.

The cause of the perversion by Protestants of the traditional concept of communion of saints is not to be found in the alleged lack of Scriptural and early Christian evidence in favour of that concept; well-informed Protestant writers have long since ceased to press that argument. Nor is there any force in the oft-repeated argument that the Catholic dogma detracts from Christ's mediatorship, for it is plain, as St. Thomas had already shown (Suppl., 72:2, ad 1), that the ministerial mediatorship of the saints does not detract from, but only enhances, the magisterial mediatorship of Christ. Some writers have traced that perversion to the Protestant concept of the Church as an aggregation of souls and a multitude of units bound together by a community of faith and pursuit and by the ties of Christian sympathy, but in no way organized or interdependent as members of the same body. This explanation is defective because the Protestant concept of the Church is a fact parallel to, but in no way causative of, their view of the communion of saints. The true cause must be found elsewhere. As early as 1519, Luther, the better to defend his condemned theses on the papacy, used the clause of the Creed to show that the communion of saints, and not the papacy, was the Church: “non ut aligui somniant, credo ecclesiam esse praelatum . . . sed . . . communionem sanctorum”. This was simply playing on the words of the Symbol. At that time Luther still held the traditional communion of saints, little dreaming that he would one day give it up. But he did give it up when he formulated his theory on justification. The substitution of the Protestant motto, “Christ for all and each one for himself”. In place of the old axiom of Hugh of St. Victor, “Singula sint omnium et omina singulorum” (each for all and all for each—P. L., CLXXV. 416), is a logical outcome of their concept of justification; not an interior renovation of the soul, nor a veritable regeneration from a common Father, the second Adam, nor yet an incorporation with Christ, the head of the mystical body, but an essentially individualistic act of fiducial faith. In such a theology there is obviously no room for that reciprocal action of the saints, that corporate circulation of spiritual blessings through the members of the same family, that domesticity and saintly citizenship which lies at the very core of the Catholic communion of saints. Justification and the communion of saints go hand in hand. The efforts which are being made towards reviving in Protestantism the old and still cherished dogma of the communion of saints must remain futile unless the true doctrine of justification be also restored.

J. F. SOLLIER
In memory of Sister Ignatia, OSH

General Councils

This subject will be treated under the following heads:

1. Definition
2. Classification
3. Historical Sketch
4. The Pope and General Councils
5. Composition of General Councils

• Right of participation
• Requisite number of members
• Papal headship the formal element of Councils
• Factors in the Pope's Co-operation with the Council

• Convocation
• Direction
• Confirmation

• Business Methods
• The facts
• The theory

• Infallibility of General Councils;
• Correlation of Papal and Conciliary Infallibility
• Infallibility Restricted to Unanimous Findings
• Promulgation
• Is a Council above the Pope?
• Has a General Council Power to Depose a Pope?

I. DEFINITION

Councils are legally convened assemblies of ecclesiastical dignitaries and theological experts for the purpose of discussing and regulating matters of church doctrine and discipline. The terms council and synod are synonymous, although in the oldest Christian literature the ordinary meetings for worship are also called synods, and diocesan synods are not properly councils because they are only convened for deliberation. Councils unlawfully assembled are termed conciliabula, conventicula, and even latrocinia, i.e. “robber synods”. The constituent elements of an ecclesiastical council are the following:

• A legally convened meeting of
• members of the hierarchy, for
• the purpose of carrying out their judicial and doctrinal functions,
• by means of deliberation in common
• resulting in regulations and decrees invested with the authority of the whole assembly

All these elements result from an analysis of the fact that councils are a concentration of the ruling powers of the Church for decisive action.

The first condition is that such concentration conform to the constitution of the Church: it must be started by the head of the forces that are to move and to act, eg. by the metropolitan if the action is limited to one province. The actors themselves are necessarily the leaders of the Church in their double capacity of judges and teachers, for the proper object of conciliar activity is the settling of questions of faith and discipline. When they assemble for other purposes, either at regular times or in extraordinary circumstances, in order to deliberate on current questions of administration or on concerted action in emergencies, their meetings are not called councils but simply meetings, or assemblies, of bishops. Deliberation, with free discussion and ventilation of private views, is another essential note in the notion of councils. They are the mind of the Church in action, the sensus ecclesiae taking form and shape in the mould of dogmatic definition and authoritative decrees. The contrast of conflicting opinions, their actual clash necessarily precedes the final triumph of faith. Lastly, in a council's decisions we see the highest expression of authority of which its members are capable within the sphere of their jurisdiction, with the added strength and weight resulting from the combined action of the whole body.

II. CLASSIFICATION

Councils are, then, from their nature, a common effort of the Church, or part of the Church, for self-preservation and self-defence. They appear at her very origin, in the time of the Apostles at Jerusalem, and throughout her whole history whenever faith or morals or discipline are seriously threatened. Although their object is always the same, the circumstances under which they meet impart to them a great variety, which renders a classification necessary. Taking territorial extension for a basis, seven kinds of synods are distinguished.

1. Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum),the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.
2. The second rank is held by the general synods of the East or of the West, composed of but one-half of the episcopate. The Synod Of Constantinople (381) was originally only an Eastern general synod, at which were present the four patriarchs of the East (viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), with many metropolitans and bishops. It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.
3. Patriarchal, national, and primatial councils represent a whole patriarchate, a whole nation, or the several provinces subject to a primate. Of such councils we have frequent examples in Latin Africa, where the metropolitan and ordinary bishops used to meet under the Primate of Carthage, in Spain, under the Primate of Toledo, and in earlier times in Syria, under the Metropolitan — later Patriarch — of Antioch.
4. Provincial councils bring together the suffragan bishops of the metropolitan of an ecclesiastical province and other dignitaries entitled to participate.
5. Diocesan synods consist of the clergy of the diocese and are presided over by the bishop or the vicar-general.
6. A peculiar kind of council used to be held at Constantinople, it consisted of bishops from any part of the world who happened to be at the time in that imperial city. Hence the name synodoi enoemousai “visitors' synods”.
7. Lastly there have been mixed synods, in which both civil and ecclesiastical dignitaries met to settle secular as well as ecclesiastical matters. They were frequent at the beginning of the Middle Ages in France Germany, Spain, and Italy. In England even abbesses were occasionally present at such mixed councils. Sometimes, not always, the clergy and laity voted in separate chambers.

Although it is in the nature of councils to represent either the whole or part of the Church organism yet we find many councils simply consisting of a number of bishops brought together from different countries for some special purpose, regardless of any territorial or hierarchical connexion. They were most frequent in the fourth century, when the metropolitan and patriarchal circumscriptions were still imperfect, and questions of faith and discipline manifold. Not a few of them, summoned by emperors or bishops in opposition to the lawful authorities (such as that of Antioch in 341), were positively irregular, and acted for evil rather than good. Councils of this kind may be compared to the meetings of bishops of our own times; decrees passed in them had no binding power on any but the subjects of the bishops present, they were important manifestations of the sensus ecclesiae (mind of the Church) rather than judicial or legislative bodies. But precisely as expressing the mind of the Church they often acquired a far-reaching influence due, either to their internal soundness, or to the authority of their framers, or to both.

It should be noted that the terms concilia plenaria, universalia, OR generalia are, or used to be, applied indiscriminately to all synods not confined to a single province; in the Middle Ages, even provincial synods, as compared to diocesan, received these names. Down to the late Middle Ages all papal synods to which a certain number of bishops from different countries had been summoned were regularly styled plenary, general, or universal synods. In earlier times, before the separation of East and West, councils to which several distant patriarchates or exarchates sent representatives, were described absolutely as “ plenary councils of the universal church “. These terms are applied by St. Augustine to the Council of Arles (314), at which only Western bishops were present. In the same way the council of Constantinople (382), in a letter to Pope Damasus, calls the council held in the same town the year before (381) “an Ecumenical synod” i.e. a synod representing the oikoumene, the whole inhabited world as known to the Greeks and Romans, because all the Eastern patriarchates, though no Western, took part in it. The synod of 381 could not, at that time, be termed Ecumenical in the strict sense now in use, because it still lacked the formal confirmation of the Apostolic See. As a matter of fact, the Greeks themselves did not put this council on a par with those of Nicaea and Ephesus until its confirmation at the Synod of Chalcedon, and the Latins acknowledged its authority only in the sixth century.

III. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF ECUMENICAL COUNCILS

The present article deals chiefly with the theological and canonical questions concerning councils which are Ecumenical in the strict sense above defined. Special articles give the history of each important synod under the head of the city or see where it was held. In order, however, to supply the reader with a basis of fact for the discussion of principles which is to follow, a list is subjoined of the twenty Ecumenical councils with a brief statement of the purpose of each.

(1) The First Ecumenical, or >Council of Nicaea (325) lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor Constantine was also present. To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) Of Nicaea, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios), and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter (against the Quartodecimans).

(2) The Second Ecumenical, or First General Council of Constantinople (381), under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius I, was attended by 150 bishops. It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.

(3) The Third Ecumenical, or Council of Ephesus (431), of more than 200 bishops, presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine l, defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation of Pelagius.

(4) The Fourth Ecumenical, or Council of Chalcedon (451) — 150 bishops under Pope Leo the Great and the Emperor Marcian defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ against Eutyches, who was excommunicated.

(5) The Fifth Ecumenical, or Second General Council of Constantinople (553), of 165 bishops under Pope Vigilius and Emperor Justinian I, condemned the errors of Origen and certain writings (The Three Chapters) of Theodoret, of Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia and of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa; it further confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon whose authority was contested by some heretics.

(6) The Sixth Ecumenical, or Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.

(7) The Seventh Ecumenical, or >Second Council of Nicaea (787) was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, under Pope Adrian I, and was presided over by the legates of Pope Adrian; it regulated the veneration of holy images. Between 300 and 367 bishops assisted.

(8) The Eighth Ecumenical, or Fourth Council of Constantinople (869), under Pope Adrian II and Emperor Basil numbering 102 bishops, 3 papal legates, and 4 patriarchs, consigned to the flames the Acts of an irregular council (conciliabulum) brought together by Photius against Pope Nicholas and Ignatius the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople; it condemned Photius who had unlawfully seized the patriarchal dignity. The Photian Schism, however, triumphed in the Greek Church, and no other general council took place in the East.

(9) The ninth Ecumenical Council (1123) was the first held in the Lateran at Rome under Pope Callistus II. About 900 bishops and abbots assisted. It abolished the right claimed by lay princes, of investiture with ring and crosier to ecclesiastical benefices and dealt with church discipline and the recovery of the Holy Land from the infidels.

(10) The Tenth Ecumenical Council (1139) was the Second Lateran held at Rome under Pope Innocent II with an attendance of about 1000 prelates and the Emperor Conrad. Its object was to put an end to the errors of Arnold of Brescia.

(11) The Eleventh Ecumenical Council (1179) was the third assembled at the Lateran, and took place under Pope Alexander III, Frederick I being emperor. There were 302 bishops present. It condemned the Albigenses and Waldenses and issued numerous decrees for the reformation of morals.

(12) The Twelfth Ecumenical Synod (1215) was the Fourth Lateran, under Innocent III. There were present the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, 71 archbishops, 412 bishops, and 800 abbots the Primate of the Maronites, and St. Dominic. It issued an enlarged creed (symbol) against the Albigenses (Firmiter credimus), condemned the Trinitarian errors of Abbot Joachim, and published 70 important reformatory decrees. This is the most important council of the Middle Ages, it marks the culminating point of ecclesiastical life and papal power.

(13) The First General Council of Lyons (1245) is the Thirteenth Ecumenical. Innocent IV presided the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Aquileia (Venice), 140 bishops, Baldwin II, Emperor of the East, and St. Louis, King of France, assisted. It excommunicated and deposed Emperor Frederick II and directed a new crusade, under the command of St. Louis, against the Saracens and Mongols.

(14) The Fourteenth Ecumenical Council was held at Lyons (1274) by Pope Gregory X, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople, 15 cardinals, 500 bishops, and more than 1000 other dignitaries. It effected a temporary reunion of the Greek Church with Rome. The word filioque was added to the symbol of Constantinople and means were sought for recovering Palestine from the Turks. It also laid down the rules for papal elections.

(15) The Fifteenth (Ecumenical Council took place at Vienne in France (1311-1313) by order of Clement V, the first of the Avignon popes. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, 300 bishops (114 according to some authorities), and 3 kings — Philip IV of France, Edward II of England, and James II of Aragon — were present. The synod dealt with the crimes and errors imputed to the Knights Templars, the Fraticelli, the Beghards, and the Beguines, with projects of a new crusade, the reformation of the clergy, and the teaching of Oriental languages in the universities.

(16) The Council of Constance (1414-1418), the Sixteenth Ecumenical, was held during the great Schism of the West, with the object of ending the divisions in the Church. It only became legitimate when Gregory XI had formally convoked it. Owing to this circumstance it succeeded in putting an end to the schism by the election of Pope Martin V, which the Council of Pisa (1403) had failed to accomplish on account of its illegality. The rightful pope confirmed the former decrees of the synod against Wyclif and Hus. This council is thus only ecumenical in its last sessions (XLII-XLV inclusive) and with respect to the decrees of earlier sessions approved by Martin V.

(17) The Seventeenth Ecumenical Council met at Basle (1431), Eugene IV being pope, and Sigismund Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Its object was the religious pacification of Bohemia. Quarrels with the pope having arisen, the council was transferred first to Ferrara (1438), then to Florence (1439), where a short-lived union with the Greek Church was effected, the Greeks accepting the council's definition of controverted points. The Council of Basle is only ecumenical till the end of the twenty-fifth session, and of its decrees Eugene IV approved only such as dealt with the extirpation of heresy, the peace of Christendom, and the reform of the Church, and which at the same time did not derogate from the rights of the Holy See.

(18) The Eighteenth Ecumenical, or Fifth Council of the Lateran, sat from 1512 to 1517 under Popes Julius II and Leo X, the emperor being Maximilian I. Fifteen cardinals and about eighty archbishops and bishops took part in it. Its decrees are chiefly disciplinary. A new crusade against the Turks was also planned, but came to naught, owing to the religious upheaval in Germany caused by Luther.

(19) The Council of Trent, the Nineteenth Ecumenical, lasted eighteen years (1545-1563) under five popes: Paul III, Julius III, Marcellus II, Paul IV and Pius IV, and under the Emperors Charles V and Ferdinand. There were present 5 cardinal legates of the Holy See, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, 235 bishops, 7 abbots, 7 generals of monastic orders, 160 doctors of divinity. It was convoked to examine and condemn the errors promulgated by Luther and other Reformers, and to reform the discipline of the Church. Of all councils it lasted longest, issued the largest number of dogmatic and reformatory decrees, and produced the most beneficial results.

(20) The Twentieth Ecumenical Council was summoned to the Vatican by Pius IX. It met 8 December, 1869, and lasted till 18 July, 1870, when it was adjourned; it is still (1908) unfinished. There were present 6 archbishop-princes, 49 cardinals, 11 patriarchs, 680 archbishops and bishops, 28 abbots, 29 generals of orders, in all 803. Besides important canons relating to the Faith and the constitution of the Church, the council decreed the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, i.e. when as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

IV. THE POPE AND GENERAL COUNCILS

The relations between the pope and general councils must be exactly defined to arrive at a just conception of the functions of councils in the Church, of their rights and duties, and of their authority. The traditional phrase, “ the council represents the Church “, associated with the modern notion of representative assemblies, is apt to lead to a serious misconception of the bishops' function in general synods. The nation's deputies receive their power from their electors and are bound to protect and promote their electors' interests; in the modern democratic State they are directly created by, and out of, the people's own power. The bishops in council, on the contrary, hold no power, no commission, or delegation, from the people. All their powers, orders, jurisdiction, and membership in the council, come to them from above — directly from the pope, ultimately from God. What the episcopate in council does represent is the Divinely instituted magisterium, the teaching and governing power of the Church- the interests it defends are those of the depositum fidei, of the revealed rules of faith and morals, i.e. the interests of God

The council is, then, the assessor of the supreme teacher and judge sitting on the Chair of Peter by Divine appointment; its operation is essentially co-operation — the common action of the members with their head — and therefore necessarily rises or falls in value, according to the measure of its connexion with the pope. A council in opposition to the pope is not representative of the whole Church, for it neither represents the pope who opposes it, nor the absent bishops, who cannot act beyond the limits of their dioceses except through the pope. A council not only acting independently of the Vicar of Christ, but sitting in judgment over him, is unthinkable in the constitution of the Church; in fact, such assemblies have only taken place in times of great constitutional disturbances, when either there was no pope or the rightful pope was indistinguishable from antipopes. In such abnormal times the safety of the Church becomes the supreme law, and the first duty of the abandoned flock is to find a new shepherd, under whose direction the existing evils may be remedied.

In normal times, when according to the Divine constitution of the Church, the pope rules in the fullness of his power, the function of councils is to support and strengthen his rule on occasions of extraordinary difficulties arising from heresies schisms, relaxed discipline, or external foes. General councils have no part in the ordinary normal government of the Church. This principle is confirmed by the fact that during nineteen centuries of Church life only twenty Ecumenical councils took place. It is further illustrated by the complete failure of the decree issued in the thirty-ninth session of the Council of Constance (then without a rightful head) to the effect that general councils should meet frequently and at regular intervals, the very first synod summoned at Pavia for the year 1423 could not be held for want of responses to the summons. It is thus evident that general councils are not qualified to issue independently of the pope, dogmatic or disciplinary canons binding on the whole Church. As a matter of fact, the older councils, especially those of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), were not convened to decide on questions of faith still open, but to give additional weight to, and secure the execution of, papal decisions previously issued and regarded as fully authoritative. The other consequence of the same principle is that the bishops in council assembled are not commissioned, as are our modern parliaments, to control and limit the power of the sovereign, or head of the State, although circumstances may arise in which it would be, their right and duty firmly to expostulate with the pope on certain of his acts or measures. The severe strictures of the Sixth General Council on Pope Honorius I may be cited as a case in point.

V. COMPOSITION OF GENERAL COUNCILS

(a) Right of participation

The right to be present and to act at general councils belongs in the first place and logically to the bishops actually exercising the episcopal office. In the earlier councils there appear also the chorepiscopi (country-bishops), who, according to the better opinion, were neither true bishops nor an order interposed between bishops and priests, but priests invested with a jurisdiction smaller than the episcopal but larger than the sacerdotal. They were ordained by the bishop and charged with the administration of a certain district in his diocese. They had the power of conferring minor orders, and even the subdiaconate. Titular bishops, i.e. bishops not ruling a diocese, had equal rights with other bishops at the Vatican Council (1869-70), where 117 of them were present. Their claim lies in the fact that their order, the episcopal consecration, entitles them, jure divino, to take part in the administration of the Church, and that a general council seems to afford a proper sphere for the exercise of a right which the want of a proper diocese keeps in abeyance. Dignitaries who hold episcopal or quasi-episcopal jurisdiction without being bishops — such as cardinal-priests, cardinal-deacons, abbots nullius, mitred abbots of whole orders or congregations of monasteries, generals of clerks regular, mendicant and monastic orders — were allowed to vote at the Vatican Council. Their title is based on positive canon law: at the early councils such votes were not admitted, but from the seventh century down to the end of the Middle Ages the contrary practice gradually prevailed, and has since become an acquired right. Priests and deacons frequently cast decisive votes in the name of absent bishops whom they represented; at the Council of Trent, however, such procurators were admitted only with great limitations,and at the Vatican Council they were even excluded from the council hall.Besides voting members, every council admits, as consultors a number of doctors in theology and canon law. In the Council of Constance the consultors were allowed to vote. Other clerics have always been admitted as notaries. Lay people may be, and have been, present at councils for various reasons, but never as voters. They gave advice, made complaints, assented to decisions, and occasionally also signed the decrees. Since the Roman emperors had accepted Christianity, they assisted either personally or through deputies (commissarii). Constantine the Great was present in person at the First General Council, Theodosius II sent his representatives to the third, and Emperor Marcian sent his to the fourth, at the sixth session of which himself and the Empress Pulcheria assisted personally. Constantine Pogonatus was present at the sixth, the Empress Irene and her son Constantine Porphyrogenitus only sent their representative to the seventh, whereas Emperor Basil, the Macedonian, assisted at the eighth, sometimes in person, sometimes through his deputies. Only the Second and the Fifth General Synods were held in the absence of the emperors or imperial commissaries, but both Theodosius the Great and Justinian were at Constantinople while the councils were sitting, and kept up constant intercourse with them. In the West the attendance of kings, even at provincial synods, was of frequent occurrence. The motive and object of the royal presence were to protect the synods, to heighten their authority, to lay before them the needs of particular Christian states and countries.

This laudable and legitimate co-operation led by degrees to interference with the pope's rights in conciliar matters. The Eastern Emperor Michael claimed the right to summon councils without obtaining the pope's consent, and to take part in them personally or by proxy. But Pope Nicholas I resisted the pretensions of Emperor Michael, pointing out to him, in a letter (865), that his imperial predecessors had only been present at general synods dealing with matters of faith, and from that fact drew the conclusion that all other synods should be held without the emperor's or his commissaries' presence. A few years later the Eighth General Synod (Can. xvii, Hefele, IV, 421) declared it false that no synod could be held without the emperor's presence the emperors had only been present at general councils — and that it was not right for secular princes to witness the condemnation of ecclesiastics (at provincial synods). As early as the fourth century the bishops greatly complained of the action of Constantine the Great in imposing his commissary on the Synod of Tyre (335). In the West, however, secular princes were present even at national synods, e.g. Sisenand, King of the Spanish Visigoths, was at the Fourth Council of Toledo (636) and King Chintilian at the fifth (638); Charlemagne assisted at the Council of Frankfort (794) and two Anglo Saxon kings at the Synod of Whitby (Collatio Pharenes) in 664. But step by step Rome established the principle that no royal commissary may be present at any council except a general one, in which “faith, reformation, and peace” are in question.

(b) Requisite number of members

The number of bishops present required to constitute an Ecumenical council cannot be strictly defined, nor need it be so deigned, for ecumenicity chiefly depends on co-operation with the head of the Church, and only secondarily on the number of co-operators. It is physically impossible to bring together all the bishops of the world, nor is there any standard by which to determine even an approximate number, or proportion, of prelates necessary to secure ecumenicity. All should be invited, no one should be debarred, a somewhat considerable number of representatives of the several provinces and countries should be actually present; this may be laid down as a practicable theory. But the ancient Church did not conform to this theory. As a rule only the patriarchs and metropolitans received a direct summons to- appear with a certain number of their suffragans. At Ephesus and Chalcedon the time between the convocation and the meeting of the council was too short to allow of the Western bishops being invited. As a rule, but very few Western bishops were personally present at any of the first eight general synods. Occasionally, e.g. at the sixth, their absence was remedied by sending deputies with precise instructions arrived at in a previous council held in the West. What gives those Eastern synods their Ecumenical character is the co-operation of the pope as head of the universal, and, especially, of the Western, Church. This circumstance, so remarkably prominent in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, affords the best proof that, in the sense of the Church, the essential constituent element of ecumenicity is less the proportion of bishops present to bishops absent than the organic connexion of the council with the head of the Church.

(c) Papal headship the formal element of councils

It is the action of the pope that makes the councils ecumenic. That action is the exercise of his office of supreme teacher and ruler of the Church. Its necessity results from the fact that no authority is commensurate with the whole Church except that of the pope; he alone can bind all the faithful. Its sufficiency is equally manifest: when the pope has spoken ex cathedra to make his own the decisions of any council, regardless of the number of its members nothing further can be wanted to make them binding on the whole Church. The earliest enunciation of the principle is found in the letter of the Council of Sardica (313) to Pope Julius I, and was often quoted, since the beginning of the fifth century, as the (Nicaean) canon concerning the necessity of papal co-operation in all the more important conciliary Acts. The Church historian Socrates (Hist. Eccl., II, xvii) makes Pope Julius say, in reference to the Council of Antioch (341), that the law of the Church (kanon) forbids “the churches to pass laws contrary to the judgement of the Bishop of Rome” and Sozomen (III, x) likewise declares “ it to be a holy law not to attribute any value to things done without the judgment of the Bishop of Rome”. The letter of Julius here quoted by both Socrates and Sozomen directly refers to an existing ecclesiastical custom and, in particular, to a single important case (the deposition of a patriarch), but the underlying principle is as stated.

Papal co-operation may be of several degrees: to be effective in stamping a council as universal it must amount to taking over responsibility for its decisions by giving them formal confirmation. The Synod of Constantinople (381) in which the Nicene Creed received its present form — the one used at Mass — had in itself no claim to be Ecumenical. Before Pope Damasus and the Western bishops had seen its full Acts they condemned certain of its proceedings at an Italian synod, but on receiving the Acts, Damasus, so we are told by Photius, confirmed them. Photius, however, is only right with regard to the Creed, or Symbol of Faith: the canons of this council were still rejected by Leo the Great and even by Gregory the Great (about 600). A proof that the Creed of Constantinople enjoyed papal sanction may be drawn from the way in which the Roman legates at the Fourth General Synod (Chalcedon, 451) allowed, without any protest, appeals to this Creed, while at the same time they energetically protested against the canons of the council. It was on account of the papal approbation of the Creed that, in the sixth century, Popes Vigilius, Pelagius II, and Gregory the Great declared this council Ecumenical, although Gregory still refused to sanction its canons. The First Synod of Constantinople presents, then, an instance of a minimum of papal co-operation impressing on a particular council the mark of universality. The normal co-operation, however, requires on the part of the head of the Church more than a post-factum acknowledgment.

The pope's office and the council's function in the organization of the Church require that the pope should call the council together, preside over and direct its labours, and finally promulgate its decrees to the universal Church as expressing the mind of the whole teaching body guided by the Holy Ghost. Instances of such normal, natural, perfect co-operation occur in the five Lateran councils, which were presided over by the pope in person; the personal presence of the highest authority in the Church, his direction of the deliberations, and approbation of the decrees, stamp the conciliary proceedings throughout as the function of the Magisterium Ecclesiae in its most authoritative form. Councils in which the pope is represented by legates are, indeed, also representative of the whole teaching body of the Church, but the representation is not absolute or adequate, is no real concentration of its whole authority. They act in the name, but not with the whole power, of the teaching Church, and their decrees become universally binding only through an act, either antecedent or consequent, of the pope. The difference between councils presided over personally and by proxy is marked in the form in which their decrees are promulgated: when the pope has been present the decrees are published in his own name with the additional formula: sacro approbante Concilio; when papal legates have presided the decrees are attributed to the synod (S. Synodus declarat, definit, decernit)

VI. Factors in the pope's co-operation with the council

We have seen that no council is Ecumenical unless the pope has made it his own by co-operation, which admits of a minimum and a maximum consequently of various degrees of perfection. Catholic writers could have saved themselves much trouble if they had always based their apologetics on the simple and evident principle of a sufficient minimum of papal co-operation, instead of endeavouring to prove, at all costs, that a maximum is both required in principle and demonstrable in history. The three factors constituting the solidarity of pope and council are the convocation, direction, and confirmation of the council by the pope- but it is not essential that each and all of these factors should always be present in full perfection.

(a) Convocation

The juridical convocation of a council implies something more than an invitation addressed to all the bishops of the world to meet in council, viz.: the act by which in law the bishops are bound to take part in the council, and the council itself is constituted a legitimate tribunal for dealing with Church affairs. Logically, and in the nature of the thing, the right of convocation belongs to the pope alone. Yet the convocation, in the loose sense of invitation to meet, of the first eight general synods, was regularly issued by the Christian emperors, whose dominion was coextensive with the Church, or at least with the Eastern part of it, which was then alone convened. The imperial letters of convocation to the Councils of Ephesus (Hardouin, I, 1343) and of Chalcedon (Hardouin, II, 42) show that the emperors acted as protectors of the Church, believing it their duty to further by every means in their power the welfare of their charge. Nor is it possible in every case to prove that they acted at the formal instigation of the pope; it even seems that the emperors more than once followed none but their own initiative for convening the council and fixing its place of meeting. It is, however. evident that the Christian emperors cannot have acted thus without the consent, actual or presumed of the pope. Otherwise their conduct had been neither lawful nor wise. As a matter of fact, none of the eight Eastern Ecumenical synods, with the exception, perhaps, of the fifth, was summoned by the emperor in opposition to the pope. As regards the fifth, the conduct of the emperor caused the legality of the council to be questioned — a proof that the mind of the Church required the pope's consent for the lawfulness of councils. As regards most of these eight synods, particularly that of Ephesus, the previous consent of the pope, actual or presumed, is manifest. Regarding the convocation of the Council of Chalcedon, the Emperor Marcian did not quite fall in with the wishes of Pope Leo I as to the time and place of its meeting, but he did not claim an absolute right to have his will, nor did the pope acknowledge such a right. On the contrary, as Leo I explains in his letters (Epp. lxxxix, xc, ed. Ballerini), he only submitted to the imperial arrangements because he was unwilling to interfere with Marcian's well-meant endeavours.

It is still more evident that convocation by the emperors did not imply on their part the claim to constitute the council juridically, that is, to give it power to sit as an authorized tribunal for Church affairs. Such a claim has never been put forward. The expressions jubere and keleuein, occasionally used in the wording of the convocation, do not necessarily convey the notion of strict orders not to be resisted; they also have the meaning of exhorting, inducing, bidding. The juridical constitution of the council could only emanate, and in fact always did emanate, from the Apostolic See. As the necessity of the bishops' meeting in council was dictated rather by the distressful condition of the Church than by positive orders, the pope contented himself with authorizing the council and this he effected by sending his legates to preside over and direct the work of the assembled prelates. The Emperor Marcian in his first letter to Leo I declares that the success of the intended synod depends on his — the pope's — authorization, and Leo, not Marcian, is later called the auctor synodi without any restrictive qualification, especially at the time of the “Three Chapters” dispute, where the extension of the synod's authority was called in question. The law therefore, at that period was the same as it is now as far as essentials are concerned: the pope is the sole convener of the council as an authoritative juridical assembly. The difference lies in the circumstance that the pope left to the emperor the execution of the convocation and the necessary measures for rendering the meeting possible and surrounding it with the éclat due to its dignity in Church and State. The material, or business, part of the councils being thus entirely in the hands of the emperors, it was to be expected that the pope was sometimes induced — if not forced — by circumstances to make his authorization suit the imperial wishes and arrangements.

After studying the principles it is well to see how they worked out in fact. Hence the following historical summary of the convocation of the first eight general councils:

(1) Eusebius (Vita Constantini, III, vi) informs us that the writs of convocation to the First General Synod were issued by Emperor Constantine, but as not one of those writs has come down to us, it remains doubtful whether or not they mentioned any previous consultation with the pope. It is, however, an undeniable fact that the Sixth General Synod (680) plainly affirmed that the Council of Nicaea had been convened by the emperor and Pope Sylvester (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XI, 661). The same statement appears in the life of Sylvester found in the “Liber Pontificalis”, but this evidence need not be pressed, the evidence from the council being, from the circumstances in which it was given, of sufficient strength to carry the point. For the Sixth General Council took place in Constantinople, at a time when the bishops of the imperial city already attempted to rival the bishops of Old Rome, and the vast majority of its members were Greeks; their statement is therefore entirely free from the suspicion of Western ambition or prejudice and must be accepted as a true presentment of fact. Rufinus, in his continuation of Eusebius' history (I, 1) says that the emperor summoned the synod ex sacerdotum sententia (on the advice of the clergy)- it is but fair to suppose that if he consulted several prelates he did not omit to consult with the head of all.

(2) The Second General Synod (381) was not, at first, intended to be Ecumenical; it only became so because it was accepted in the West, as has been shown above. It was not summoned by Pope Damasus as is often contended, for the assertion that the assembled bishops professed to have met in consequence of a letter of the pope to Theodosius the Great is based on a confusion. The document here brought in as evidence refers to the synod of the following year which was indeed summoned at the instigation of the pope and the Synod of Aquileia, but was not an Ecumenical synod.

(3) The Third General Council (Ephesus, 431) was convoked by Emperor Theodosius II and his Western colleague Valentinian III- this is evident from the Acts of the council. It is equally evident that Pope Celestine I gave his consent, for he wrote (15 May, 431) to Theodosius that he could not appear in person at the synod, but that he would send his representatives. And in his epistle of 8 May to the synod itself, he insists on the duty of the bishops present to hold fast to the orthodox faith, expects them to accede to the sentence he has already pronounced on Nestorius, and adds that he has sent his legates to execute that sentence at Ephesus. The members of the council acknowledge the papal directions and orders, not only the papal consent, in the wording of their solemn condemnation of Nestorius: “Urged by the Canons and conforming to the Letter of our most holy Father and fellow servant Celestine the Roman bishop, we have framed this sorrowful sentence against Nestorius.” They express the same sentiment where they say that “the epistle of the Apostolic See (to Cyril, communicated to the council) already contains a judgment and a rule psepho kai typou on the case of Nestorius” and that they — the bishops in council — have executed that ruling. All this manifests the bishops' conviction that the pope was the moving and quickening spirit of the synod.

(4) How the Fourth General Synod (Chalcedon, 451) was brought together is set forth in several writings of Pope Leo I and Emperors Theodosius II and Marcian. Immediately after the Robber Synod, Leo asked Theodosius to prepare a council composed of bishops from all parts of the world, to meet, preferably, in Italy. He repeated the same request, first made 13 October, 449, on the following feast of Christmas, and prevailed on the Western Emperor Valentinian III together with his empress and his mother, to support it at the Byzantine Court. Once more (in July, 450) Leo renewed his request, adding, however that the council might be dispensed with if all the bishops were to make a profession of the orthodox faith without being united in council. About this time Theodosius II died and was succeeded by his sister, St. Pulcheria, and her husband Marcian. Both at once informed the pope of their willingness to summon the council, Marcian specially asking him to state in writing whether he could assist at the synod in person or through his legates, so that the necessary writs of convocation might be issued to the Eastern bishops. By that time, however, the situation had greatly improved in the Eastern Church- nearly all the bishops who had taken part in the Robber Synod had now repented of their aberration and signed, in union with their orthodox colleagues, the “Epistola dogmatica” of Leo to Flavian, by this act rendering the need of a council less urgent. Besides, the Huns were just then invading the West, preventing many Latin bishops, whose presence at the council was most desirable, from leaving their flocks to undertake the long journey to Chalcedon. Other motives induced the pope to postpone the synod, e.g. the fear that it might be made the occasion by the bishops of Constantinople to improve their hierarchical position, a fear well justified by subsequent events. But Marcian had already summoned the synod, and Leo therefore gave his instructions as to the business to be transacted. He was then entitled to say, in a letter to the bishops who had been at the council that the synod had been brought together “ex praecepto christianorum principum et ex consensu apostolicae sedis” (by order of the Christian princes and with the consent of the Apostolic See). The emperor himself wrote to Leo that the synod had been held by his authority (te auctore), and the bishops of Moesia, in a letter to the Byzantine Emperor Leo, said: “At Chalcedon many bishops assembled by order of Leo, the Roman pontiff, who is the true head of the bishops”.

(5) The Fifth General Synod was planned by Justinian I with the consent of Pope Vigilius (q. v.), but on account of the emperor's dogmatic pretensions, quarrels arose and the pope refused to be present, although repeatedly invited. His Constitutum of 14 May 553, to the effect that he could not consent to anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret, led to open opposition between pope and council. In the end all was righted by Vigilius approving the synodal decrees.

(6, 7, 8) These three synods were each and all called by the emperors of the time with the consent and assistance of the Apostolic See. (See CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF; NICAEA, COUNCILS OF.)

(b) DIRECTION

The direction or presidency of councils belongs to the pope by the same right as their convocation and constitution. Were a council directed in its deliberations and acts by anyone independent of the pope and acting entirely on his own responsibility, such a council could not be the pope's own in any sense: the defect could only be made good by a consequent formal act of the pope accepting responsibility for its decisions. In point of fact, papal legates presided over all the Eastern councils, which from their beginning were legally constituted. The reader will obtain a clearer insight into this point of conciliar proceedings from a concrete example, taken from Hefele's introduction to his “ History of the Councils “:—

Pope Adrian II sent his legates to the Eighth (Ecumenical Synod (787) with an express declaration to the Emperor Basil that they were to act as presidents of the council. The legates, Bishop Donatus of Ostia, Bishop Stephen of Nepesina, and the deacon Marinus of Rome, read the papal rescript to the synod. Not the slightest objection was raised. Their names took precedence in all protocols; they determined the duration of the several sessions, gave leave to make speeches and to read documents and to admit other persons, they put the leading questions, etc. In short, their presidency in the first five sessions cannot be disputed. But at the sixth session Emperor Basil was present with his two sons, Constantine and Leo, and, as the Acts relate, received the presidency. These same Acts, however, at once clearly distinguish the emperor and his sons from the synod when, after naming them they continue: conveniente sanctâ ac universali synodo (the holy and universal synod now meeting), thus disassociating the lay ruler from the council proper. The names of the papal legates continue to appear first among the members of the synod, and it is they who in those latter sessions determine the matters for discussion, subscribe the Acts before anyone else, expressly as presidents of the synod, whereas the emperor, to show clearly that he did not consider himself the president, would only subscribe after all the bishops. The papal legates begged him to put his and his son's names at the head of the list, but he stoutly refused and only consented at last, to write his name after those of the papal legates and of the Eastern patriarchs, but before those of the bishops. Consequently Pope Adrian II, in a letter to the emperor, praises him for not having assisted at the council as a judge (judex), but merely as a witness and protector (conscius et obsecundator).

The imperial commissaries present at the synod acted even less as presidents than the emperor himself. They signed the reports of the several sessions only after the representatives of the patriarchs though before the bishops; their names are absent from the signatures of the Acts. On the other hand it may be contended that the Eastern patriarchs Ignatius of Constantinople, and the representatives of the other Eastern patriarchs, in some degree participated in the presidency: their names are constantly associated with those of the Roman legates and clearly distinguished from those of the other metropolitans and bishops. They, as it were, form with the papal legates a board of directors, fix with him the order of proceedings, determine who shall be heard, subscribe, like the legates, before the emperor and are entered in the reports of the several sessions before the imperial commissaries. All this being granted, the fact still remains that the papal legates unmistakably hold the first place, for they are always named first and sign first, and — a detail of great importance — for the final subscription they use the formula: huic sanctae et universali synodo praesidens (presiding over this holy and universal synod), while Ignatius of Constantinople and the representatives of the other patriarchs claim no presidency but word their subscription thus: suscipiens et omnibus quae ab ea judicata et scripta sunt concordans et definiens subscripsi (receiving this holy and universal synod and agreeing with all it has judged and written, and defining I have signed). If, on the one hand, this form of subscription differs from that of the president, it differs no less, on the other, from that of the bishops. These, like the emperor, have without exception used the formula: suscipiens (synodum) subscripsi (receiving the synod I have signed), omitting the otherwise customary definiens, which was used to mark a decisive vote (votum decisivum).

Hefele gives similar documentary accounts of the first eight general synods, showing that papal legates always presided over them when occupied in their proper business of deciding questions on faith and discipline. The exclusive right of the pope in this matter was generally acknowledged. Thus, the Emperor Theodosius II says, in his edict addressed to the Council of Ephesus, that he had sent Count Candidian to represent him, but that this imperial commissary was to take no part in dogmatic disputes since “it was unlawful for one who is not enrolled in the lists of the most holy bishops to mingle in ecclesiastical inquiries “. The Council of Chalcedon acknowledged that Pope Leo, by his legates, presided over it as “the head over the members”. At Nicaea, Hosius, Vitus and Vincentius, as papal legates, signed before all other members of the council. The right of presiding and directing implies that the pope, if he chooses to make a full use of his powers, can determine the subject matter to be dealt with by the council, prescribe rules for conducting the debates, and generally order the whole business as seems best to him. Hence no conciliar decree is legitimate if carried under protest — or even without the positive consent — of the pope or his legates. The consent of the legates alone, acting without a special order from the pope, is not sufficient to make conciliar decrees at once perfect and operative; what is necessary is the pope's own consent. For this reason no decree can become legitimate and null in law on account of pressure brought to bear on the assembly by the presiding pope, or by papal legates acting on his orders. Such pressure and restriction of liberty, proceeding from the internal, natural principle of order through the use of lawful power, does not amount to external, unnatural coercion, and, therefore, does not invalidate the Acts due to its exercise.

Examples of councils working at high pressure, if the expression may be used, without spoiling their output, are of frequent occurrence. Most of the early councils were convened to execute decisions already finally fixed by the pope, no choice being left the assembled Fathers to arrive at another decision. They were forced to conform their judgment to that of Rome, with or without discussion. Should papal pressure go beyond the limits of the council's dignity and of the importance of the matters under discussion the effect would be, not the invalidation of the council's decrees, but the paralysing of its moral influence and practical usefulness. On the other hand, the fact that a synod is, or has been, acting under the leadership of its Divinely appointed head, is the best guarantee of its freedom from unnatural disturbances, such as intrigues from below or coercion from above. In the same way violent interference with the papal leadership is the grossest attack on the council's natural freedom. Thus the Robber Synod of Ephesus (449), though intended to be general and at first duly authorized by the presence of papal legates, was declared invalid and null by those same legates at Chalcedon 451), because the prejudiced Emperor Theodosius II had removed the representatives of the pope, and entrusted the direction of the council to Dioscurus of Alexandria.

(c) Confirmation

Confirmation of the conciliar decrees is the third factor in the pope's necessary co-operation with the council. The council does not represent the teaching Church till the visible head of the Church has given his approval, for, unapproved, it is but a headless, soulless, impersonal body, unable to give its decisions the binding force of laws for the whole Church, or the finality of judicial sentences With the papal approval, on the contrary, the council's pronouncements represent the fullest effort of the teaching and ruling Church, a judicium plenissimum beyond which no power can go. Confirmation being the final touch of perfection, the seal of authority, and the very life of conciliar decrees, it is necessary that it should be a personal act of the highest authority, for the highest authority cannot be delegated. So much for the principle, or the question of right. When we look for its practical working throughout the history of councils, we find great diversity in the way it has been applied under the influence of varying circumstances.

1. Councils over which the pope presides in person require no further formal confirmation on his part, for their decisions formally include his own as the body includes the soul. The Vatican Council of 1869-70 offers an example in point.
2. Councils over which the pope presides through his legates are not identified with himself in the same degree as the former. They constitute separate, dependent, representative tribunals, whose findings only become final through ratification by the authority for which they act. Such is the theory. In practice, however, the papal confirmation is, or may be, presumed in the following cases:

• When the council is convened for the express purpose of carrying out a papal decision previously arrived at, as was the case with most of the early synods; or when the legates give their consent in virtue of a special public instruction emanating from the pope; in these circumstances the papal ratification pre-exists, is implied in the conciliar decision, and need not be formally renewed after the council. It may, however, be superadded ad abundantiam, as, e.g. the confirmation of the Council of Chalcedon by Leo I.
• The necessary consent of the Apostolic See may also be presumed when, as generally at the Council of Trent, the legates have personal instructions from the pope on each particular question coming up for decision, and act conformably, i.e. if they allow no decision to be taken unless the pope's consent has previously been obtained.
• Supposing a council actually composed of the greater part of the episcopate, concurring freely in a unanimous decision and thus bearing unexceptional witness to the mind and sense of the whole Church: The pope, whose office it is to voice infallibly the mind of the Church, would be obliged by the very nature of his office, to adopt the council's decision, and consequently his confirmation, ratification, or approbation could be presumed, and a formal expression of it dispensed with. But even then his approbation, presumed or expressed, is juridically the constituent factor of the decision's perfection.

• The express ratification in due form is at all times, when not absolutely necessary, at least desirable and useful in many respects:

• It gives the conciliar proceedings their natural and lawful complement, the keystone which closes and crowns the arch for strength and beauty; it brings to the front the majesty and significance of the supreme head of the Church.
• Presumed consent can but rarely apply with the same efficacy to each and all of the decisions of an important council. A solemn papal ratification puts them all on the same level and removes all possible doubt.
• Lastly the papal ratification formally promulgates the sentence of the council as an article of faith to be known and accepted by all the faithful; it brings to light and public view the intrinsic ecumenicity of the council— it is the natural, official, indisputable criterion, or test, of the perfect legality of the conciliar transactions or conclusions. If we bear in mind the numerous disturbing elements at work in and around an Ecumenical council, the conflicting religious, political, scientific, and personal interests contending for supremacy, or at least eager to secure some advantage, we can easily realize the necessity of a papal ratification to crush the endless chicanery which otherwise would endanger the success and efficacy of the highest tribunal of the Church. Even they who refuse to see in the papal confirmation an authentic testimony and sentence, declaring infallibly the ecumenicity of the council and its decrees to be a dogmatic fact, must admit that it is a sanative act and supplies possible defects and shortcomings; the Ecumenical authority of the pope is sufficient to impart validity and infallibility to the decrees he makes his own by officially ratifying them. This was done by Pope Vigilius for the Fifth General Synod. Sufficient proof for the sanatory efficacy of the papal ratification lies in the absolute sovereignty of the pope and in the infallibility of his ex-cathedra pronouncements. Should it be argued, however, that the sentence of an Ecumenical council is the only absolute, final, and infallible sentence even then, and then more than ever, the papal ratification would be necessary. For in the transactions of an Ecumenical council the pope plays the principal part, and if any deficiency in his action, especially in the exercise of his own special prerogatives, were apparent, the labours of the council would be in vain. The faithful hesitate to accept as infallible guides of their faith documents not authenticated by the seal of the fisherman, or the Apostolic See, which now wields the authority of St. Peter and of Christ. Leo II beautifully expresses these ideas in his ratification of the Sixth General Council: “Because this great and universal synod has most fully proclaimed the definition of the right faith, which the Apostolic See of St. Peter the Apostle, whose office we, though unequal to it, are holding, also reverently receives: therefore we also, and through our office this Apostolic See, consent to, and confirm, by the authority of Blessed Peter, those things which have been defined, as being finally set by he Lord Himself on the solid rock which is Christ. “

No event in the history of the Church better illustrates the necessity and the importance of papal co-operation and, in particular, confirmation, than the controversies which in the sixth century raged about the Three Chapters. The Three Chapters were the condemnation (1) of Theodore of Mopsuestia, his person, and his writings; (2) of Theodoret's writings against Cyril and the Council of Ephesus; (3) of a letter from Ibas to Maris the Persian, also against Cyril and the council. Theodore anticipated the heresy of Nestorius; Ibas and Theodoret were indeed restored at Chalcedon, but only after they had given orthodox explanations and shown that they were free from Nestorianism. The two points in debate were: (1) Did the Council of Chalcedon acknowledge the orthodoxy of the said Three Chapters? (2) How, i.e. by what test, is the point to be settled? Now the two contending parties agreed in the principle of the test: the approbation of the council stands or falls with the approbation of the pope's legates and of Pope Leo I himself. Defenders of the Chapters, e.g. Ferrandus the Deacon and Facundus of Hermiane, put forward as their chief argument (prima et immobilis ratio) the fact that Leo had approved. Their opponents never questioned the principle but denied the alleged fact, basing their denial on Leo's epistle to Maximus of Antioch in which they read: “Si quid sane ab his fratribus quos ad S. Synodum vice mea, praeter id quod ad causam fidei pertinebat gestum fuerit, nullius erit firmitatis” (If indeed anything not pertaining to the cause of faith should have been settled by the brethren I sent to the Holy Synod to hold my place, it shall be of no force). The point of doctrine (causa fidei) referred to is the heresy of Eutyches; the Three Chapters refer to that of Nestorius, or rather to certain persons and writings connected with it.

The bishops of the council, assembled at Constantinople in 533 for the purpose of putting an end to the Three Chapters controversy, addressed to Pope Vigilius two Confessions, the first with the Patriarch Mennas, the second with his successor Eutychius, in which, to establish their orthodoxy, they profess that they firmly hold to the four general synods as approved by the Apostolic See and by the popes. Thus we read in the Confessio of Mennas: “But also the letters of Pope Leo of blessed memory and the Constitution of the Apostolic See issued in support of the Faith and of the authority (firmitas) of the aforesaid four synods, we promise to follow and observe in all points and we anathematize any man, who on any occasion or altercation should attempt to nullify our promises.” And in the Confessio of Eutychius: “Suscipimus autem et amplectimur epistolas praesulum Romance Sedis Apostolicae, tam aliorum quam Leonis sanctae memoriae de fide scriptas et de quattuor sanctis conciliis vel de uno eorum” (We receive and embrace the letters of the bishops of the Apostolic Roman See, those of others as well as of Leo of holy memory, concerning the Faith and the four holy synods or any of them).

VII. BUSINESS METHODS

The way in which councils transact business now demands our attention. Here as in most things, there is an ideal which is never completely realized in practice.

(a) The facts

It has been sufficiently shown in the foregoing section that the pope, either in person or by deputy, directed the transaction of conciliar business. But when we look for a fixed order or set of rules regulating the proceedings we have to come down to the Vatican Council to find an official Ordo concilii ecumenici and a Methodus servanda in prima sessione, etc. In all earlier councils the management of affairs was left to the Fathers and adjusted by them to the particular objects and circumstances of the council. The so-called Ordo celebrandi Concilii Tridentini is a compilation posterior to the council, written by the conciliar secretary, A. Massarelli; it is a record of what has been done not a rule of what should be done. Some fixed rules were, however, already established at the reform councils of the fifteenth century as a substitute for the absent directing power of the pope. The substance of these rulings is given in the “Caeremoniale Romanum” of Augustinus Patritius (d. 1496). The institution of “congregations” dates from the Council of Constance (1415). At earlier councils all the meetings of the Fathers were called indiscriminately sessiones or actiones, but since Constance the term session has been restricted to the solemn meetings at which the final votes are given while all meetings for the purpose of consultation or provisory voting are termed congregations.

The distinction between general and particular congregations likewise dates from Constance, where, however, the particular congregations assumed a form different in spirit and composition from the practice of earlier and later councils. They were simply separate assemblies of the “ nations “ (first four, then five) present at the council; their deliberations went to form national votes which were presented in the general assembly, whose decisions conformed to a majority of such votes. The particular congregations of more recent councils were merely consultative assemblies (committees commissions) brought together by appointment or invitation in order to deliberate on special matters. At Trent there were congregations of prelates and congregations of theologians, both partly for dogma, partly for discipline. The congregations of prelates were either “deputations”, i.e. committees of specially chosen experts, or conciliary groups, usually three into which the council divided for the purpose of facilitating discussion.

The official ordo of the Vatican Council confirmed the Tridentine practice, leaving, however, to the initiative of the prelates the formation of groups of a more private character. The voting by “nations”, peculiar to the reform councils, has also been abandoned in favour of the traditional voting by individuals (capita). At the Vatican Council there were seven “commissions” consisting of theologians from all countries, appointed a year before the actual meeting of the assembly. Their duty was to prepare the various matters to be laid before the council. The object of these congregations is sufficiently described by their titles: (1) Congregatio cardinalitia directrix; (2) Commissio caeremoniarum, (3) politico-ecclesiastica; (4) pro ecclesiis et missionibus Orientis; (5) pro Regularibus- (6) theologica dogmatica; (7) pro disciplina ecclesiastica (i.e. a general directive cardinalitial congregation, and several commissions for ceremonies, politico-ecclesiastical affairs, the churches and missions of the Orient, the regular orders, dogmatic theology, ecclesiastical discipline). On the basis of their labours were worked out the schemata (drafts of decrees) to be discussed by the council. Within the council itself there were seven “deputations”: (1) Pro recipiendis et expendendis Patrum propositionibus (appointed by the pope to examine the propositions of the Fathers); (2) Judices excusationum (Judges of excuses); (3) Judices querelarum et controversiarum (to settle questions of precedence and such like); (4) deputatio pro rebus ad fidem pertinentibus (on matters pertaining to faith); (5) deputatio pro rebus disciplinae ecclesiasticae (on ecclesiastical discipline); (6) pro rebus ordinum regularium (on religious orders); (7) pro rebus ritus orientalis et apostolicis missionibus (Oriental rites and Apostolic missions).

All these deputations, except the first, were chosen by the council. Objections and amendments to the proposed schemata had to be handed in in writing to the responsible deputation which considered the matter and modified the schema accordingly. Anyone desiring further to improve the modified draft had to obtain from the legates permission to propose his amendments in a speech, after which he put them down in writing. If, however, ten prelates decided that the matter had been sufficiently debated, leave for speaking was refused. At this stage the amendments were collected and examined by the synodal congregation, then again laid before the general congregation to be voted on severally. The votes for admission or rejection were expressed by the prelates standing or remaining seated. Next the schema, reformed in accordance with these votes, was submitted to a general congregation for approval or disapproval in toto. In case a majority of placets were given for it, it was accepted in a last solemn public session, after a final vote of placet or non placet (“it pleases”, or “it does not please”).

(b) The theory

The principle which directs the practical working of a council is the perfect, or best possible, realization of its object, viz. a final judgment on questions of faith and morals, invested with the authority and majesty of the whole teaching body of the Church. To this end some means are absolutely necessary, others are only desirable as adding perfection to the result. We deal first with these latter means, which may be called the ideal elements of the council:

1. The presence of all the bishops of the world is an ideal not to be realized, but the presence of a very great majority is desirable for many reasons. A quasi-complete council has the advantage of being a real representation of the whole Church, while a sparsely attended one is only so in law, i.e. the few members present legally represent the many absent, but only represent their juridical power, their ordinary power not being representable. Thus for every bishop absent there is absent an authentic witness of the Faith as it is in his diocese.
2. A free and exhaustive discussion of all objections.
3. An appeal to the universal belief — if existing — witnessed to by all the bishops in council. This, if realized, would render all further discussion superfluous.
4. Unanimity in the final vote, the result either of the universal faith as testified to by the Fathers, or of conviction gained in the debates. It is evident that these four elements in the working of a council generally contribute to its ideal perfection, but it is not less evident that they are not essential to its substance, to its conciliary effectiveness. If they were necessary many acknowledged councils and decrees would lose their intrinsic authority, because one or other or all of these conditions were wanting. Again, there is no standard by which to determine whether or not the number of assisting bishops was sufficient and the debates have been exhaustive- nor do the Acts of the councils always inform us of the unanimity of the final decisions or of the way in which it was obtained. Were each and all of these four elements essential to an authoritative council no such council could have been held, in many cases, when it was none the less urgently required by the necessities of the Church. Authors who insist on the ideal perfection of councils only succeed in undermining their authority, which is, perhaps, the object they aim at. Their fundamental error is a false notion of the nature of councils. They conceive of the function of the council as a witnessing to, and teaching of, the generally accepted faith- whereas it is essentially a juridical function, the action of judges as well as of witnesses of the Faith. This leads us to consider the essential elements in conciliar action.

From the notion that the council is a court of judges the following inferences may be drawn:

1. The bishops, in giving their judgment, are directed only by their personal conviction of its rectitude; no previous consent of all the faithful or of the whole episcopate is required. In unity with their head they are one solid college of judges authoritatively constituted for united, decisive action — a body entirely different from a body of simple witnesses.
2. This being admitted, the assembled college assumes a representation of their colleagues who were called but failed to take their seats, provided the number of those actually present is not altogether inadequate for the matter in hand. Hence their resolutions are rightly said to rest on universal consent: universali consensu constituta, as the formula runs.
3. Further, on the same supposition, the college of judges is subject to the rule obtaining in all assemblies constituted for framing a judicial sentence or a common resolution, due regard being paid to the special relations, in the present instance, between the head and the members of the college: the co-operative verdict embodies the opinion of the majority, including the head, and in law stands for the verdict of the whole assembly, it is communi sensu constitutum (established by common consent). A majority verdict, even headed by papal legates, if disconnected from the personal action of the pope, still falls short of a perfect, authoritative pronouncement of the whole Church, and cannot claim infallibility. Were the verdict unanimous, it would still be imperfect and fallible, if it did not receive the papal approbation. The verdict of a majority, therefore, not endorsed by the pope, has no binding force on either the dissentient members present or the absent members, nor is the pope bound in any way to endorse it. Its only value is that it justifies the pope, in case he approves it, to say that he confirms the decision of a council, or gives his own decision sacro approbante concilio (with the consent of the council). This he could not say if he annulled a decision taken by a majority including his legates, or if he gave a casting vote between two equal parties. A unanimous conciliary decision, as distinct from a simple majority decision, may under certain circumstances, be, in a way, binding on the pope and compel his approbation — by the compelling power, not of a superior authority, but of the Catholic truth shining forth in the witnessing of the whole Church. To exert such power the council's decision must be clearly and unmistakably the reflex of the faith of all the absent bishops and of the faithful.

To gain an adequate conception of the council at work it should be viewed under its twofold aspect of judging and witnessing. In relation to the faithful the conciliar assembly is primarily a judge who pronounces a verdict conjointly with the pope, and, at the same time, acts more or less as witness in the case. Its position is similar to that of St. Paul towards the first Christians: quod accepistis a me per multos testes. In relation to the pope the council is but an assembly of authentic witnesses and competent counsellors whose influence on the papal sentence is that of the mass of evidence which they represent or of the preparatory judgment which they pronounce, it is the only way in which numbers of judges can influence one another. Such influence lessens neither the dignity nor the efficiency of any of the judges- on the other hand it is never required, in councils or elsewhere, to make their verdict unassailable. The Vatican Council, not excluding the fourth session in which papal infallibility was defined, comes nearer than any former council to the ideal perfection just described. It was composed of the greatest number of bishops, both absolutely and in proportion to the totality of bishops in the Church; it allowed and exercised the right of discussion to an extent perhaps never witnessed before; it appealed to a general tradition, present and past, containing the effective principle of the doctrine under discussion, viz. the duty of submitting in obedience to the Holy See and of conforming to its teaching; lastly it gave its final definition with absolute unanimity, and secured the greatest majority — nine-tenths — for its preparatory judgment.

VIII. INFALLIBILITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS

All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the dogma it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church. Emperor Constantine saw in the decrees of Nicaea “a Divine commandment” and Athanasius wrote to the bishops of Africa: “What God has spoken through the Council of Nicaea endureth for ever.” St. Ambrose (Ep. xxi) pronounces himself ready to die by the sword rather than give up the Nicene decrees, and Pope Leo the Great expressly declares that “ whoso resists the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics” (Ep. lxxviii, ad Leonem Augustum). In the same epistle he says that the decrees of Chalcedon were framed instruente Spiritu Sancto, i.e. under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. How the same doctrine was embodied in many professions of faith may be seen in Denzinger's (ed. Stahl) “Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum “, under the heading (index) “ Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum” (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience). The Scripture texts on which this unshaken belief is based are, among others: “ But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth . . .” John xvi, 13) “Behold I am with you [teaching] all days even to the consummation of the world “ (Matt., xxviii, 20), “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it [i.e. the Church]” (Matt., xvi, 18).

IX. PAPAL AND CONCILIAR INFALLIBILITY

Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council's decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council's infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff's ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility- it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name- now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ's co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body — His own mystical body — gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops. The same presence strengthens the action of the pope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, “ it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us”, and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility.

Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope. The council's dignity is, therefore, not diminished, but increased, by the definition of papal infallibility, nor does that definition imply a “ circular demonstration “ by which the council would make the pope infallible and the pope would render the same service to the council. It should however, be borne in mind that the council without the pope has no guarantee of infallibility, therefore the conciliar and the papal infallibilities are not two separate and addible units, but one unit with single or double excellence. An infallible statement of Divine truth is the voice of Christ speaking through the mouth of the visible head of His mystical body or in unison, in chorus, with all its members. The united voice of the whole Church has a solemnity, impressiveness, and effectiveness, an external, circumstantial weight, which is wanting in simple ex-cathedra pronouncements. It works its way into the minds and hearts of the faithful with almost irresistible force, because in the universal harmony each individual believer hears his own voice, is carried away by the powerful rhythm, and moved as by a Divine spell to follow the leaders. Again, the bishops who have personally contributed to the definitions have, in that fact, an incentive to zeal in publishing them and enforcing them in their dioceses; nay the council itself is an effective beginning of its execution or enforcement in practice. For this reason alone, the holding of most Eastern councils was a moral necessity- the great distance between East and West, the difficulty of communication, the often keen opposition of the Orientals to Old Rome made a solemn promulgation of the definitions on the spot more than desirable. No aids to effectiveness were to be neglected in that centre of heresies.

These considerations further account for the great esteem in which conciliar definitions have always been held in the Church, and for the great authority they universally enjoyed without any detriment to, or diminution of, the authority of the Apostolic See. From of old it has been customary to place side by side, in the rule of faith, the authority of the councils and that of the popes as substantially the same. Thus, we read in the formula, or profession of faith imposed by Pope Hormisdas (514-23) on the Eastern bishops implicated in the schism of Acacius: “ The first [step towards] salvation is to keep the rule of orthodox [rectae] faith and in no wise to deviate from the constitutions of the Fathers [i.e. councils]. But the words of Our Lord to St. Peter (Thou art Peter . . . ) cannot be passed over, for what He said has been verified by the events, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without spot or stain. Wishing by no means to be separated from this hope and faith, and following the constitutions of the Fathers, we anathematize all heresies, especially the heretic Nestorius, in his time Bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned in the Council of Ephesus by Blessed Celestine, Pope of Rome, and by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria . . . We declare and approve all the letters of Leo, Pope, which he wrote concerning the Christian religion, as we have stated before, following in all things the Apostolic See and professing [praedicantes] all its constitutions. And therefore I hope to be worthy to be with you [the pope] in the one communion which this Apostolic See professes, in which lies the entire, veracious, and peaceful solidity of the Christian religion. . . .” It should be noted that in this formula the infallibility of the Apostolic See is the centre from which radiates the infallibility of the councils.

X. SUBJECT MATTER OF INFALLIBILITY

The subject matter of infallibility, or supreme judicial authority, is found in the definitions and decrees of councils, and in them alone, to the exclusion of the theological, scientific, or historical reasons upon which they are built up. These represent too much of the human element, of transient mentalities, of personal interests to claim the promise of infallibility made to the Church as a whole; it is the sense of the unchanging Church that is infallible, not the sense of individual churchmen of any age or excellence, and that sense finds expression only in the conclusions of the council approved by the pope. Decisions referring to dogma were called in the East diatyposeis (constitutions, statutes); those concerned with discipline were termed kanones (canons, rules), often with the addition of tes eutaxias (of discipline, or good order). The expressions thesmoi and horoi apply to both, and the short formulae of condemnation were known as anathematismoi (anathemas).

In the West no careful distinction of terms was observed: canones and decreta signify both dogmatic and disciplinary decisions. The Council of Trent styled its disciplinary edicts decreta de reformatione; its dogmatic definitions decreta, without qualification, where they positively assert the points of faith then in dispute, and canones when, in imitation of the ancient anathematisms, they imposed an anathema sit on those that refused assent to the defined propositions. An opinion too absurd to require refutation pretends that only these latter canons (with the attached anathemas) contain the peremptory judgment of the council demanding unquestioned submission. Equally absurd is the opinion, sometimes recklessly advanced, that the Tridentine capita are no more than explanations of the canones, not proper definitions; the council itself, at the beginning and end of each chapter, declares them to contain the rule of faith. Thus Session XIII begins: “The Holy Synod forbids to all the faithful in future to believe, teach, or preach concerning the Holy Eucharist otherwise than is explained and defined in the present decree”, and it ends: “As, however, it is not enough to speak the truth without discovering and refuting error, it has pleased the Holy Synod to subjoin the following canons, so that all, now knowing the Catholic doctrine, may also understand what heresies they have to beware against and avoid. “ The same remark applies to the chapters of the Vatican Council in its two Constitutions, as appears from the concluding words of the proemium of the first Constitution and from the initial phrases of most chapters. All that may be conceded is that the chapters of both councils contain the doctrina catholica, i.e. the authorized teaching of the Church, but not always and invariably dogmata formalia, i.e. propositions of faith defined as such.

XI. PROMULGATION

Promulgation of conciliar decrees is necessary because they are laws, and no law is binding until it has been brought unmistakably to the knowledge of all it intends to bind. The decrees are usually promulgated in the name of the synod itself; in cases of the pope presiding in person they have also been published in the form of papal decrees with the formula: sacrâ universali synodo approbante. This was done first at the Third Lateran Council, then at the Fourth and Fifth Lateran, and also partly at the Council of Constance.

XII. IS A COUNCIL ABOVE A POPE?

The Councils of Constance and of Basle affirmed with great emphasis that an Ecumenical council is superior in authority to the pope, and French theologians have adopted that proposition as one of the famous four Gallican Liberties. Other theologians affirmed, and still affirm, that the pope is above any general council. The leading exponents of the Gallican doctrine are: Dupin (1657-1719), professor at the Sorbonne in Paris (“Dissertatio de concilii generalis supra Romanum Pontificem auctoritate”, in his book on the ancient discipline of the Church, “De antiquâ Ecclesiae disciplinâ dissertationes historicae”); and Natalis Alexander, 0. P. (1639-1724), in the ninth volume of his great “Historia Ecclesiastica” (Diss. iv ad saeculum XV). On the other side Lucius Ferraris (Bibliotheca Canonica, s. v. Concilium) and Roncaglia, editor and corrector of Natalis Alexander's history, stoutly defend the papal superiority. Hefele, after carefully weighing the main arguments of the Gallicans (viz. that Pope Martin V approved the declaration of the Council of Constance, and Pope Eugene IV the identical declaration of the Council of Basle, affirming the superiority of an Ecumenical synod over the pope), concluded that both popes, in the interests of peace, approved of the councils in general terms which might imply an approbation of the point in question, but that neither Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)

The principles hitherto set forth supply a complete solution to the controversy. General councils represent the Church; the pope therefore stands to them in the same relation as he stands to the Church. But that relation is one of neither superiority nor inferiority, but of intrinsic cohesion: the pope is neither above nor below the Church, but in it as the centre is in the circle, as intellect and will are in the soul. By taking our stand on the Scriptural doctrine that the Church is the mystical body of Christ of which the pope is the visible head, we see at once that a council apart from the pope is but a lifeless trunk, a “rump parliament”, no matter how well attended it be.

XIII. CAN A COUNCIL, DEPOSE THE POPE?

This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds: ob mores (for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod) ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).

In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.

But the question assumes another aspect when a number of claimants pretend to be the rightful occupants of the Apostolic See, and the right of each is doubtful. In such a case the council, according to Bellarmine (Disputationes, II xix, de Conciliis) has a right to examine the several claims and to depose the pretenders whose claims are unfounded. This was done at the Synod of Constance. But during this process of examination the synod is not yet Ecumenical; it only becomes so the moment the rightful pope assents to its proceedings. It is evident that this is no instance of a legitimate pope being deposed by a legitimate council, but simply the removal of pretender by those on whom he wishes to impose will.

Not even John XXIII could have been deposed at Constance, had his election not been doubtful and himself suspected of heresy. John XXIII, moreover, abdicated and by his abdication made his removal from the Apostolic See lawful. In all controversies and complaints regarding Rome the rule laid down by the Eighth General Synod should never be lost sight of: “ If a universal synod be assembled and any ambiguity or controversy arise concerning the Holy Church of the Romans, the question should be examined and solved with due reverence and veneration, in a spirit of mutual helpfulness; no sentence should be audaciously pronounced against the supreme pontiff of the elder Rome” (can. xxi. Hefele, IV, 421-22).

SCHEEBEN wrote copiously and learnedly in defence of the Vatican Council; his article in the Kirchenlexicon, written in 1883, contains the marrow of his previous writings, while HEFELE'S History of the Councils is the standard work on the subject. For a deeper study of the councils a good collection of the Acta Conciliorum is indispensable. The first ever printed was the very imperfect one of MERLIN (Paris, 1523). A second and richer collection, by the Belgian Franciscan PETER CRABBE, appeared in 1538 at Cologne, in 3 vols. Completer editions were published as time went on: SURIUS (Cologne, 1567, 5. vols.); BOLANUS (Venice, 1585, 5 vols.); BINIUS (Cologne, 1606), with historical and explanatory notes from Baronius — republished 1618, and in Paris, 1636, in 9 vols.; the Roman collection of general councils with Greek text, arranged by the Jesuit SIRMOND (1608 — 1612), in 4 vols. — each council is preceded by a short history. On Bellarmine's advice Sirmond omitted the Acts of the Synod of Basle. This Roman collection is the foundation of all that followed. First among these is the Paris Collectio Regia, in 37 vols. (1644). Then comes the still completer collection of the Jesuits LABBE and COSSART (Paris, 1674), in 17 folio vols., to which BALUZE added a supplementary volume (Paris, 1683 and 1707). Most French authors quote from LABBE-BALUZE. Yet another and better edition is due to the Jesuit HARDOUIN; it is of all the most perfect and serviceable. MANSI — later Archbishop of Lucca, his native town — with the help of many Italian scholars, brought out a new collection of 31 volumes, which, had it been finished, would have surpassed all its predecessors in merit. Unfortunately it only comes down to the fifteenth century, and, being unfinished, has no indexes. To fill this gap, WELTER, a Paris publisher, took up (1900) the new collection proposed (1870) by V . Palme. To a facsimile reprint of the 31 volumes of MANSI (Florence, Venice, 1757-1797) he added 19 supplementary volumes, furnishing the necessary indexes, etc. The Acta et Decreta sacrorum conciliorum recentiorum Collectio Lacensis (Freiburg im Br.,1870-90), published by the Jesuits of Maria-Laach, extends from 1682 to 1869. An English translation of HEFELE'S standard History of the Christian Councils, by W. R. CLARK, was commenced in 1871 (Edinburgh and London); a French translation by the Benedictines of Farnborough is also in course of publication (Paris, 1907). Among the latest authors treating of councils are WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), I, II; OJETTI, Synopsis rerum moralium et juris canonici, s. v. Concilium.

J. WILHELM

Preparation for Death

• The basic preparation for death
• When should a priest be called?
• Winding up our earthly affairs
• Confession
• Viaticum
• Extreme Unction
• The “last blessing”
• As death approaches
• Cases of special need
• In medieval England

The basic preparation for death

Spiritual writers are as one in declaring that ordinarily the only adequate preparation for death is a righteous life. It is a commonplace with them that the tendency to think of this preparation as a set exercise without much, if any, reference to one's previous career represents a miserable error. There is no way, of course, to combat the obviousness of this position.

Nevertheless, in what follows here we are contemplating that array of actions, mental and moral attitudes, ministrations, etc. which are commonly rated as the proximate making ready for the coming of the supreme moment. No matter how carefully conformed to the law of God and the precepts of the Church one's life may have been, no Christian will want to enter eternity without some immediate forearming against the terrors of that last passage.

When should a priest be called?

We shall deal first with the case of those to whom the dread summons comes after an illness which has not bereft them of consciousness. The Roman Ritual is explicit in its injunction to the pastor to hasten to the bedside of the sick person at the first intimation that one of his flock is ill. This he is to do without even waiting for an invitation: “Cum primum noverit quempiam ex fidelibus curae suae commissis aegrotare, non exspectabit ut ad eum vocetur, sed ultro ad eum accedat” (I, cap. iv). Indeed, it is impossible to unduly accentuate the importance of this timely coming of the priest to offer opportune spiritual succours to the one who is ill. Practically, in the actual conditions of modern life, it must often happen that the priest can only know of this need for his services through information furnished by the relatives or friends of the sick person. They, therefore, have a very definite obligation in this matter.

Too often there is a mistaken interpretation of the claims of affection or, even worse, a weakly surrender to a lamentable human respect, and so the minister of God is sent for, if at all, only when the patient is unconscious, and death is imminent. For the Catholic Christian, getting ready for death is not simply the being submitted passively to the administration of certain religious rites. It is, as far as may be, the conscious, deliberate employment of prayer; the forming or deepening of a special temper of soul and acceptance of such sacramental help as will fit the human spirit to appear with some confidence before its Judge.

Hence the failure to call the clergyman in time may, far from being an exhibition of tenderness or consideration, be the most irreparable of cruelties. To be sure it is not always necessary that the patient should be told that his case is past remedy; even when the approach of death is fairly discernible, and even when such distressing information must for any reason be conveyed, there is room for the exercise of a great deal of prudence and tact. It may be that the sick person will have important affairs to set in order, and that a hint of the probability of a fatal issue of his illness will be the only adequate stimulus to quicken him into a discharge of his obligations. In such instances it may be not only a kindness but a duty to impart such knowledge straightforwardly, but gently. It is plain that a special measure of delicacy is necessary when this office falls to the attending priest to perform.

Winding up our earthly affairs

Beyond question it is of paramount importance that all such matters as the disposition of temporalities, payment of debts, satisfaction of burdens of restitution, etc. should have been settled so as to leave an undivided attention for the momentous considerations which are to engage the mind of the one who is presently to pass through the portals of death into eternity.

Confession

So far as priestly assistance goes the first step in the process of preparation for death is the receiving of the patient's confession and the conferring of sacramental absolution. Indeed, inasmuch as it offers the ordinary means of reconciliation with God, it is the most indispensable factor in helping the soul to qualify for its departure from the body. The Roman Ritual (I, cap. iv, 8) indicates that the priest is to draw upon all the resources of his prudence and charity in order to obtain a confession from the sick person, even though the danger apprehended be as yet remote.

The confession need not necessarily be of the sort that is described as general, unless, of course, the reasons exist that would make it obligatory at any other time of life as well. It will often be useful where, with due regard to the remaining strength of the stricken penitent, it is possible to make, at least in some sense, this general avowal of the sins of one's life. Whether there be question of a general confession or merely the ordinary one, the clergyman has often to remember that in this trying juncture the Divine precept exacting entirety in the recital of offenses admits of more than usually benignant interpretation.

Where the person is incapable of sustained mental effort without serious prejudice to his failing powers, the priest need give himself no scruple about being satisfied with incomplete, or less specific, forms of accusation. The law of integrity is not to be rigorously urged under such circumstances. Even when nothing but the most general acknowledgment of one's sinful condition can be obtained, it is incontrovertible that in the premises this is a valid substitute for a more detailed confession.

Viaticum

After the confession comes the reception of the Holy Eucharist as viaticum (per modum viatici). “Sacred writers”, according to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “called it 'the Viaticum', as well because it is the spiritual bread by which we are supported in our mortal pilgrimage, as also because it prepares for us a passage to eternal glory and happiness.” The concordant teaching of theologians, as well as the inference from the uniform discipline of the Church, is that there is a Divine precept binding one to receive the Holy Eucharist when in danger of death.

At this time the communicant is exempted from the traditional natural fast. The Council of Constance witnesses to the custom of the Church in this matter, and the Roman Ritual (I, cap. iv, 4) says: “potest quidem Viaticum brevi morituris dari non jejunis”. This privilege may be enjoyed repeatedly by the dying person during the illness. Strictly speaking, it is not extended to persons whose danger of death comes from a cause other than sickness, such as soldiers about to engage in battle or criminals about to be executed= Still, even they, as appears from a declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, 21 July, 1841, may receive the Viaticum even though they are not fasting, if they find any considerable difficulty in observing the law.

So far as is possible, nothing should be omitted which can help to confer upon the administration of the Viaticum becoming solemnity. This is all the more desirable in that sometimes the demeanor of those who are present on such occasions, and even of the sick person, is not such as to betray any very alert sense of the Presence that has come to hallow this last stage of life's journey. It is needless to add that whatever the enlightened zeal of the priest or the careful piety of the bystanders can suggest ought to be done to awaken in the communicant a special degree of fervour, a more than ordinarily penetrating faith and ardent love on the occasion of what may be his final eating of the Bread of Life.

Extreme Unction

There follows the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or anointing, as it is popularly designated.

Here the clergyman may find himself confronted with prejudices which in spite of reiterated explanations seem to have an extraordinary vitality. His announcement that he purposes to anoint the sick person is often accepted by the patient and his friends as the reading of the death-warrant. It is necessary to point out that the Sacrament of Extreme Unction gives health not only to the soul, but also sometimes to the body. The basis for the teaching is of course to be found in the well-known utterance of St. James (v, 14, 15): “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him.”

Anciently it was the custom to confer this sacrament before the Viaticum; the maintenance of the existing usage has been prescribed by the Roman Ritual (V, cap. i, 2). Although the existence of a precept to receive this sacrament cannot be established, still the failure to avail oneself of its efficacy out of sheer sloth would be a venial sin. It cannot be administered more than once during the same illness, unless, after some notable betterment which has either certainly or probably taken place, a new danger should supervene. In chronic diseases, therefore, such as tuberculosis, it will often happen that the sacrament may and ought to be repeated because of the recurrence of what is, morally speaking, a new danger.

According to the discipline in vogue in the Latin Church, the unctions essential to the validity of the sacrament are those of the organs of the five senses—the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, and hands. There is a diversity in the custom as to the unctions to be added to those already enumerated; in the United States, besides the parts mentioned, only the feet are anointed=

The sick-room ought to be made ready for the visit of the priest on the occasion of his giving the last sacrament, it can at least be cleaned and aired. On a table covered with a white cloth there ought to be a lighted blessed candle, a crucifix, a glass of water, a spoon, a vessel containing holy water, and a towel. According to the rubric of the Roman Ritual the priest is to remind those who are present to pray for the sick person during the anointing, and it suggests that the Seven Penitential Psalms with the litanies might be employed for this purpose.

Extreme unction, like other sacraments, produces sanctifying grace in the soul. It has, however, certain results proper to itself. Of these the principal one seems to be the getting rid of that spiritual torpor and weakness which are the baneful output of actual sin, and which would be such a serious handicap in this supreme moment. From the viewpoint of the Christian, the struggle to be maintained with the devil is now more formidable than ever, and a special endowment of heaven-sent strength is necessary for the soul's final victory.

The “last blessing”

The anointing is ordinarily succeeded by the conferring of the Apostolic benediction, or “last blessing”, as it is commonly called. To this blessing a plenary indulgence is attached, to be gained, however, only at the hour of death, i e. it is given nunc pro tunc. It is conferred in virtue of a special faculty granted to the bishops and by them delegated quite generally to their priests. The conditions requisite for gaining it are the invocation of the Holy Name of Jesus at least mentally, acts of resignation by which the dying person professes his willingness to accept all his sufferings in reparation for his sins and submits himself entirely to the will of God.

As death approaches

The cardinal disposition of soul at the approach of death are: a frequent eliciting of the acts of faith, hope, love, and contrition; a striving towards a more and more perfect conformity with the will of God and the constant maintaining of a penitential spirit. The words of St. Augustine are in point: “ However innocent your life may have been, no Christian ought to venture to die in any other state than that of the penitent.”

As the hour of the agony approaches, the clergyman, according to the Roman Ritual, is to be called to pronounce the pathetically beautiful “Recommendation of a departing soul”. Where the presence of the priest cannot for any reason be had, these prayers ought not to be omitted; they are nowadays easily obtainable in the vernacular and ought to be recited by those who watch beside the deathbed. The dying person should be invited to join in these petitions, without, however, harassing or fatiguing him.

As the person is about to expire, the Ritual directs those who are by to pray more earnestly than ever; the Holy Name of Jesus is to be invoked, and such ejaculations as the following whispered in his ear: “Into thy hands, Lord, I commend my spirit”; “O Lord, Jesus Christ, receive my spirit”; “Holy Mary, pray for me”; “Mary Mother of grace, Mother of mercy, do thou protect me from the enemy and receive me at the hour of my death”.

Cases of special need

When death is apprehended as imminent after a sudden seizure even in the act of sin, an accident, attempted suicide, and the like, and the person is meanwhile deprived of consciousness, the method of proceeding is as follows: Conditional absolution is imparted, Viaticum of course is omitted, as it is likewise when the person, though in possession of his senses, is subject to an almost unintermittent vomiting. Extreme unction and the last blessing are given as usual. In such an extremity, when the person is unable to make a confession, extreme unction may prove to be the most effective and necessary means of alleviation.

It is interesting to note that recent investigations have made it plain that it is no longer possible to determine even within a considerable margin the precise moment of death. Father Ferreres, S. J., in his work, gathers as the conclusion of his researches that the only absolutely certain sign of death is decomposition. The practical value of this statement is that absolution and extreme unction may be given conditionally for some time after the person would have hitherto been reputed to be dead.

In what has been said, it is taken for granted that the person to be gotten ready for death is baptized. If this is not so, or if there be a doubt about it, either as to fact or validity, then of course baptism must first be administered, either absolutely or conditionally, as the case warrants after some instruction on the principal truths of religion. Baptism may be conferred conditionally on those who are unconscious in as far as they can be presumed to have the desire of receiving it.

It is perhaps worth while to add here that, when there is question of the dying, it is the mind of the Church that her minister should avail himself of any sort of probability, no matter how slight, in order to be able to give absolution, at least conditionally. He then applies with great amplitude the principle, Sacramenta propter homines. Practically, therefore, the only case in which the priest in these circumstances may not absolve is when the person refuses the sacraments, or is manifestly discerned to have a perverse disposition of soul.

In medieval England

Lingard, in his “Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church”, gives a description of the discipline in force among the Anglo-Saxons of the medieval period with regard to the preparation of the dying for the end.

He says: “At the first appearance of danger, recourse was had to the ministry of the parish priest or of some distinguished clergyman in the neighborhood. He was bound to obey the summons and no plea but that. of inability could justify his negligence. Attended by his inferior clergy, arrayed in the habits of their respective orders, he repaired to the chamber of the sick man, offered him the sacred rites of religion and exhorted him to prepare his soul to appear before the tribunal of his Creator.

“The first duty which he was bound to require from his dying disciple was the arrangement of his temporal concerns. Till provision had been made for the payment of his debts and the indemnification of those whom he had injured, it was in vain to solicit the succours of religion, but as soon as these obligations had been fulfilled the priest was ordered to receive his confession, to teach him to form sentiments of compunction and resignation, to exact from him a declaration that he died in peace with all mankind, and to pronounce over him the prayer of reconciliation.

“Thus prepared he might with confidence demand the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. With consecrated oil the principal parts of the body were successively anointed in the form of a cross; each unction was accompanied with an appropriate prayer and the promise of St. James was renewed, 'that the prayer of faith should save the sick man and if he be in sins they should be forgiven'.

“The administration of the Eucharist concluded these religious rites at the termination of which the friends of the sick man ranged themselves around his bed, received the presents which he distributed among them as memorials of his affection, and gave him the kiss of peace and bade him a last and melancholy farewell.”

Dr. Lingard mentions a curious attitude with regard to extreme unction as prevalent among the illiterate Anglo-Saxons of this time. He says, “It [extreme unction] appears to have been sometimes received with reluctance by the illiterate from an idea that it was a kind of ordination which induced the obligation of continency and abstinence from flesh on those who afterwards recovered. The clergy were ordered to preach against the erroneous notion.”

(See also VIATICUM; EXTREME UNCTION.)

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Surnames of Famous Doctors

It was customary in the Middle Ages to designate the more celebrated among the doctors by certain epithets or surnames which were supposed to express their characteristic excellence or dignity. This was especially the case with the doctors in law and theology. The following list exhibits the principal surnames with the dates of death.

DOCTORS IN THEOLOGY

• Abstractionum — Francis Mayron, O.F.M., 1325 or 1327.
• Acutissimus — Sixtus IV, 1484.
• Acutus — Gabriel Vasquez, S.J., 1604.
• Amoenus — Robert Conton, O.F.M., 1340.
• Angelicus — St. Thomas Aquinas, O.P., 1274.
• Arca testamenti — St. Anthony of Padua, 1231.
• Authenticus — Gregory of Rimini, O.S.A., 1358.
• Averroista et philosophiae parens — Urbanus, O.S.M., 1403.
• Beatus et fundatissimus — AEgidius of Colonna, O.S.A., 1316.
• Bonus — Walter Brinkley, O.F.M., 1310.
• Christianus — Nicholas of Cusa, 1464.
• Clarus — Louis of Montesinos, 1621.
• Clarus ac subtilis — Denis of Cîteaux, 15th cent.
• Collectivus — Landolfo Caracciolo, O.F.M., 1351.
• Columna doctorum — William of Champeaux, O.S.B., 1121.
• Contradictionum — Johann Wessel, 1489.
• Divinus Ecstaticus — John Ruysbroeck, Can. Reg., 1381.
• Doctor doctorum Scholasticus — Anselm of Laon, 1117.
• Dulcifluus — Antonius Andreas, O.F.M., 1320.
• Ecstaticus — Denys the Carthusian, 1471.
• Eminens — St. John of Matha, O.Trin., 1213.
• Emporium theologiae — Laurent Gervais, O.P., 1483 .
• Exellentissimus — Antonio Corsetti, 1503.
• Eximius — Francisco Suarez, S.J., 1617.
• Facundus — Petrus Aureoli, O.F.M., 1322.
• Famosissimus — Petrus Alberti, O.S.B., 1426.
• Famosus — Bertrand de la Tour, O.F.M., 1334.
• Fertilis — Francis of Candia, O.F.M., 15th cent.
• Flos mundi — Maurice O'Fiehely, O.F.M. Abp of Tuam, 1513.
• Fundamentalis — Joannes Faber of Bordeaux, 1350.
• Fundaiissimus — see Beatus.
• Fundatus — William Ware, O.F.M., 1270.
• Illibatus — Alexander Alamannicus, O.F.M., 15th cent.
• Illuminatus — Francis Mayron, O.F.M., 1325-27; Raymond Lully, O.F.M., 1315.
• Illuminatus et sublimis — Joannes Tauler, O.P., 1361.
• Illustratus — Franciscus Picenus, O.F.M., 14th cent.
• Illustris — Adam of Marisco, O.F.M., 1308.
• Inclytus — William Mackelfield, O.P., 1300.
• Ingeniosissimus — Andrew of Newcastle, O.F.M., 1300.
• Inter Aristotelicos Aristotelicissimus — Haymo of Faversham, O.F.M., 1244.
• Invincibilis — Petrus Thomas, O.F.M., 14th cent.
• Irrefragibilis — Alexander of Hales, O.F.M., 1245.
• Magister Sententiarum — Peter Lombard, 1164.
• Magnus — Albertus Magnus, O.P., 1280; Gilbert of Citeaux, O.Cist, 1280.
• Marianus — St. Anselm of Canterbury, O.S.B., 1109.
• Mellifluus — Bernard, O.Cist, 1153.
• Mirabilis — Antonio Perez, S.J., 1649; Roger Bacon, O.F.M., 1294.
• Moralis — Gerard Eudo, O.F.M., 1349.
• Notabilis — Pierre de l'Ile, O.F.M., 14th cent.
• Ordinatissimus — Johannes de Bassolis, O.F.M., c. 1347.
• Ornatissimus et sufficiens — Petrus de Aquila, O.F.M., 1344.
• Parisiensis — Guy de Perpignan, O.Carm, 1342.
• Planus et utilis — Nicolas de Lyre, O.F.M., 1340.
• Praeclarus — Peter of Kaiserslautern, O.Praem, 1330.
• Praestantissimus — Thomas Netter (of Walden), O.Carm, 1431.
• Profundissimus — Paul of Venice, O.S.A., 1428; Gabriel Biel, Can. Reg., 1495; Juan Alfonso Curiel, O.S.B., 1609.
• Profundus — Thomas Bradwardine, 1349.
• Refulgidus — Alexander V, 1410.
• Resolutissimus — Durandus of Saint-Pourcain, O.P., 1334.
• Resolutus — John Bacon, O.Carm., 1346.
• Scholasticus — Peter Abelard, 1142; Gilbert de la Porree, 1154; Peter Lombard, 1164; Peter of Poitiers, 1205; Hugh of Newcastle, O.F.M., 1322.
• Seraphicus — St. Bonaventure, O.F.M., 1274.
• Singularis et invincibilis — William of Occam, O.F.M., 1347 or 1359.
• Solemnis — Henry of Ghent, 1293.
• Solidus Copiosus — Richard of Middleton, O.F.M., 1300.
• Speculativus — James of Viterbo, O.S.A., 1307.
• Sublimis — Francis de Bachone, O.Carm., 1372; Jean Courte-Cuisse, 1425.
• Subtilis — Duns Scotus, O.F.M., 1308.
• Subtilissimus — Peter of Mantua, 14th cent.
• Succinctus — Francis of Ascoli, c 1344.
• Universalis — Alanus of Lille, 1202; Gilbert, Bishop. of London, 1134.
• Venerabilis et Christianissimus — Jean Gerson, 1429.
• Venerandus — Geoffroy de Fontibus, O.F.M., 1240.
• Vitae Arbor — Johannes Wallensis, O.F.M., 1300

DOCTORS IN LAW

• Aristotelis Anima — Johannes Dondus, 1380.
• Doctor a Doctoribus — Antonius Franciscus, 1528.
• Fons Canonum — Johannes Andrea, 1348.
• Fons Juris Utriusque — Henry of Susa (Ostia), 1267-81.
• Lucerna Juris — Baldus de Ubaldis, 1400.
• Lucerna Juris Pontificii — Nicholas Tedeschi, O.S.B., 1445.
• Lumen Juris — Clement IV, 1268.
• Lumen Legum — Irnerius, 13th cent.
• Memoriosissimus — Ludovicus Pontanus, 1439.
• Monarcha Juris — Bartholomew of Saliceto, 1412.
• Os Aureum — Bulgarus, 1166.
• Pacificus (Proficuus) — Nicolas Bonet, O.F.M., 1360.
• Pater Decretalium — Gregory IX, 1241.
• Pater et Organum Veritatis — Innocent IV, 1254.
• Pater Juris — Innocent III, 1216.
• Pater Peritorum — Pierre de Belleperche, 1307.
• Planus ac Perspicuus — Walter Burleigh, 1337.
• Princeps Subtilitatum — Francesco d'Accolti, 1486.
• Speculator — William Durandus, 1296.
• Speculum Juris — Bartholus of Sassoferrato, 1359.
• Subtilis — Benedict Raymond, 1440; Filippo Corneo, 1462.
• Verus — Thomas Doctius, Siena, 1441

E. A. PACE

Doctors of the Church

(Lat. Doctores Ecclesiae) — Certain ecclesiastical writers have received this title on account of the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine. In the Western church four eminent Fathers of the Church attained this honour in the early Middle Ages: St. Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome. The “four Doctors” became a commonplace among the Scholastics, and a decree of Boniface VIII (1298) ordering their feasts to be kept as doubles in the whole Church is contained in his sixth book of

In the Eastern Church three Doctors were pre-eminent: Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen. The feasts of these three saints were made obligatory throughout the Eastern Empire by Leo VI, the Wise, the deposer of Photius. A common feast was later instituted in their honour on 30 January, called “the feast of the three Hierarchs”. In the Menaea for that day it is related that the three Doctors appeared in a dream to John, Bishop of Euchaitae, and commanded him to institute a festival in their honour, in order to put a stop to the rivalries of their votaries and panegyrists. This was under Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118; see”Acta SS.”, 14 June, under St. Basil, c. xxxviii). But sermons for the feast are attributed in MSS. to Cosmas Vestitor, who flourished in the tenth century. The three are as common in Eastern art as the four are in Western. Durandus (i, 3) remarks that Doctors should be represented with books in their hands. In the West analogy led to the veneration of four Eastern Doctors, St. Athanasius being very properly added to the three hierarchs.

To these great names others have subsequently been added. The requisite conditions are enumerated as three: eminens doctrina, insignis vitae sanctitas, Ecclesiae declaratio (i.e. eminent learning, a high degree of sanctity, and proclamation by the Church). Benedict XIV explains the third as a declaration by the supreme pontiff or by a general council. But though general councils have acclaimed the writings of certain Doctors, no council has actually conferred the title of Doctor of the Church. In practice the procedure consists in extending to the universal church the use of the office and mass of a saint in which the title of doctor is applied to him. The decree is issued by the Congregation of Sacred Rites and approved by the pope, after a careful examination, if necessary, of the saint's writings. It is not in any way an ex cathedra decision, nor does it even amount to a declaration that no error is to be found in the teaching of the Doctor. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are not wholly immune from error. No martyr has ever been included in the list, since the Office and the Mass are for Confessors. Hence, as Benedict XIV points out, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, and St. Cyprian are not called Doctors of the Church.

The proper Mass of Doctors has the Introit “In medio”, borrowed from that of the Theologus par excellence, St. John the Evangelist, together with special prayers and Gospel. The Credo is said. The principal peculiarity of the Office is the antiphon to the Magnificat at both Vespers, “O DOCTOR OPTIME”, and it is rather by this antiphon than by the special mass that a saint is perceived to be a doctor (S.R.C., 7 Sept., 1754). In fact, St. John Damascene has a Mass of his own, while Athanasius, Basil, Leo, and Cyril of Jerusalem have not the Gospel of Doctors, and several have not the collect.

The feasts of the four Latin Doctors were not added to until the sixteenth century, when St. Thomas Aquinas was declared a Doctor by the Dominican St. Pius V in his new edition of the Breviary (1568), in which the feasts of the four Greek Doctors were also raised to the rank of doubles. The Franciscan Sixtus V (1588) added St. Bonaventure St. Anselm was added by Clement XI (1720), St. Isidore by Innocent XIII (1722), St. Peter Chrysologus by Benedict XIII (1729), St. Leo I (a well-deserved but belated honour) by Benedict XIV (1754), St. Peter Damian by Leo XII (1828), St. Bernard by Pius VIII (1830). Pius IX gave (1851) the honour to St. Hilary and to two more modern saints, Alphonsus Liguori (1871) and Francis de Sales (1877). Leo XIII promoted (1883) the Easterns, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and John Damascene, and last of all The Venerable Bede (1899). The same pope, when, in 1882, he introduced the simplification of double feasts, made an exception for Doctors, whose feasts are always to be transferred.

There are therefore now twenty-three Doctors of the Church, of whom seven are Eastern sixteen Western. Two are popes, two are cardinals, all but five are bishops. They include a Dominican, a Franciscan, a Redemptorist, and five Benedictines. For some of these the Office had previously been granted to certain places or orders—St. Peter Damian to the Camaldolese, St. Isidore to Spain, St. Bede to England and to all Benedictines. St. Leander of Seville and St. Fulgentius are kept as Doctors in Spain, and the former by Benedictines also, as he was in earlier times claimed as a monk. St. Ildephonsus has the Introit “In medio” in the same order (for the same reason) and in Spain without the rank of Doctor.

POHLE in Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1907). II, 384; FESSLER-JUNGMANN, Instit. Patrologiae (Innsbruck, 1890); BARDENHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN (Freiburg im Br., St. Louis, 1908), 2-3. On the early Latin Doctors see WEYMAN in Hist. Jahrbuch (1894), XV, 96; and in Rev. d'hist. et de litt. religieuses (1898) III, 562; for the Greek Doctors see NILLES in Zeitschrift f. kath. Theologie (1894), XVIII, 742. See also BOUVY, Les Peres de l'Eglise in Rev. Augustinienne (1904) 461-86, and PESCH Praelect. Dogmat. (Freiburg, 1903), 346 sqq.

JOHN CHAPMAN

Dogma

I. DEFINITION

The word dogma (Gr. dogma from dokein) signifies, in the writings of the ancient classical authors, sometimes, an opinion or that which seems true to a person; sometimes, the philosophical doctrines or tenets, and especially the distinctive philosophical doctrines, of a particular school of philosophers (cf. Cic. Ac., ii, 9), and sometimes, a public decree or ordinance, as dogma poieisthai. In Sacred Scripture it is used, at one time, in the sense of a decree or edict of the civil authority, as in Luke, ii, 1: “And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree [edictum, dogma] from Caesar Augustus” (cf. Acts, xvii, 7; Esther, iii, 3); at another time, in the sense of an ordinance of the Mosaic Law as in Eph., ii 15: “Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees” (dogmasin), and again, it is applied to the ordinances or decrees of the first Apostolic Council in Jerusalem: “And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees [dogmata] for to keep, that were decreed by the apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem” (Acts, xvi, 4). Among the early Fathers the usage was prevalent of designating as dogmas the doctrines and moral precepts taught or promulgated by the Saviour or by the Apostles; and a distinction was sometimes made between Divine, Apostolical, and ecclesiastical dogmas, according as a doctrine was conceived as having been taught by Christ, by the Apostles, or as having been delivered to the faithful by the Church. But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.

Theologians distinguish three classes of revealed truths: truths formally and explicitly revealed; truths revealed formally, but only implicitly; and truths only virtually revealed. A truth is said to be formally revealed, when the speaker or revealer really means to convey that truth by his language, to guarantee it by the authority of his word. The revelation is formal and explicit, when made in clear express terms. It is formal but only implicit, when the language is somewhat obscure, when the rules of interpretation must be carefully employed to determine the meaning of the revelation. And a truth is said to be revealed only virtually, when it is not formally guaranteed by the word of the speaker, but is inferred from something formally revealed. Now, truths formally and explicitly revealed by God are certainly dogmas in the strict sense when they are proposed or defined by the Church. Such are the articles of the Apostles' Creed. Similarly, truths revealed by God formally, but only implicitly, are dogmas in the strict sense when proposed or defined by the Church. Such, for example, are the doctrines of Transubstantiation (q. v.), papal infallibility (q. v.), the Immaculate Conception(q.v.),some of the Church's teaching about the Saviour, the sacraments, etc. All doctrines defined by the Church as being contained in revelation are understood to be formally revealed, explicitly or implicitly. It is a dogma of faith that the Church is infallible in defining these two classes of revealed truths; and the deliberate denial of one of these dogmas certainly involves the sin of heresy. There is a diversity of opinion about virtually revealed truths, which has its roots in a diversity of opinion about the material object of faith (see FAITH). It is enough to say here that, according to some theologians, virtually revealed truths belong to the material object of faith and become dogmas in the strict sense when defined or proposed by the Church; and according to others, they do not belong to the material object of faith prior to their definition, but become strict dogmas when defined; and, according to others, they do not belong to the material object of Divine faith at all, nor become dogmas in the strict sense when defined, but may be called mediately-Divine or ecclesiastical dogmas. In the hypothesis that virtually revealed conclusions do not belong to the material object of faith, it has not been defined that the Church is infallible in defining these truths, the infallibility of the Church, however, in relation to these truths is a doctrine of the Church theologically certain, which cannot lawfully be denied- and though the denial of an ecclesiastical dogma would not be heresy in the strict sense, it could entail the sundering of the bond of faith and expulsion from the Church by the Church's anathema or excommunication.

II. DIVISIONS

The divisions of dogma follow the lines of the divisions of faith. Dogmas can be (1) general or special; (2) material or formal; (3) pure or mixed; (4) symbolic or non-symbolic; (5) and they can differ according to their various degrees of necessity.

(1) General dogmas are a part of the revelation meant for mankind and transmitted from the Apostles; while special dogmas are the truths revealed in private revelations. Special dogmas, therefore, are not, strictly speaking, dogmas at all; they are not revealed truths transmitted from the Apostles; nor are they defined or proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful generally.

(2) Dogmas are called material (or Divine, or dogmas in themselves, in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by the Church, when they are considered only as revealed; and they are called formal (or Catholic, or “in relation to us”, quoad nos) when they are considered both as revealed and defined. Again, it is evident that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense of the term.

(3) Pure dogmas are those which can be known only from revelation, as the Trinity (q. v.), Incarnation (q. v.), etc.; while mixed dogmas are truths which can be known from revelation or from philosophical reasoning as the existence and attributes of God. Both classes are dogmas in the strict sense, when considered as revealed and defined.

(4) Dogmas contained in the symbols or creeds of the Church are called symbolic; the remainder are non-symbolic. Hence all the articles of the Apostles' Creed are dogmas- but not all dogmas are called technically articles of faith, though an ordinary dogma is sometimes spoken of as an article of faith.

(5) Finally, there are dogmas belief in which is absolutely necessary as a means to salvation, while faith in others is rendered necessary only by Divine precept; and some dogmas must be explicitly known and believed, while with regard to others implicit belief is sufficient.

III. OBJECTIVE CHARACTER OF DOGMATIC TRUTH; INTELLECTUAL BELIEF IN DOGMA

As a dogma is a revealed truth, the intellectual character and objective reality of dogma depend on the intellectual character and objective truth of Divine revelation. We will here apply to dogma the conclusions developed at greater length under the heading of revelation (q. v.). Are dogmas considered merely as truths revealed by God, real objective truths addressed to the human mind? Are we bound to believe them with the mind ? Should we admit the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental dogmas?

(1) Rationalists deny the existence of Divine supernatural revelation, and consequently of religious dogmas. A certain school of mystics has taught that what Christ inaugurated in the world was “a new life”. The “Modernist” theory by reason of its recent condemnation calls for fuller treatment. There are different shades of opinion among Modernists. Some of them do not, apparently, deny all intellectual value to dogma (cf. Le Roy, “Dogme et Critique”). Dogma, like revelation, they say, is expressed in terms of action. Thus when the Son of (God is said “to have come down from heaven”, according to all theologians He did not come down, as bodies descend or as angels are conceived to pass from place to place, but the hypostatic union is described in terms of action. So when we profess our faith in God the Father, we mean, according to M. Le Roy, that we have to act towards God as sons; but neither the fatherhood of God, nor the other dogmas of faith, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of Christ etc. imply of necessity any objective intellectual conception of fatherhood, Trinity, Resurrection, etc., or convey any idea to the mind. According to other writers, God has addressed no revelation to the human mind. Revelation, they say, began as a consciousness of right and wrong- and the evolution or development of revelation was but the progressive development of the religious sense until it reached its highest level, thus far, in the modern liberal and democratic State. Then, according to these writers, the dogmas of faith, considered as dogmas, have no meaning for the mind, we need not believe them mentally; we may reject them- it is enough if we employ them as guides for our actions. (See MODERNISM.) Over against this doctrine the Church teaches that God has made a revelation to the human mind. There are, no doubt, relative Divine attributes, and some of the dogmas of faith may be expressed under the symbolism of action, but they also convey to the human mind a meaning distinct from action. The fatherhood of God may imply that we should act towards Him as children towards a father- but it also conveys to the mind definite analogical conceptions of our God and Creator. And there are truths, such as the Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ His Ascension etc. which are absolute objective facts, and which could be believed even if their practical consequences were ignored or were deemed of little value. The dogmas of the Church, such as the existence of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of Christ, the sacraments, a future judgment, etc. have an objective reality and are facts as really and truly as it a fact that Augustus was Emperor of the Romans, and that George Washington was first President of the United States.

(2) Abstracting from the Church's definition, we are bound to render to God the homage of our assent to revealed truth once we are satisfied that He has spoken. Even atheists admit, hypothetically, that if there be an infinite Being distinct from the world, we should pay Him the homage of believing His Divine word.

(3) Hence it is not permissible to distinguish revealed truths as fundamental and non-fundamental in the sense that some truths, though known to have been revealed by God, may be lawfully denied. But while we should believe, at least implicitly, every truth attested by the word of God, we are free to admit that some are in themselves more important than others, more necessary than others, and that an explicit knowledge of some is necessary while an implicit faith in others is sufficient.

IV. DOGMA AND THE CHURCH

Revealed truths become formally dogmas when defined or proposed by the Church. There is considerable hostility, in modem times, to dogmatic religion when considered as a body of truths defined by the Church, and still more when considered as defined by the pope. The theory of dogma which is here expounded depends for its acceptance on the doctrine of the infallible teaching office of the Church and of the Roman pontiff. It will be sufficient to notice the following points, (1) the reasonableness of the definition of dogma; (2) the immutability of dogma; (3) the necessity for Church unity of belief in dogma (4) the inconveniences which are alleged to be associated with the definition of dogma.

(1) Against the theory of interpretation of Scripture by private judgement, Catholics regard as absolutely unacceptable the view that God revealed a body of truths to the world and appointed no official teacher of revealed truth, no authoritative judge of controversy; this view is as unreasonable as would be the notion that the civil legislature makes laws, and then commits to individual private judgment the right and the duty of interpreting the laws and deciding controversies. The Church and the supreme pontiff are endowed by God with the privilege of infallibility in discharge of the duty of universal teacher in the sphere of faith and morals; hence we have an infallible testimony that the dogmas defined and delivered to us by the Church are the truths contained in Divine revelation.

(2) The dogmas of the Church are immutable. Modernists hold that religious dogmas, as such, have no intellectual meaning, that we are not bound to believe them mentally, that they may be all false, that it is sufficient if we use them a guides to action; and accordingly they teach that dogmas are not immutable, that they should be changed when the spirit of the age is opposed to them, when they lose their value as rules for a liberal religious life. But in the Catholic doctrine that Divine revelation is addressed to the human mind and expresses real objective truth, dogmas are immutable Divine truths. It is an immutable truth for all time that Augustus was Emperor of Rome and George Washington first President of the United States. So according to Catholic belief, these are and will be for all time immutable truths— that there are three Persons in God, that Christ died for us, that He arose from the dead, that He founded the Church, that He instituted the sacraments. We may distinguish between the truths themselves and the language in which they are expressed. The full meaning of certain revealed truths has been only gradually brought out; the truths will always remain. Language may change or may receive a new meaning; but we can always learn what meaning was attached to particular words in the past.

(3) We are bound to believe revealed truths irrespective of their definition by the Church, if we are satisfied that God has revealed them. When they are proposed or defined by the Church, and thus become dogmas, we are bound to believe them in order to maintain the bond of faith (see HERESY).

(4) Finally, Catholics do not admit that, as is sometimes alleged, dogmas are the arbitrary creations of ecclesiastical authority, that they are multiplied at will, that they are devices for keeping the ignorant in subjection, that they are obstacles to conversions. Some of these are points of controversy which cannot be settled without reference to more fundamental questions. Dogmatic definitions would be arbitrary if there were no Divinely instituted infallible teaching office in the Church; but if, as Catholics maintain, God has established in His Church an infallible office, dogmatic definitions cannot be considered arbitrary. The same Divine Providence which preserves the Church from error will preserve her from inordinate multiplication of dogmas. She cannot define arbitrarily. We need only observe the life of the Church or of the Roman pontiffs to see that dogmas are not multiplied inordinately. And as dogmatic definitions are but the authentic interpretation and declaration of the meaning of Divine revelation, they cannot be considered devices for keeping the ignorant in subjection, or reasonable obstacles to conversions, on the contrary, the authoritative definition of truth and condemnation of error, are powerful arguments leading to the Church those who seek the truth earnestly.

V. DOGMA AND RELIGION

It is sometimes charged that in the Catholic Church, in consequence of its dogmas, religious life consists merely in speculative beliefs and external sacramental formalities. It is a strange charge, arising from prejudice or from lack of acquaintance with Catholic life. Religious life in conventual and monastic establishments is surely not a merely external formality. The external religious exercises of the ordinary Catholic layman, such as public prayer, confession, Holy Communion, etc. suppose careful and serious internal self-examination and self-regulation, and various other acts of internal religion. We need only to observe the public civic life of Catholics, their philanthropic works, their schools, hospitals, orphanages, charitable organizations, to be convinced that dogmatic religion does not degenerate into mere external formalities. On the contrary, in non-Catholic Christian bodies a general decay of supernatural Christian life follows the dissolution of dogmatic religion. Were the dogmatic system of the Catholic Church, with its authoritative infallible head, done away with, the various systems of private judgment would not save the world from relapsing into and following pagan ideals. Dogmatic belief is not the be-all and end-all of Catholic life; but the Catholic serves God, honours the Trinity, loves Christ, obeys the Church, frequents the sacraments, assists at Mass, observes the Commandments, because he believes mentally in God, in the Trinity, in the Divinity of Christ, in the Church, in the sacraments and the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the duty of keeping the Commandments, and he believes in them as objective immutable truths.

VI . DOGMA AND SCIENCE

But, it is objected, dogma checks investigation, antagonizes independence of thought, and makes scientific theology impossible. This difficulty may be supposed to be put by Protestants or by unbelievers. We will consider it from both points of view.

(1) Beyond scientific investigation and freedom of thought Catholics recognize the guiding influence of dogmatic beliefs. But Protestants also profess to adhere to certain great dogmatic truths which are supposed to impede scientific investigation and to conflict with the findings of modern science. Old difficulties against the existence of God or its demonstrability, against the dogma of Creation, miracles, the human soul, and supernatural religion have been dressed in a new garb and urged by a modern school of scientists principally from the discoveries in geology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, comparative anatomy, and physiology. But Protestants, no less than Catholics, profess to believe in God, in the Creation, in the soul, in the Incarnation, in the possibility of miracles; they too, maintain that there can be no discord between the true conclusions of science and the dogmas of the Christian religion rightly understood. Protestants, therefore, cannot consistently complain that Catholic dogmas impede scientific investigation. But it is urged that in the Catholic system beliefs are not determined by private judgment, behind the dogmas of the Church there is the living bulwark of her episcopate. True, behind dogmatic beliefs Catholics recognize ecclesiastical authority; but this puts no further restraint on intellectual freedom- it only raises the question as to the constitution of the Church. Catholics do not believe that God revealed a body of truths to mankind and appointed no living authority to unfold, to teach, to safeguard that body of Divine truths, to decide controversies; but the authority of the episcopate under the supreme pontiff to control intellectual activity is correlative with, and arises from their authority to teach supernatural truth. The existence of judges and magistrates does not extend the range of our civil laws— they are rather a living authority to interpret and apply the laws. Similarly, episcopal authority has for its range the truth of revelation, and it prohibits only what is inconsistent with the full scope of that truth.

(2) In discussing the question with unbelievers we note that science is “the observation and classification, or co-ordination, of the individual facts or phenomena of nature”. Now a Catholic is absolutely free in the prosecution of scientific research according to the terms of this definition. There is no prohibition or restriction on Catholics in regard to the observation and co-ordination of the phenomena of Nature. But some scientists do not confine themselves to science as defined by themselves. They propound theories often unwarranted by experimental observation. One will maintain as a “scientific” truth that there is no God, or that His existence is unknowable- another that the world has not been created; another will deny in the name of “science” the existence of the soul; another, the possibility of supernatural revelation. Surely these denials are not warranted by scientific methods. Catholic dogma and ecclesiastical authority limit intellectual activity only so far as may be necessary for safeguarding the truths of revelation. If non-believing scientists in their study of Catholicism would apply the scientific method, which consists in observing, comparing, making hypotheses, and perhaps formulating scientific conclusions, they would readily see that dogmatic belief in no way interferes with the legitimate freedom of the Catholic in scientific research, the discharge of civic duty, or any other form of activity that makes for true enlightenment and progress. The service rendered by Catholics in every department of learning and of social endeavour, is a fact which no amount of theorizing against dogma can set aside. (See FAITH, INFALLIBILITY REVELATION, SCIENCE, TRUTH.)

Acta et Decreta Concilii Vaticani in Coll. Lac. (Freiburg im Br., 1870-90), VII; SUAREZ, Opera Omnia: De Fide Theologicâ; DE LUGO, Pera: De fide; VACANT, Etudes théologiques sur les constitutions du concile du Vatican (Paris, 1895); GRANDERATH, Constitutiones dogmaticae Sacrosancti Ecumenici Concilii Vaticani ex ipsis ejus actis explicatae atque illustratae (Freiburg im Br., 1892); SCHEEBEN, Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik (Freiburg im Br., 1873); SCHWANE, Dogmengeschichte (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1895); MAZZELLA, De Virtutibus Infusis (Rome, 1884); BILLOT, Tractatus de Ecclesiâ Christi (Rome, 1903); IDEM, De Virtutibus Infusis (Rome, 1905); NEWMAN, Idea of a University (London, 1899).

DANIEL COGHLAN

Donatists

The Donatist schism in Africa began in 311 and flourished just one hundred years, until the conference at Carthage in 411, after which its importance waned.

CAUSES OF THE SCHISM

In order to trace the origin of the division we have to go back to the persecution under Diocletian. The first edict of that emperor against Christians (24 Feb., 303) commanded their churches to be destroyed, their Sacred Books to be delivered up and burnt, while they themselves were outlawed. Severer measures followed in 304, when the fourth edict ordered all to offer incense to the idols under pain of death. After the abdication of Maximian in 305, the persecution seems to have abated in Africa. Until then it was terrible. In Numidia the governor, Florus, was infamous for his cruelty, and, though many officials may have been, like the proconsul Anulinus, unwilling to go further than they were obliged, yet St. Optatus is able to say of the Christians of the whole country that some were confessors, some were martyrs, some fell, only those who were hidden escaped. The exaggerations of the highly strung African character showed themselves. A hundred years earlier Tertullian had taught that flight from persecution was not permissible. Some now went beyond this, and voluntarily gave themselves up to martyrdom as Christians. Their motives were, however, not always above suspicion. Mensurius, the Bishop of Carthage, in a letter to Secundus, Bishop of Tigisi, then the senior bishop (primate) of Numidia, declares that he had forbidden any to be honoured as martyrs who had given themselves up of their own accord, or who had boasted that they possessed copies of the Scriptures which they would not relinquish; some of these, he says, were criminals and debtors to the State, who thought they might by this means rid themselves of a burdensome life, or else wipe away the remembrance of their misdeeds, or at least gain money and enjoy in prison the luxuries supplied by the kindness of Christians. The later excesses of the Circumcellions show that Mensurius had some ground for the severe line he took. He explains that he had himself taken the Sacred Books of the Church to his own house, and had substituted a number of heretical writings, which the prosecutors had seized without asking for more; the proconsul, when informed of the deception refused to search the bishop's private house. Secundus, in his reply, without blaming Mensurius, somewhat pointedly praised the martyrs who in his own province had been tortured and put to death for refusing to deliver up the Scriptures; he himself had replied to the officials who came to search: “I am a Christian and a bishop, not a traditor.” This word traditor became a technical expression to designate those who had given up the Sacred Books, and also those who had committed the worse crimes of delivering up the sacred vessels and even their own brethren.

It is certain that relations were strained between the confessors in prison at Carthage and their bishop. If we may credit the Donatist Acts of the forty-nine martyrs of Abitene, they broke off communion with Mensurius. We are informed in these Acts that Mensurius was a traditor by his own confession, and that his deacon, Caecilian, raged more furiously against the martyrs than did the persecutors themselves; he set armed men with whips before the door of the prison to prevent their receiving any succor; the food brought by the piety of the Christians was thrown to the dogs by these ruffians, and the drink provided was spilled in the street, so that the martyrs, whose condemnation the mild proconsul had deferred, died in prison of hunger and thirst. The story is recognized by Duchesne and others as exaggerated. It would be better to say that the main point is incredible; the prisoners would not have been allowed by the Roman officials to starve; the details - that Mensurius confessed himself a traditor, that he prevented the succoring of the imprisoned confessors - are simply founded on the letter of Mensurius to Secundus. Thus we may safely reject all the latter part of the Acts as fictitious. The earlier part is authentic: it relates how certain of the faithful of Abitene met and celebrated their usual Sunday service, in defiance of the emperor's edict, under the leadership of the priest Saturninus, for their bishop was a traditor and they disowned him; they were sent to Carthage, made bold replies when interrogated, and were imprisoned by Anulinus, who might have condemned them to death forthwith. The whole account is characteristic of the fervid African temperament. We can well imagine how the prudent Mensurius and his lieutenant, the deacon Caecilian, were disliked by some of the more excitable among their flock.

We know in detail how the inquiries for sacred books were carried out, for the official minutes of an investigation at Cirta (afterwards Constantine) in Numidia are preserved. The bishop and his clergy showed themselves ready to give up all they had, but drew the line at betraying their brethren; even here their generosity was not remarkable, for they added that the names and addresses were well known to the officials. The examination was conducted by Munatius Felix, perpetual flamen, curator of the colony of Cirta. Having arrived with his satellites at the bishop's house - in Numidia the searching was more severe than in Proconsular Africa - the bishop was found with four priests, three deacons, four subdeacons, and several fossores (diggers). These declared that the Scriptures were not there, but in the hands of the lectors; an in fact the bookcase was found to be empty. The clergy present refused to give the names of the lectors, saying they were known to the notaries; but, with the exception of the books, they gave in an inventory of all possessions of the church: two golden chalices, six of silver, six silver cruets, a silver bowl, seven silver lamps, two candlesticks, seven short bronze lamp-stands with lamps, eleven bronze lamps with chains, eighty-two women's tunics, twenty-eight veils, sixteen men's tunics, thirteen pairs of men's boots, forty-seven pairs of women's boots, nineteen countrymen's smocks. Presently the subdeacon Silvanus brought forth a silver box and another silver lamp, which he had found behind a jug. In the dining-room were four casks and seven jugs. A subdeacon produced a thick book. Then the houses of the lectors were visited: Eugenius gave up four volumes, Felix, the mosaic worker gave up five, Victorinus eight, Projectus five large volumes and two small ones, the grammarian Victor two codices and five quinions, or gatherings of five leaves; Euticius of Caesarea declared that he had no books; the wife of Coddeo produced six volumes, and said that she had no more; and a search was made without further result. It is interesting to note that the books were all codices (in book form), not rolls, which had gone out of fashion in the course of the preceding century.

It is to be hoped that such disgraceful scenes were infrequent. A contrasting instance of heroism is found in the story of Felix, Bishop of Tibiuca, who was hauled before the magistrate on the very day, 5 June 303, when the decree was posted up in that city. He refused to give up any books, and was sent to Carthage. The proconsul Anulinus, unable by close confinement to weaken his determination, sent him on to Rome to Maximian Hercules.

In 305, the persecution had relaxed, and it was possible to unite fourteen or more bishops at Cirta in order to give a successor to Paul. Secundus presided as primate, and in his zeal he attempted to examine the conduct of his colleagues. They met in a private house, for the Church had not yet been restored to the Christians. “We must first try ourselves”, said the primate, “before we can venture to ordain a bishop”. To Donatus of Mascula he said: “You are said to have been a traditor.” “You know”, replied the bishop, “how Florus searched for me that I might offer incense, but God did not deliver me into his hands, brother. As God forgave me, do you reserve me to His judgment.” “What then”, said Secundus, “shall we say of the martyrs? It is because they did not give up anything that they were crowned.” “Send me to God,” said Donatus, “to Him will I give an account.” (In fact, a bishop was not amenable to penance and was properly “reserved to God” in this sense.) “Stand on one side”, said the president, and to Marinus of Aquae Tibilitanae he said: “You also are said to be a traditor.” Marinus said: “I gave papers to Pollux; my books are safe.” This was not satisfactory, and Secundus said: “Go over to that side”; then to Donatus of Calama: “You are said to be a traditor.” “I gave up books on medicine.” Secundus seems to have been incredulous, or at least he thought a trial was needed, for again he said: “Stand on one side.” After a gap in the Acts, we read that Secundus turned to Victor, Bishop of Russicade: “You are said to have given up the Four Gospels.” Victor replied: “It was the curator, Valentinus; he forced me to throw them into the fire. Forgive me this fault, and God will also forgive it.” Secundus said: “Stand on one side.” Secundus (after another gap) said to Purpurius of Limata: “You are said to have killed the two sons of your sister at Mileum” (Milevis). Purpurius answered with vehemence: “Do you think I am frightened by you as the others are? What did you do yourself when the curator and his officials tried to make you give up the Scriptures? How did you manage to get off scot-free, unless you gave them something, or ordered something to be given? They certainly did not let you go for nothing! As for me I have killed and I kill those who are against me; do not provoke me to say anymore. You know that I do not interfere where I have no business.” At this outburst, a nephew of Secundus said to the primate: “You hear what they say of you? He is ready to withdraw and make a schism; and the same is true of all those whom you accuse; and I know they are capable of turning you out and condemning you, and you alone will then be the heretic. What is it to you what they have done? Each must give his account to God.” Secundus (as St. Augustine points out) had apparently no reply against the accusation of Purpurius, so he turned to the two or three bishops who remained unaccused: “What do you think?” These answered: “They have God to whom they must give an account.” Secundus said: “You know and God knows. Sit down.” And all replied: Deo gratis.

These minutes have been preserved for us by St. Augustine. The later Donatists declared them forged, but not only could St. Optatus refer to the age of the parchment on which they were written, but they are made easily credible by the testimonies given before Zenophilus in 320. Seeck, as well as Duchesne (see below), upholds their genuineness. We hear from St. Optatus of another fallen Numidian bishop, who refused to come to the council on the pretext of bad eyes, but in reality for fear his fellow-citizens should prove that he had offered incense, a crime of which the other bishops were not guilty. The bishops proceeded to ordain a bishop, and they chose Silvanus, who, as a subdeacon, assisted in the search for sacred vessels. The people of Cirta rose up against him, crying that he was a traditor, and demanded the appointment of a certain Donatus. But country people and gladiators were engaged to set him in the episcopal chair, to which he was carried on the back of a man named Mutus.

CAECILIAN AND MAJORINUS

A certain Donatus of Casae Nigrae is said to have caused a schism in Carthage during the lifetime of Mensurius. In 311 Maxentius obtained dominion over Africa, and a deacon of Carthage, Felix, was accused of writing a defamatory letter against the tyrant. Mensurius was said to have concealed his deacon in his house and was summoned to Rome. He was acquitted, but died on his return journey. Before his departure from Africa, he had given the gold and silver ornaments of the church to the care of certain old men, and had also consigned an inventory of these effects to an aged woman, who was to deliver it to the next bishop. Maxentius gave liberty to the Christians, so that it was possible for an election to be held at Carthage. The bishop of Carthage, like the pope, was commonly consecrated by a neighbouring bishop, assisted by a number of others form the vicinity. He was primate not only of the proconsular province, but of the other provinces of North Africa, including Numidian, Byzacene, Tripolitana, and the two Mauretanias, which were all governed by the vicar of prefects. In each of these provinces the local primacy was attached to no town, but was held by the senior bishop, until St. Gregory the Great made the office elective. St. Optatus implies that the bishops of Numidia, many of whom were at no great distance from Carthage, had expected that they would have a voice in the election; but two priests, Botrus and Caelestius, who each expected to be elected, had managed that only a small number of bishops should be present. Caecilian, the deacon who had been so obnoxious to the martyrs, was duly chosen by the whole people, placed in the chair of Mensurius, and consecrated by Felix, Bishop of Aptonga or Abtughi. The old men who had charge of the treasure of the church were obliged to give it up; they joined with Botrus and Caelestius in refusing to acknowledge the new bishop. They were assisted by a rich lady named Lucilla, who had a grudge against Caecilian because he had rebuked her habit of kissing the bone of an uncanonized (non vindicatus) martyr immediately before receiving Holy Communion. Probably we have here again a martyr whose death was due to his own ill-regulated fervour.

Secundus, as the nearest primate, came with his suffragans to Carthage to judge the affair, and in a great council of seventy bishops declared the ordination of Caecilian to be invalid, as having been performed by a traditor. A new bishop was consecrated. Majorinus, who belonged to the household of Lucilla and had been a lector in the deaconry of Caecilian. That lady provided the sum of 400 folles (more than 11,000 dollars), nominally for the poor; but all of it went into the pockets of the bishops, one-quarter of the sum being seized by Purpurius of Limata. Caecilian had possession of the basilica and the cathedra of Cyprian, and the people were with him, so that he refused to appear before the council. “If I am not properly consecrated”, he said ironically, “let them treat me as a deacon, and lay hands on me afresh, and not on another.” On this reply being brought, Purpurius cried: “Let him come here, and instead of laying on him, we will break his head in penance.” No wonder that the action of this council, which sent letters throughout Africa, had a great influence. But at Carthage it was well known that Caecilian was the choice of the people, and it was not believed that Felix of Aptonga had given up the Sacred Books. Rome and Italy had given Caecilian their communion. The Church of the moderate Mensurius did not hold that consecration by a traditor was invalid, or even that it was illicit, if the traditor was still in lawful possession of his see. The council of Secundus, on the contrary, declared that a traditor could not act as a bishop, and that any who were in communion with traditors were cut off from the Church. They called themselves the Church of the martyrs, and declared that all who were in communion with public sinners like Caecilian and Felix were necessarily excommunicate.

THE CONDEMNATION BY POPE MELCHIADES

Very soon there were many cities having two bishops, the one in communion with Caecilian, the other with Majorinus. Constantine, after defeating Maxentius (28 October, 312) and becoming master of Rome, showed himself a Christian in his acts. He wrote to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa (was he same as the mild proconsul of 303?), restoring the churches to Catholics, and exempting clerics of the “Catholic Church of which Caecilian is president” from civil functions (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. X, v 15, and vii, 2). he also wrote to Caecilian (ibid., X, vi, 1) sending him an order for 3000 folles to be distributed in Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania; if more was needed, the bishop must apply for more. He added that he had heard of turbulent persons who sought to corrupt the Church; he had ordered the proconsul Anulinus, and the vicar of prefects to restrain them, and Caecilian was to appeal to these officials if necessary. The opposing party lost no time. A few days after the publication of these letters, their delegates, accompanied by a mob, brought to Anulinus two bundles of documents, containing the complaints of their party against Caecilian, to be forwarded to the emperor. St. Optatus has preserved a few words from their petition, in which Constantine is begged to grant judges from Gaul, where under his father's rule there had been no persecution, and therefore no traditors. Constantine knew the Church's constitution too well to comply and thereby make Gallic bishops judges of the primates of Africa. He at once referred the matter to the pope, expressing his intention, laudable, if too sanguine, of allowing no schisms in the Catholic Church. That the African schismatics might have no ground of complaint, he ordered three of the chief bishops of Gaul, Reticius of Autun, Maternus of Cologne, and Marinus of Arles, to repair to Rome, to assist at the trial. He ordered Caecilian to come thither with ten bishops of his accusers and ten of his own communion. The memorials against Caecilian he sent to the pope, who would know, he says, what procedure to employ in order to conclude the whole matter with justice. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., X, v, 18). Pope Melchiades summoned fifteen Italian bishops to sit with him. From this time forward we find that in all important matters the popes issue their decretal letters from a small council of bishops, and there are traces of this custom even before this. The ten Donatist bishops (for we may now give the party its eventual name) were headed by a Bishop Donatus of Casae Nigrae. It was assumed by Optatus, Augustine, and the other Catholic apologists that this was “Donatus the Great”, the successor of Majorinus as schismatic Bishop of Carthage. But the Donatists of St. Augustine's time were anxious to deny this, as they did not wish to admit that their protagonist had been condemned, and the Catholics at the conference of 411 granted them the existence of a Donatus, Bishop of Casae Nigrae, who had distinguished himself by active hostility to Caecilian. Modern authorities agree in accepting this view. But it seems inconceivable that, if Majorinus was still alive, he should not have been obliged to go to Rome. It would be very strange, further, that a Donatus of Casae Nigrae should appear as the leader of the party, without any explanation, unless Casae Nigrae was simply the birthplace of Donatus the Great. If we assume that Majorinus had died and had been succeeded by Donatus the Great just before the trial at Rome, we shall understand why Majorinus is never again mentioned. The accusations against Caecilian in the memorial were disregarded, as being anonymous and unproved. The witnesses brought from Africa acknowledged that they had nothing against him. Donatus, on the other hand, was convicted by his own confession of having rebaptized and of having laid his hands in penance on bishops - this was forbidden by ecclesiastical law. On the third day the unanimous sentence was pronounced by Melchiades: Caecilian was to be maintained in ecclestiastical communion. If Donatist bishops returned to the Church, in a place where there were two rival bishops, the junior was to retire and be provided with another see. The Donatists were furious. A hundred years later their successor declared that Pope Melchiades was himself a traditor, and that on this account they had not accepted his decision; though there is no trace of this having been alleged at the time. But the nineteen bishops at Rome were contrasted with the seventy bishops of the Cathaginian Council, and a fresh judgment was demanded.

THE COUNCIL OF ARLES

Constantine was angry, but he saw that the party was powerful in Africa, and he summoned a council of the whole West (that is, of the whole of his actual dominions) to meet at Arles on 1 August, 314. Melchiades was dead, and his successor, St. Sylvester, thought it unbecoming to leave Rome, thus setting an example which he repeated in the case of Nicaea, and which his successors followed in the cases of Sardica, Rimini, and the Eastern oecumenical councils. Between forty and fifty sees were represented at the council by bishops or proxies; the Bishops of London, York, and Lincoln were there. St. Sylvester sent legates. The council condemned the Donatists and drew up a number of canons; it reported its proceedings in a letter to the pope, which is extant; but, as in the case of Nicaea, no detailed Acts remain, nor are any such mentioned by the ancients. The Fathers in their letter salute Sylvester, saying that he had rightly decided not to quit the spot “where the Apostles daily sit in judgment”; had he been with them, they might perhaps have dealt more severely with the heretics. Among the canons, one forbids rebaptism (which was still practised in Africa), another declares that those who falsely accuse their brethren shall have communion only at the hour of death. On the other hand, traditors are to be refused communion, but only when their fault has been proved by public official acts; those whom they have ordained are to retain their positions. The council produced some effect in Africa, but the main body of the Donatists was immovable. They appealed from the council to the emperor. Constantine was horrified: “O insolent madness!” he wrote, “they appeal from heaven to earth, from Jesus Christ to a man.”

THE POLICY OF CONSTANTINE

The emperor retained the Donatist envoys in Gaul, after at first dismissing them. He seems to have thought of sending for Caecilian, then of granting a full examination in Africa. The case of Felix of Aptonga was in fact examined by his order at Carthage in February, 315 (St. Augustine is probably wrong in giving 314). The minutes of the proceedings have come down to us in a mutilated state; they are referred to by St. Optatus, who appended them to his book with other documents, and they are frequently cited by St. Augustine. It was shown that the letter which the Donatists put forward as proving the crime of Felix, had been interpolated by a certain Ingentius; this was established by the confession of Ingentius, as well as by the witness of Alfius, the writer of the letter. It was proved that Felix was actually absent at the time the search for Sacred Books was made at Aptonga. Constantine eventually summoned Caecilian and his opponents to Rome; but Caecilian, for some unknown reason, did not appear. Caecilian and Donatus the Great (who was now, at all events, bishop) were called to Milan, where Constantine heard both sides with great care. He declared that Caecilian was innocent and an excellent bishop (Augustine, Contra Cresconium, III lxxi). He retained both in Italy, however, while he sent two bishops, Eunomius and Olympius, to Africa, with an idea of putting Donatus and Caecilian aside, and substituting a new bishop, to be agreed upon by all parties. It is to be presumed that Caecilian and Donatus had assented to this course; but the violence of the sectaries made it impossible to carry it out. Eunomius and Olympius declared at Carthage that the Catholic Church was that which is diffused throughout the world and that the sentence pronounced against the Donatists could not be annulled. They communicated with the clergy of Caecilian and returned to Italy. Donatus went back to Carthage, and Caecilian, seeing this, felt himself free to do the same. Finally Constantine ordered that the churches which the Donatists had taken should be given to the Catholics. Their other meeting-places were confiscated. Those who were convicted (of calumny?) lost their goods. Evictions were carried out by the military. An ancient sermon on the passion of the Donatist “martyrs”, Donatus and Advocatus, describes such scenes. In one of them a regular massacre occurred, and a bishop was among the slain, if we may trust this curious document. The Donatists were proud of this “persecution of Caecilian”, which “the Pure” suffered at the hands of the “Church of the Traditors”. The Comes Leontius and the Dux Ursacius were the special objects of their indignation.

In 320 came revelations unpleasant to the “Pure”. Nundinarius, a deacon of Cirta, had a quarrel with his bishop, Silvanus, who caused him to be stoned - so he said in his complaint to certain Numidian bishops, in which he threatened that if they did not use their influence in his behalf with Silvanus, he would tell what he knew of them. As he got no satisfaction he brought the matter before Zenophilus, the consular of Numidia. The minutes have come to us in a fragmentary form in the appendix of Optatus, under the title of “Gesta apud Zenophilum”. Nundinarius produced letters from Purpurius and other bishops to Silvanus and to the people of Cirta, trying to have peace made with the inconvenient deacon. The minutes of the search at Cirta, which we have already cited, were read and witnesses were called to establish their accuracy, including two of the fossores then present and a lector, Victor the grammarian. It was shown no only that Silvanus was a traditor, but that he had assisted Purpurius, together with two priests and a deacon, in the theft of certain casks of vinegar belonging to the treasury, which were in the temple of Serapis. Silvanus had ordained a priest for the sum of 20 folles (500 to 600 dollars). It was established that none of the money given by Lucilla had reached the poor for whom it was ostensibly given. Thus Silvanus, one of the mainstays of the “Pure” Church, which declared that to communicate with any traditor was to be outside the Church, was himself proved to be a traditor. He was exiled by the consular for robbing the treasury, for obtaining money under false pretences, and for getting himself made bishop by violence. The Donatists later preferred to say that he was banished for refusing to communicate with the “Caecilianists”, and Cresconius even spoke of “the persecution of Zenophilus”. But it should have been clear to all that the consecrators of Majorinus had called their opponents traditors in order to cover their own delinquencies.

The Donatist party owed its success in great part to the ability of its leader Donatus, the successor of Majorinus. He appears to have really merited the title of “the Great” by his eloquence and force of character. His writings are lost. His influence with his party was extraordinary. St. Augustine frequently declaims against his arrogance and the impiety with which he was almost worshipped by his followers. In his lifetime he is said to have greatly enjoyed the adulation he received, and after death he was counted as a martyr and miracles were ascribed to him.

In 321 Constantine relaxed his vigorous measures, having found that they did not produce the peace he had hoped for, and he weakly begged the Catholics to suffer the Donatists with patience. This was not easy, for the schismatics broke out into violence. At Cirta, Silvanus having returned, they seized the basilica which the emperor had built for the Catholics. They would not give it up, and Constantine found no better expedient that to build another. Throughout Africa, but above all in Numidia, they were numerous. They taught that in all the rest of the world the Catholic Church had perished, through having communicated with the traditor Caecilian; their sect alone was the true Church. If a Catholic came into their churches, they drove him out, and washed with salt the pavement where he had stood. Any Catholic who joined them was forced to be rebaptized. They asserted that their own bishops and ministers were without fault, else their ministrations would be invalid. But in fact they were convicted of drunkenness and other sins. St. Augustine tells us on the authority of Tichonius that the Donatists held a council of two hundred and seventy bishops in which they discussed for seventy-five days the question of rebaptism; they finally decided that in cases where traditors refused to be rebaptized they should be communicated with in spite of this; and the Donatist bishops of Mauretania did not rebaptize traditors until the time of Macarius. Outside Africa the Donatists had a bishop residing on the property of an adherent in Spain, and at an early period of the schism they made a bishop for their small congregation in Rome, which met, it seems, on a hill outside the city, and had the name of “Montenses”. This antipapal “succession with a beginning” was frequently ridiculed by Catholic writers. The series included Felix, Boniface, Encolpius, Macrobius (c. 370), Lucian, Claudian (c. 378), and again Felix in 411.

THE CICUMCELLIONS

The date of the first appearance of the Circumcellions is uncertain, but probably they began before the death of Constantine. They were mostly rustic enthusiasts, who knew no Latin, but spoke Punic; it has been suggested that they may have been of Berber blood. They joined the ranks of the Donatists, and were called by them agnostici and “soldiers of Christ”, but in fact were brigands. Troops of them were to be met in all parts of Africa. They had no regular occupation, but ran about armed, like madmen. They used no swords, on the ground that St. Peter had been told to put his sword into its sheath; but they did continual acts of violence with clubs, which they called “Israelites”. They bruised their victims without killing them, and left them to die. In St. Augustine's time, however, they took to swords and all sorts of weapons; they rushed about accompanied by unmarried women, played, and drank. They battle-cry was Deo laudes, and no bandits were more terrible to meet. They frequently sought death, counting suicide as martyrdom. They were especially fond of flinging themselves from precipices; more rarely they sprang into the water or fire. Even women caught the infection, and those who had sinned would cast themselves from the cliffs, to atone for their fault. Sometimes the Circumcellions sought death at the hands of others, either by paying men to kill them, by threatening to kill a passer-by if he would not kill them, or by their violence inducing magistrates to have them executed. While paganism still flourished, they would come in vast crowds to any great sacrifice, not to destroy the idols, but to be martyred. Theodoret says a Circumcellion was accustomed to announce his intention of becoming a martyr long before the time, in order to be well treated and fed like a beast for slaughter. He relates an amusing story (Haer. Fab., IV, vi) to which St. Augustine also refers. A number of these fanatics, fattened like pheasants, met a young man and offered him a drawn sword to smite them with, threatening to murder him if he refused. He pretended to fear that when he had killed a few, the rest might change their minds and avenge the deaths of their fellows; and he insisted that they must all be bound. They agreed to this; when they were defenceless, the young man gave each of them a beating and went his way.

When in controversy with Catholics, the Donatist bishops were not proud of their supporters. They declared that self-precipitation from a cliff had been forbidden in the councils. Yet the bodies of these suicides were sacrilegiously honoured, and crowds celebrated their anniversaries. Their bishops could not but conform, and they were often glad enough of the strong arms of the Circumcellions. Theodoret, soon after St. Augustine's death, knew of no other Donatists than the Circumcellions; and these were the typical Donatists in the eyes of all outside Africa. They were especially dangerous to the Catholic clergy, whose houses they attacked and pillaged. They beat and wounded them, put lime and vinegar on their eyes, and even forced them to be rebaptized. Under Axidus and Fasir, “the leaders of the Saints” in Numidia, property and roads were unsafe, debtors were protected, slaves were set in their masters' carriages, and the masters made to run before them. At length, the Donatist bishops invited a general named Taurinus to repress these extravagances. He met with resistance in a place named Octava, and the altars and tablets to be seen there in St. Optatus's time testified to the veneration given to the Circumcellions who were slain; but their bishops denied them the honour due to martyrs. It seems that in 336-7 the proefectus proetorio of Italy, Gregory took some measures against the Donatists, for St. Optatus tells us that Donatus wrote him a letter beginning: “Gregory, stain on the senate and disgrace to the prefects”.

THE “PERSECUTION” OF MACARIUS

When Constantine became master of the East by defeating Licinius in 323, he was prevented by the rise of Arianism in the East from sending, as he had hoped, Eastern bishops to Africa, to adjust the differences between the Donatists and the Catholics. Caecilian of Carthage was present at the Council of Nicea in 325, and his successor, Gratus, was at that of Sardica in 342. The conciliabulum of the Easterns on that occasion wrote a letter to Donatus, as though he were the true Bishop of Carthage; but the Arians failed to gain the support of the Donatists, who looked upon the whole East as cut off from the Church, which survived in Africa alone. The Emperor Constans was an anxious as his father to give peace to Africa. In 347 he sent thither two commissioners, Paulus and Macarius, with large sums of money for distribution. Donatus naturally saw in this an attempt to win over his adherents to the Church by bribery; he received the envoys with insolence: “What has the emperor to do with the Church?” said he, and he forbade his people to accept any largess from Constans. In most parts, however, the friendly mission seems to have been not unfavourably received. But at Bagai in Numidia the bishop, Donatus, assembled the Circumcellions of the neighbourhood, who had already been excited by their bishops. Macarius was obliged to ask for the protection of the military. The Circumcellions attacked them, and killed two or three soldiers; the troops then became uncontrollable, and slew some of the Donatists. This unfortunate incident was thereafter continually thrown in the teeth of the Catholics, and they were nicknamed Macarians by the Donatists, who declared that Donatus of Bagai had been precipitated from a rock, and that another bishop, Marculus, had been thrown into a well. The existing Acts of two other Donatist martyrs of 347, Maximian and Isaac, are preserved; they apparently belong to Carthage, and are attributed by Harnack to the Antipope Macrobius. It seems that after violence had begun, the envoys ordered the Donatists to unite with the Church whether they willed or no. Many of the bishops took flight with their partisans; a few joined the Catholics; the rest were banished. Donatus the Great died in exile. A Donatist named Vitellius composed a book to show that the servants of God are hated by the world.

A solemn Mass was celebrated in each place where the union was completed, and the Donatists set about a rumour that images (obviously of the emperor) were to be placed in the altar and worshipped. As nothing of the sort was found to be done, and as the envoys merely made a speech in favour of unity, it seems that the reunion was effected with less violence than might have been expected. The Catholics and their bishops praised God for the peace that ensued, though they declared that they had no responsibility for the action of Paulus and Macarius. In the following year Gratus, the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, held a council, in which the reiteration of baptism was forbidden, while, to please the rallied Donatists, traditors were condemned anew. It was forbidden to honour suicides as martyrs.

THE RESTORATION OF DONATISM BY JULIAN

The peace was happy for Africa, and the forcible means by which it was obtained were justified by the violence of the sectaries. But the accession of Julian the Apostate in 361 changed the face of affairs. Delighted to throw Christianity into confusion, Julian allowed the Catholic bishops who had been exiled by Constantius to return to the sees which the Arians were occupying. The Donatists, who had been banished by Constans, were similarly allowed to return at their own petition, and received back their basilicas. Scenes of violence were the result of this policy both in the East and the West. “Your fury”, wrote St. Optatus, “returned to Africa at the same moment that the devil was set free”, for the same emperor restored supremacy to paganism and the Donatists to Africa. The decree of Julian was considered so discreditable to them, that the Emperor Honorius in 405 had it posted up throughout Africa for their shame. St. Optatus gives a vehement catalogue of the excesses committed by the Donatists on their return. They invaded the basilicas with arms; they committed so many murders that a report of them was sent to the emperor. Under the orders of two bishops, a party attacked the basilica of Lemellef; they stripped off the roof, pelted with tiles the deacons who were round the altar, and killed two of them. In Maruetania riots signalized the return of the Donatists. In Numidia two bishops availed themselves of the complaisance of the magistrates to throw a peaceful population into confusion, expelling the faithful, wounding the men, and not sparing the women and children. Since they did not admit the validity of the sacraments administered by traditors, when they seized the churches they cast the Holy Eucharist to the dogs; but the dogs, inflamed with madness, attacked their own masters. An ampulla of chrism thrown out of a window was found unbroken on the rocks. Two bishops were guilty of rape; one of these seized the aged Catholic bishop and condemned him to public penance. All Catholics whom they could force to join their party were made penitents, even clerics of every rank, and children, contrary to the law of the Church. some for a year, some for a month, some but for a day. In taking possession of a basilica, they destroyed the altar, or removed it, or at least scraped the surface. They sometimes broke up the chalices, and sold the materials. They washed pavements, walls, and columns. Not content with recovering their churches, they employed pagan functionaries to obtain for them possession of the sacred vessels, furniture, altar-linen, and especially the books (how did they purify the book? asks St. Optatus), sometimes leaving the Catholic congregation with no books at all. The cemeteries were closed to the Catholic dead.

The revolt of Firmus, a Mauretanian chieftain who defied the Roman power and eventually assumed the style of emperor (366-72), was undoubtedly supported by many Donatists. The imperial laws against them were strengthened by Valentinian in 373 and by Gratian, who wrote in 377 to the vicar of prefects, Flavian (himself a Donatist), ordering all the basilicas of the schismatics to be given up to the Catholics. St. Augustine shows that even the churches which the Donatists themselves had built were included. The same emperor required Claudian, the Donatist bishop at Rome, to return to Africa; as he refused to obey, a Roman council had him driven a hundred miles from the city. It is probable that the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, Genethlius, caused the laws to be mildly administered in Africa.

ST. OPTATUS

The Catholic champion, St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, published his great work “De schismate Donatistarum” in answer to that of the Donatist Bishop of Carthage, Parmenianus, under Valentinian and Valens, 364-375 (so St. Jerome). Optatus himself tells us that he was writing after the death of Julian (363) and more than sixty years after the beginning of the schism (he means the persecution of 303). The form which we possess is a second edition, brought up to date by the author after the accession of Pope Siricius (Dec., 384), with a seventh book added to the original six. In the first book he describes the origin and growth of the schism; in the second he shows the notes of the true Church; in the third he defends the Catholics from the charge of persecuting, with especial reference to the days of Macarius. In the fourth book he refutes Parmenianus's proofs from Scripture that the sacrifice of a sinner is polluted. In the fifth book he shows the validity of baptism even when conferred by sinners, for it is conferred by Christ, the minister being the instrument only. This is the first important statement of the doctrine that the grace of the sacraments is derived from the opus operatum of Christ independently of the worthiness of the minister. In the sixth book he describes the violence of the Donatists and the sacrilegious way in which they had treated Catholic altars. In the seventh book he treats chiefly of unity and of reunion, and returns to the subject of Macarius.

He calls Parmenianus “brother”, and wishes to treat the Donatists as brethren, since they were not heretics. Like some other Fathers, he holds that only pagans and heretics go to hell; schismatics and all Catholics will eventually be saved after a necessary purgatory. This is the more curious, because before him and after him in Africa Cyprian and Augustine both taught that schism is as bad as heresy, if not worse. St. Optatus was much venerated by St. Augustine and later by St. Fulgentius. He writes with vehemence, sometimes with violence, in spite of his protestations of friendliness; but he is carried away by his indignation. His style is forcible and effective, often concise and epigrammatic. To this work he appended a collection of documents containing the evidence for the history he had related. This dossier had certainly been formed much earlier, at all events before the peace of 347, and not long after the latest document it contains, which is dated Feb., 330; the rest are not later than 321, and may possibly have been put together as early as that year. Unfortunately these important historical testimonies have come down to us only in a single mutilated manuscript, the archetype of which was also incomplete. The collection was freely used at the conference of 411 and is often quoted at some length by St. Augustine, who has preserved many interesting portions which would otherwise be unknown to us.

THE MAXIMIANISTS

Before Augustine took up the mantle of Optatus together with a double portion of his spirit, the Catholics had gained new and victorious arguments from the divisions among the Donatists themselves. Like so many other schisms, this schism bred schisms within itself. In Mauretania and Numidia these separated sects were so numerous that the Donatists themselves could not name them all. We hear of Urbanists; of Claudianists, who were reconciled to the main body by Primianus of Carthage; of Rogatists, a Mauretanian sect, of mild character, because no Circumcellion belonged to it; the Rogatists were severely punished whenever the Donatists could induce the magistrates to do so, and were also persecuted by Optatus of Timgad. But the most famous sectaries were the Maximianists, for the story of their separation from the Donatists reproduces with strange exactitude that of the withdrawal of the Donatists themselves from the communion of the Church; and the conduct of the Donatists towards them was so inconsistent with their avowed principles, that it became in the skilled hands of Augustine the most effective weapon of all his controversial armoury.

Primianus, Donatist Bishop of Carthage, excommunicated the deacon Maximianus. The latter (who was, like Majorinus, supported by a lady) got together a council of forty-three bishops, who summoned Primianus to appear before them. The primate refused, insulted their envoys, tried to have them prevented from celebrating the Sacred Mysteries, and had stones thrown at them in the street. The council summoned him before a greater council, which met to the number of a hundred bishops at Cebarsussum in June, 393. Primianus was deposed; all clerics were to leave his communion within eight days; if they should delay till after Christmas, they would not be permitted to return to the Church even after penance; the laity were allowed until the following Easter, under the same penalty. A new bishop of Carthage was appointed in the person of Maximian himself, and was consecrated by twelve bishops. The partisans of Primianus were rebaptized, if they had been baptized after the permitted delay. Primianus stood out, and demanded to be judged by a Numidian council; three hundred and ten bishops met at Bagai in April, 394; the primate did not take the place of an accused person, but himself presided. He was of course acquitted, and the Maximianists were condemned without a hearing. All but the twelve consecrators and their abettors among the clergy of Carthage were given till Christmas to return; after this period they would be obliged to do penance. This decree, composed in eloquent style by Emeritus of Caesarea, and adopted by acclamation, made the Donatists hence-forward ridiculous through their having readmitted schismatics without penance. Maximian's church was razed to the ground, and after the term of grace had elapsed, the Donatists persecuted the unfortunate Maximianists, representing themselves as Catholics, and demanding that the magistrates should enforce against the new sectaries the very laws which Catholics emperors had drawn up against Donatism. Their influence enabled them to do this, for they were still far more numerous than the Catholics, and the magistrates must often have been of their party. In the reception of those who returned from the party of Maximian they were yet more fatally inconsequent. The rule was theoretically adhered to that all who had been baptized in the schism must be rebaptized; but if a bishop returned, he and his whole flock were admitted without rebaptism. This was allowed even in the case of two of the consecrators of Maximian, Praetextatus of Assur and Felixianus of Musti, after the proconsul had vainly tried to expel them from their sees, and although a Donatist bishop, Rogatus, had already been appointed at Assur. In another case the party of Primianus was more consistent. Salvius, the Maximianist Bishop of Membresa, was another of the consecrators. He was twice summoned by the proconsul to retire in favour of the Primianist Restitutus. As he was much respected by the people of Membresa, a mob was brought over from the neighbouring town of Abitene to expel him; the aged bishop was beaten, and made to dance with dead dogs tied around his neck. But his people built him a new church, and three bishops coexisted in this small town, a Maximianist, a Primianist, and a Catholic.

The leader of the Donatists at this time was Optatus, Bishop of Thamugadi (Timgad), called Gildonianus, from his friendship with Gildo, the Count of Africa (386-397). For ten years Optatus, supported by Gildo, was the tyrant of Africa. He persecuted the Rogatists and Maximianists, and he used troops against the Catholics. St. Augustine tells us that his vices and cruelties were beyond description; but they had at least the effect of disgracing the cause of the Donatists, for though he was hated throughout Africa for his wickedness and his evil deeds, yet the Puritan faction remained always in full communion with this bishop, who was a robber, a ravisher, an oppressor, a traitor, and a monster of cruelty. When Gildo fell in 397, after having made himself master of Africa for a few months, Optatus was thrown into a prison, in which he died.

SAINT AUGUSTINE

St. Augustine began his victorious campaign against Donatism soon after he was ordained priest in 391. His popular psalm or “Abecedarium” against the Donatists was intended to make known to the people the arguments set forth by St. Optatus, with the same conciliatory end in view. It shows that the sect was founded by traditors, condemned by pope and council, separated from the whole world, a cause of division, violence, and bloodshed; the true Church is the one Vine, whose branches are over all the earth. After St. Augustine had become bishop in 395, he obtained conferences with some of the Donatist leaders, though not with his rival at Hippo. In 400 he wrote three books against the letter of Parmenianus, refuting his calumnies and his arguments from Scripture. More important were his seven books on baptism, in which, after developing the principle already laid down by St. Optatus, that the effect of the sacrament is independent of the holiness of the minister, he shows in great detail that the authority of St. Cyprian is more awkward than convenient for the Donatists. The principal Donatist controversialist of the day was Petilianus, Bishop of Constantine, a successor of the traditor Silvanus. St. Augustine wrote two books in reply to a letter of his against the Church, adding a third book to answer another letter in which he was himself attacked by Petilianus. Before this last book he published his “De Unitate ecclesiae” about 403. To these works must be added some sermons and some letters which are real treatises.

The arguments used by St. Augustine against Donatism fall under three heads. First we have the historical proofs of the regularity of Caecilian's consecration, of the innocence of Felix of Aptonga, of the guilt of the founders of the “Pure” Church, also the judgment given by pope, council, and emperor, the true history of Macarius, the barbarous behaviour of the Donatists under Julian, the violence of the Circumcellions, and so forth. Second, there are the doctrinal arguments: the proofs from the Old and New Testaments that the Church is Catholic, diffused throughout the world, and necessarily one and united; appeal is made to the See of Rome, where the succession of bishops is uninterrupted from St. Peter himself; St. Augustine borrows his list of popes from St. Optatus (Ep. li), and in his psalm crystallizes the argument into the famous phrase: “That is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail.” A further appeal is to the Eastern Church, and especially to the Apostolic Churches to which St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. John addressed epistles - they were not in communion with the Donatists. The validity of baptism conferred by heretics, the impiety of rebaptizing, are important points. All these arguments were found in St. Optatus. Peculiar to St. Augustine is the necessity of defending St. Cyprian, and the third category is wholly his own. The third division comprises the argumentum ad hominem drawn from the inconsistency of the Donatists themselves: Secundus had pardoned the traditors; full fellowship was accorded to malefactors like Optatus Gildonianus and the Circumcellions; Tichonius turned against his own party; Maximian had divided from Primatus just as Majorinus from Caecilian; the Maximianists had been readmitted without rebaptism.

This last method of argument was found to be of great practical value, and many conversions were now taking place, largely on account of the false position in which the Donatists had placed themselves. This point had been especially emphasized by the Council of Carthage of Sept., 401, which had ordered information as to the treatment of the Maximianists to be gathered from magistrates. The same synod restored the earlier rule, long since abolished, that Donatist bishops and clergy should retain their rank if they returned to the Church. Pope Anastasius I wrote to the council urging the importance of the Donatist question. Another council in 403 organized public disputations with the Donatists. This energetic action roused the Circumcellions to new violence. The life of St. Augustine was endangered. His future biographer, St. Possidius of Calama, was insulted and ill-treated by a party led by a Donatist priest, Crispinus. The latter's bishop, also named Crispinus, was tried at Carthage and fined ten pounds of gold as a heretic, though the fine was remitted by Possidius. This is the first case known to us in which a Donatist is declared a heretic, but henceforth it is the common style for them. The cruel and disgusting treatment of Maximianus, Bishop of Bagai, is also related by St. Augustine in detail. The Emperor Honorius was induced by the Catholics to renew the old laws against the Donatists at the beginning of 405. Some good resulted, but the Circumcellions of Hippo were excited to new violence. The letter of Petilianus was defended by a grammarian named Cresconius, against whom St. Augustine published a reply in four books. The third and fourth books are especially important, as in these he argues from the Donatists' treatment of the Maximianists, quotes the Acts of the Council of Cirta held by Secundus, and cites other important documents. The saint also replied to a pamphlet by Petilianus, “De unico baptismate”.

THE “COLLATIO” OF 411

St. Augustine had once hoped to conciliate the Donatists by reason only. The violence of the Circumcellions, the cruelties of Optatus of Thamugadi, the more recent attacks on Catholic bishops had all given proof that repression by the secular arm was absolutely unavoidable. It was not necessarily a case of persecution for religious opinions, but simply one of the protection of life and property and the ensuring of freedom and safety for Catholics. Nevertheless the laws went much further than this. Those of Honorius were promulgated anew in 408 and 410. In 411 the method of disputation was organized on a grand scale by order of the emperor himself at the request of the Catholic bishops. Their case was now complete and unanswerable. But this was to be brought home to the people of Africa, and public opinion was to be forced to recognize the facts, by a public exposure of the weakness of the separatist position. The emperor sent an official named Marcellinus, an excellent Christian, to preside as cognitor at the conference. He issued a proclamation declaring that he would exercise absolute impartiality in his conduct of the proceedings and in his final judgment. The Donatist bishops who should come to the conference were to receive back for the present the basilicas which had been taken from them. The number of those who arrived at Carthage was very large, though somewhat less that the two hundred and seventy-nine whose signatures were appended to a letter to the president. The Catholic bishops numbered two hundred and eighty-six. Marcellinus decided that each party should elect seven disputants, who alone should speak, seven advisers whom they might consult, and four secretaries to keep the records. Thus only thirty-six bishops would be present in all. The Donatists pretended that this was a device to prevent their great numbers being known; but the Catholics did not object to all of them being present, provided no disturbance was caused.

The chief Catholic speaker, besides the amiable and venerable Bishop of Carthage, Aurelius, was of course Augustine, whose fame had already spread through the whole Church. His friend, Alypius of Tagaste, and his disciple and biographer, Possidius, were also among the seven. The principal Donatist speakers were Emeritus of Caesarea in Mauretania (Cherchel) and Petilianus of Constantine (Cirta); the latter spoke or interrupted about a hundred and fifty times, until on the third day he was so hoarse that he had to desist. The Catholics made a generous proposal that any Donatist bishop who should join the Church, should preside alternately with the Catholic bishop in the episcopal chair, unless the people should object, in which case both must resign and a new election be made. The conference was held on the 1, 3, and 8 June. The policy of the Donatists was to raise technical objections, to cause delay, and by all manner of means to prevent the Catholic disputants from stating their case. The Catholic case was, however, clearly enunciated on the first day in letters which were read, addressed by the Catholic bishops to Marcellinus and to their deputies to instruct them in the procedure. A discussion of important points was arrived at only on the third day, amid many interruptions. It was then evident that the unwillingness of the Donatists to have a real discussion was due to the fact that they could not reply to the arguments and documents brought forward by the Catholics. The insincerity as well as the inconsequence and clumsiness of the sectaries did them great harm. The main doctrinal points and historical proofs of the Catholics were made perfectly plain. The cognitor summed up in favor of the Catholic bishops. The churches which had been provisionally restored to the Donatists were to be given up; their assemblies were forbidden under grave penalties. The lands of those who permitted Circumcellions on their property were to be confiscated. The minutes of this great conference were submitted to all the speakers for their approval, and the report of each speech (mostly only a single sentence) was signed by the speaker as a guarantee of its accuracy. We possess these manuscripts in full only as far as the middle of the third day; for the rest only the headings of each little speech are preserved. These headings were composed by order of Marcellinus in order to facilitate reference. On account of the dullness and a length of the full report, St. Augustine composed a popular resume of the discussions in his “Breviculus Collationis”, and went with more detail into a few points in a final pamphlet, “Ad Donatistas post Collationem”.

On 30 Jan., 412, Honorius issued a final law against the Donatists, renewing old legislation and adding a scale of fines for Donatist clergy, and for the laity and their wives: the illustres were to pay fifty pounds of gold, the spectabiles forty, the senatores and sacerdotales thirty, the clarissimi and principales twenty, the decuriones, negotiatores, and plebeii five, which Circumcellions were to pay ten pounds of silver. Slaves were to be reproved by their masters, coloni were to be constrained by repeated beatings. All bishops and clerics were exiled from Africa. In 414 the fines were increased for those of high rank: a proconsul, vicar, or count was fined two hundred pounds of gold, and a senator a hundred. A further law was published in 428. The good Marcellinus, who had become the friend of St. Augustine, fell a victim (it is supposed) to the rancour of the Donatists; for he was put to death in 413, as though an accomplice in the revolt of Heraclius, Count of Africa, in spite of the orders of the emperor, who did not believe him guilty. Donatism was now discredited by the conference and proscribed by the persecuting laws of Honorius. The Circumcellions made some dying efforts, and a priest was killed by them at Hippo. It does not seem that the decrees were rigidly carried out, for the Donatist clergy was still found in Africa. The ingenious Emeritus was at Caesarea in 418, and at the wish of Pope Zosimus St. Augustine had a conference with him, without result. But on the whole Donatism was dead. Even before the conference the Catholic Bishops in Africa were considerably more numerous than the Donatists, except in Numidia. From the time of the invasion of the Vandals in 430 little is heard of them until the days of St. Gregory the Great, when they seem to have revived somewhat, for the pope complained to the Emperor Maurice that the laws were not strictly enforced. They finally disappeared with the irruptions of the Saracens.

DONATIST WRITERS

There seems to have been no lack of literary activity among the Donatists of the fourth century, though little remains to us. The works of Donatus the Great were known to St. Jerome, but have not been preserved. His book on the Holy Spirit is said by that Father to have been Arian in doctrine. It is possible that the Pseudo-Cyprianic “De singularitate clericorum” is by Macrobius; and the “Adversus aleatores” is by an antipope, either Donatist or Novatianist. The arguments of Parmenianus and Cresconius are known to us, though their works are lost; but Monceaux has been able to restore from St. Augustine's citations short works by Petilianus of Constantine and Gaudentius of Thamugadi, and also a libellus by a certain Fulgentius, from the citations in the Pseudo-Augustinian “Contra Fulgentium Donatistam”. Of Tichonius, or Tyconius, we still possess the treatise “De Septem regulis” (P.L., XVIII; new ed. by Professor Burkitt, in Cambridge “Texts and Studies”, III, 1, 1894) on the interpretation of Holy Scripture. His commentary on the Apocalypse is lost; it was used by Jerome, Primasius, and Beatus in their commentaries on the same book. Tichonius is chiefly celebrated for his views on the Church, which were quite inconsistent with Donatism, and which Parmenianus tried to refute. In the famous words of St. Augustine (who often refers to his illogical position and to the force with which her argued against the cardinal tenets of his own sect): “Tichonius assailed on all sides by the voices of the holy pages, awoke and saw the Church of God diffused throughout the world, as had been foreseen and foretold of her so long before by the hearts and mouths of the saints. And seeing this, he undertook to demonstrate and assert against his own party that no sin of man, however villainous and monstrous, can interfere with the promises of God, nor can any impiety of any persons within the Church cause the word of God to be made void as to the existence and diffusion of the Church to the ends of the earth, which was promised to the Fathers and now is manifest” (Contra Ep. Parmen., I, i).

JOHN CHAPMAN
Aeterna non caduca

Donatus of Fiesole

Irish teacher and poet, Bishop of Fiesole, about 829-876. In an ancient collection of the “Vitae Patrum”, of which an eleventh-century copy exists in the Laurentian library of Florence, there is an account of the life of Donatus, from which we glean the following facts. Donatus was born in Ireland, of a noble family. About 816 he visited the tombs of the Apostles in Rome. On his journey northwards he was led by Divine Providence to the city of Fiesole, which he entered at the moment when the people were grouped around their altars praying for a bishop to deliver them from the evils, temporal and spiritual, which afflicted them. Raised by popular acclaim to the See of Fiesole, Donatus instituted a revival of piety and learning in the Church over which he was placed. He himself did not disdain to teach “the art of metrical composition”. The “Life” is interspersed with short poems written by the saintly bishop. The best known of these is the twelve-line poem in which he describes the beauty and fertility of his native land, and the prowess and piety of its inhabitants. Donatus also composed an epitaph in which he alludes to his birth in Ireland, his years in the service of the princes of Italy (Lothair and Louis), his episcopate at Fiesole, and his activity as a teacher of grammar and poetry.

WILLIAM TURNER

William Durandus

(Also: Duranti or Durantis). Canonist and one of the most important medieval liturgical writers; born about 1237, at Puimisson in the Diocese of Béziers, Provence, died at Rome, 1 November, 1296. He was called Speculator from the title of one of his works, Speculum Judiciale . He studied law at Bologna under Bernard of Parma and then taught it at Modena. Clement IV (Guy Foulques, 1265-1268, also a Provençal) summoned Durandus to Rome, ordained him subdeacon, and gave him titular canonries at Beauvais and Chartres. He was then attached to the papal curia as Auditor generalis causarum sacri palatii. He accompanied Gregory X (1271-1276) to the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and as the pope s secretary, drew up its decrees. In 1279 he was made dean of Chartres, but did not reside there. At about the same time he went to Romagna as papal governor and succeeded in subduing a rebellion under Guy of Montefeltro. He destroyed Guy's fortress della Ripa and founded in its place the town of Urbania In 1286 he was elected bishop by the chapter of Mende (Mimatum) in the province of Narbonne, but did not go into residence till 1291. Meanwhile his diocese was administered by his nephew, William Durandus the younger. In 1295 he was again in Italy (under Boniface VIII, 1294-1303) as governor of Romagna and Ancona, where the Ghibellines were again in rebellion. He refused the pope's offer to make him Archbishop of Ravenna, came to Rome, and died there. There is no reason to suppose that Durandus belonged to any religious order, though he has been claimed by both the Dominicans and the Austin Canons. He is buried at Rome in Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, where a long epitaph tells the story of his life and gives a list of his works.

Of these works the most famous is the Rationale divinorum officiorum (first ed. by Fust and Schoeffer at Mainz, 1459, and reprinted frequently). It was written in 1286. Its eight books contain a detailed account of the laws, ceremonies, customs, and mystical interpretation of the Roman Rite.

• Book I treats of the church, altar, pictures, bells, churchyard, etc.;
• II of the ministers;
• III of vestments;
• IV of the Mass;
• V of the canonical hours;
• VI of the Proprium Temporis;
• VII of the Proprium Sanctorum; and
• VIII of the astronomical calendar, manner of finding Easter, Epacts, etc.

Durandus's Rationale is the most complete medieval treatise of its kind; it is still the standard authority for the ritual of the thirteenth century and for the symbolism of rites and vestments. The allegorical explanation of vestments, for instance, as signifying virtues or the garments worn by Christ in His Passion, is taken from its third book. Other works are Speculum Legatorum , afterwards enlarged into Speculum Judiciale (four books), a treatise on the canonical rights of legates and the forms of canonical processes (first ed. at Strasburg in 1473; Frankfort, 1668); Breviarium, sive Repertorium juris canonici (Rome, 1474), Breviarium glossarum et textuum juris canonici (Paris, 1519), both commentaries on the decretals, arranged in the same order, and Commentarius in canones Concilii Lugdunensis II (Fano, 1569, with a life of the author by Simon Majolus), a semi-official exposition of the canons of the Second Council of Lyons. Durandus s epitaph also mentions a Pontificale , which is now lost. For works wrongly attributed to him see Schulte (op. cit. infra.), II, 155-156.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Ecclesiastical Architecture

The best definition of architecture that has ever been given is likewise the shortest. It is “the art of building” Viollet-le-Duc, Dict., I, 116). The art, be it observed, and not merely the act of building. And when we say the art of building, the term must be held to imply the giving to buildings of whatever beauty is consistent with their primary purpose and with the resources that may be available. As a recent writer has said: “It can hardly be held that there is one art of making things well, and another of making them badly. . . Good architecture is . . . the art of building beautifully and expressively; and bad architecture is the reverse. But architecture is the art of building in general” (Bond, Gothic architecture in England, 1). Since, however, the word building is apt to suggest, primarily, “the actual putting together of . . . materials by manual labour and machinery”, it may be desirable to amend or restrict the definition given above by saying that architecture is the art of planning, designing, and drawing buildings, and of directing the execution thereof (Bond, op. cit., 2). And in this art as in all others, including that of life itself, the fundamental principle should always be that of subordinating means to ends and secondary to primary ends. Where this principle is or has been abandoned or lost sight of, the result may indeed be, or may have been, a building which pleases the eye, but it must needs be also one which offends that sense of the fitness of thing 3, which is the criterion of the highest kind of beauty. Now a church is, primarily, a building intended for the purpose of public worship; and in all sound ecclesiastical architecture this purpose should be altogether paramount. To build a church for the admiration of “the man the street”, who sees it from outside, or of the tourist who pays it a passing visit, or of the artist, or of anyone else whatsoever except that of the faithful who use the church for prayer, the hearing of Mass, and the reception of the sacraments, is to commit a solecism in the liturgy of all the material arts. Even the needs of the liturgy itself are in a sense subsidiary to the needs of the faithful. Sacramenta propter homines is an old and sound saying. But, on the other hand, among the needs of the faithful must be reckoned, under normal circumstances, the adequate carrying out of the liturgy. It is, of course, perfectly true to say that a church is not only a building, in which we worship God but also itself the expression of an act of worshipful homage. This, however, it ceases to be, at least in the highest degree, unless, as has been said, the aesthetic qualities of the building have been entirely subordinated to its primary purpose. It only needs a little reflection to see that these preliminary remarks have a very practical bearing on modern church-building. There is a danger lest we should be dominated by technical terms and conventional opinions about the merits of this or that style of architecture, derived from times and circumstances that have passed away lest we should be led by sentiment or fashion, or mere lack of originality, to copy from the buildings of a bygone age without stopping to consider whether or how far the needs of our own day are those of the days when those buildings were raised. And the chief use of the study of the history of ecclesiastical architecture is not that it directs attention to a number of buildings more or less beautiful in themselves, but that it cannot fail to bring home to us that all true architectural development was inspired, primarily, by the desire to find a solution of some problem of practical utility.

Roughly speaking, all ecclesiastical architecture may be said to have been evolved from two distinct germ-cells, the oblong and the circular chamber. From the simple oblong chamber to the perfect Gothic cathedral the steps can be plainly indicated and admit of being abundantly illustrated from the actual course of architectural development in Western Europe, while the links which connect the simple circular chamber with a gigantic cruciform domed church, like St. Peter's in Rome or St. Paul's in London, are still more obvious, though the actual course of development in the case of domed churches has been far less continuous and regular.

THE ORIGINS OF ECCLESIASTICAL ARCHITECTURE

That the first place set apart for Christian worship were rooms in private dwellings is admitted on all hands; and, although it is at least doubtful whether all the texts from the New Testament which have been alleged in support of the statement will bear the interpretation that has been put upon them, the statement itself hardly needs proof. It may be assumed, further that such rooms would for the most part have a simple oblong form, with a door in one of the narrower sides. From the first, however, there must have been some kind of division between the portion of the room occupied by the officiating clergy (the thysiastesion, sanctuary, or presbytery) and the space allotted to the faithful; and this division, we may feel sure, was from a very early date marked by at least a breast-high barrier, analogous to that which still survives in the ancient cancelli of S. Clemente, Rome, and also by a curtain which veiled the altar from view during certain portions of the Liturgy. And here we find the suggestion of a first step in the development of a distinctively ecclesiastical architecture. When the first churches or chapels were erected as independent structures, an obvious economy would suggest that, especially in the case of smaller edifices, the sanctuary need not be built so broad or so high as what may already be called the nave; and an equally obvious regard for stability would suggest that the division should be marked by an arch, supporting the gable wall at the further end of the nave.

Moreover, both structural and liturgical needs would alike be served if the piers which support the dividing arch were projected inwards, somewhat beyond the side walls of the sanctuary; for the narrower the space the easier it would be to construct the arch, and to suspend a curtain from pier to pier. Thus, then, that rudimentary type of church or chapel would be reached of which archaic examples still survive in England and Ireland. Mr. Scott notes that in many of our oldest English churches there are clear indication that the opening from the nave into the sanctuary was originally much narrower than it is at present. He further notes that in the persistent adherence to the square-ended type of sanctuary which manifests itself throughout the history of English ecclesiastical architecture, may possibly be found a surviving indication of the very early introduction of Christianity into these islands.

The earliest improvement on the crude form of the oblong chamber with its rectangular annex, and one which may well have become usual even while the liturgy was confined to a single room in a private house, was to throw out a semicircular apse at the end of the chamber opposite the door, or to 8 t for the purposes of worship a room thus built. And this would almost certainly be the form adopted, at least in Rome, as soon as the Christian communities began to possess separate buildings in which to hold their religious meetings. These buildings would be, in the eyes of the public and perhaps of the law, scholae or guild-rooms; and for such buildings the form most commonly adopted appears to have been that of an oblong terminated by an apse. In the apse, of course, was placed the seat of the bishop; round the walls on either side were the subsellia of the assistant clergy, while the altar stood beneath the arch formed by the opening of the apse, or slightly in advance of it. On the hither side of the altar would be space reserved for the clerics of inferior rank, and for the schola cantorum, as soon as an organized body of singers, under whatever name, came into existence Outside the boundary of this space, however it may have been marked, the general body of the faithful would have their place, and at the lower end of this chamber, or in some kind of ante room or narthex, or possibly even in an outer court, would he placed the catechumens and — when ecclesiastical discipline was sufficiently developed — the penitents.

This particular form of the domestic church, removed by just one degree, architecturally speaking from a quite primitive simplicity, deserves special attention. For there would seem to be good grounds for the assertion that it had become at least not uncommon, even within Apostolic times. In fact, as several writers on the subject have quite independently pointed out, the main feature of the arrangement would seem to be indicated in the New Testament itself. The visions recorded in the Apocalypse are, of course, Divine revelations; but, as the vision of Ezechiel was cast in the mould of the Jewish ritual, so also those of St. John may be reasonably thought to reflect the ritual of primitive Christianity. There, then, in the midst, we see the throne, whereon there sits One enthroned, of whom the Christian bishop is the representative; and with Him are four and twenty presbyters, who are “priests” (hiereis), ranged in a semicircle (kyklothen), twelve on either hand (Apoc., iv, 2, 4). Within the space bounded by these seats is a pavement of glass “like to crystal” (possibly of mosaic), and in the centre the altar (Apoc., iv, 6; vi, 9; viii, 3; ix, 13; xvi, 7). On the hither side of this are the one hundred and forty-four thousand “signed” or “sealed”, who “sing a new canticle”, and who incidentally bear witness to the very early origin of the schola cantorum, at least in some rudimentary form (Apoc vii 4, xiv, 1-3). Farther removed from the altar is that “great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues”, the heavenly counterpart of the coetus fidelium. (Apoc., vii, 9).

To lateral columns and aisles there is indeed no allusion, but it is at least possible that in the mention of the outer court which is “given unto the Gentiles” we may find the earliest traces of the atrium or parvis, which in the later ages formed part of the precincts of a fully equipped basilica (Apoc., xi, 2; Scott, op. cit., 31). Moreover, in these same Apocalyptic visions certain details of internal arrangement, which might perhaps have been thought to have been of comparatively late development, appear to be clearly implied. Every one is aware that in the basilicas of the fourth and succeeding centuries the altar was surmounted by a baldachin, or civory; and it is hardly less certain that the civory was not merely a canopy, but a means of support for curtains which during certain portions of the Liturgy were drawn round the altar. Traces of these ancient curtains still survive in those which flank our modern altars, in our tabernacle veils, and in the very name tabernacle, i.e. “tent”, and also, curiously enough, in “those imitations of silken vallances, cast in bronze, . . . which we see in the canopies of S. Maria Maggiore and St. Peter's” (Scott, op. cit., 29). In addition to these canopy veils, however, we hear of curtains which, when drawn close, concealed the entire sanctuary from view. In the East these have, of course, been replaced by the iconostasis, a screen formerly latticed but now usually solid; while in the West they are represented, not without some change of position, by our chancel screens, and may be thought to have found another modified survival in the Lenten veil of the Middle Ages.

Now, whatever may be the case as regards the civory with its veils, there are clear indication the Apocalypse that the transverse curtains were in use from Apostolic times. For the seer thrice makes mention of a “voice” which he heard, and which preceded either “from the four horns of the golden altar” (Apoc., ix, 13), or “from the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony” (Apoc., xv, 5), or “from the throne” (Apoc., xvi, 17). From the first of these expressions it is plain that the altar, at the moment when the voice was heard, must have been shrouded from view, and from the last it appears that the throne was likewise within the space enclosed within the veil. As regards other ritual indications in the Apocalypse, it must be sufficient barely to mention here the “souls of the martyrs” beneath the altar, the incense, the opening of the sealed book, and the garb, carefully distinguished, of the various classes of persons mentioned in the visions (Apoc., vi, 9; viii, 3; etc.).

THE BASILICA AND BASILICAN CHURCHES

A great deal of conjecture has been expended on the question as to the genesis of the Roman basilica. For present purposes it may be sufficient to observe that the addition of aisles to the nave was so manifest a convenience that it might not improbably have been thought of, even had models not been at hand in the civic buildings of the Empire. The most suitable example that can be chosen as typical of the Roman basilica of the age of Constantine is the church of S. Maria Maggiore. And this, not merely because, in spite of certain modern alterations, it has kept in the main its original features, but also because it departs, to a lesser extent than any other extant example, from the classical ideal. The lateral colonnade is immediately surmounted by a horizontal entablature, with architrave, frieze, and cornice all complete. The monolithic columns, with their capitals, are, moreover, homogenous, and have been cut for their position, instead of being like those of so many early Christian churches, the more or less incongruous and heterogeneous spoils of older and non-Christian edifices. Of this church, in its original form, no one however decidedly his tastes may incline to some more highly developed system or style of architecture will call in question the stately and majestic beauty. The general effect is that of a vast perspective of lines of noble columns, carrying the eye forward to the altar, which, with its civory or canopy, forms so conspicuous an object, standing, framed, as it mere, within the arch of the terminal apse, which forms its immediate and appropriate background.

S. Maria Maggiore is considerably smaller than were any of the other three chief basilicas of Rome (St Peter's, St. Paul's, and the Lateran). Each of these, in addition to a nave of greater length and breadth, was furnished (as may still be seen in the restored St Paul's) with a double aisle. This, however, was an advantage which was not unattended with a serious drawback from a purely esthetic point of view. For a great space of blank wall intervening between the top of the lateral colonnade and the clerestory windows was of necessity required in order to give support to the penthouse roof of the double aisle. And it is curious, to say the least, that it should not have occurred to the builders of those three basilicas to utilize a portion of the space thus enclosed, and at the same time to lighten the burden of the wall above the colonnade, by constructing a gallery above the inner aisle. It is true, of course, that such a gallery is found in the church of S. Agnese, where the low-level of the floor relatively to the surface of the ground outside may have suggested this method of construction; but whereas, in the East, the provision of a gallery (used as a gynaeceum) was usual from very early times, it never became otherwise than exceptional in the West. Taking East and West together, we find among early and medieval basilican churches examples of all the combinations that are possible in the arrangement of aisles and galleries. They are

• the single aisle without gallery, which is, of course, the commonest type of all;
• the double aisle without gallery, as in the three great Roman basilicas;
• the single aisle with gallery, as in S. Agnese;
• the double aisle with single gallery, as in St. Demetrius at Thessalonica;
• and finally, as a crowning example, though of a later period, the double aisle surmounted by a double gallery, as in the Duomo at Pisa.

These, however, are modifications in the general design of the building. Others, not less important, though they are less obviously striking, concern the details of the construction. Of these the first was the substitution of the arch for the horizontal entablature, and the second that of the pillar of masonry for the monolithic column. The former change, which had already come into operation in the first basilica of St. Paul without the Walls, was so obviously in the nature of an improvement in point of stability that it is no matter for surprise that it should have been almost. universally adopted. Colonnaded and arcaded basilicas, as we may call them, for the most part older than the eleventh century, are to be found in the most widely distant regions, from Syria to Spain, and from Sicily to Saxony; and the lack of examples in Southern France is probably due to the destructive invasion of the Saracens and Northmen and to the building of new churches of a different type, in the eleventh and succeeding centuries, on the ruins of the old. The change from column to pillar, though in many cases it was no doubt necessitated by lack of suitable materials — for the supply of ready-made monoliths from pagan buildings was not inexhaustible — proved, in fact, the germ of future development; for from the plain square support to the recessed pillar, and from this again to the grouped shafts of the Gothic cathedrals of later times, the progress can be quite plainly traced.

Mention should here be made of a class of basilican churches, in which as in S. Miniato, outside Florence, and in S. Zenone, Verona, pillars or grouped shafts alternate, at fixed intervals, with simple columns, and serve the purpose of affording support to transverse arches spanning the whole width of the nave; a first step, it may be observed, to continuous vaulting.

ROMANESQUE TYPES

Something must now be said of the very important alterations which the eastern end of the basilican church underwent in the process of development from the Roman to what may conveniently be grouped together under the designation of “Romanesque” types. When, in studying the ground-plan of a Roman basilica, we pass from the nave and aisles to what lies beyond them, only two forms of design present themselves. In the great majority of instances the terminal apse opens immediately on the nave, with the necessary result, so far as internal arrangements are concerned, that the choir, as we should call it, was an enclosure, quite unconnected with the architecture of the building, protruding forwards into the body of the church, as may still be seen in the church of S. Clemente in Rome. In the four greater basilicas, however, as well as in a few other instances, a transept was interposed between the nave and the apse, affording adequate space for the choir in its central portion, while its arms (which did not project beyond the aisles) served the purpose implied in the terms senatorium and matroneum. Now it is noteworthy that the transept of a Roman basilica is, architecturally speaking, simply an oblong hall, crossing the nave at its upper extremity, and forming with it a T-shaped cross, or crux immissa, but having no organic structural relation with it. But it was only necessary to equalize the breadth of transept and nave, so that their crossing became a perfect square, in order to give to this crossing a definite structural character, by strengthening the pieces at the four angles of the crossing, and making them the basis of a more or less conspicuous tower. And this was one of the most characteristic innovation or improvements introduced by the Romanesque builders of Northern Europe. In fact, however, before this stage of development was reached, the older basilican design had undergone another modification. For the simple apse, opening immediately to the transept, church builders of all parts of Europe had already in the eighth century substituted a projecting chancel, forming a fourth limb of the cross, which now definitively assumed the form of the crux commissa, by contrast with the crux immissa of the Roman basilica. The earliest example of a perfectly quadrate crossing, with a somewhat rudimentary tower, appears to have been the minster of Fulda, built about A. D. 800. It was quickly followed by St. Gall (830), Hersfeld (831), and Werden (875); but nearly two centuries were to elapse before the cruciform arrangement, even in the case of more important churches, can be said to have gained general acceptance (Dehio and v. Bezold, Die kirchliche Baukunst des Abendlandes, I, 161).

The differences which have already been mentioned were, however, by no means the only ones which distinguished the Romanesque from the Roman transept. The transept of a Romanesque church, especially of those which were attached to monasteries, was usually provided with one or more apses, projecting from the east side of its northern and southern arms; and from this it appears, plainly enough, that the purpose, or at least a principal purpose, of the medieval transept, was to make provision for subsidiary altars and chapels. A pair of transept apses, projecting eastwards, already makes its appearance at Hersfeld and Werden. At Bernay, Boscherville (St-Georges), and Cerisy-la-Forêt (St-Vigor), each arm of the transept has two eastern apses, corresponding respectively to the aisle and to the projecting arm. The same arrangement is found also at Tarragona. At La Charité, a priory dependent on Cluny, each arm had three apses, so that there were seven in all, immediately contiguous to one another, and varying in depth from the central to the northern and southern members of the system. The plan of Cluny itself was that of a cross with two transverse beams. Of the western transept each arm had two apses; of the eastern each had three, two projecting eastwards and one terminal. Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire had likewise a double transept, furnished on the same principle with six subsidiary apses. Among English cathedrals — it may here be mentioned — both Canterbury and Norwich have a single chapel projecting from each arm of their respective transepts; and at E1y the “Galilee” porch, which has the form of a western transept, opens eastwards into two apsidal chapels, contiguous on either side to the main walls of the cathedral.

Far more important in their bearing on the later history of architecture than these developments of the transept were certain changes which gradually took place in connection with the chancel. It is not unusual in Romanesque churches, to find the chancel flanked, like the nave, with aisles, terminating in apsidal or square-ended chapels. But in more considerable edifices especially in France, the aisle is often carried round as an ambulatory behind the chancel apse; and when this is the case, the ambulatory most commonly opens into a series of radiating chapels. These are, in the earliest examples, entirely separate from one another, being sometimes two or four, but more usually three or five, in number. In later examples the number of chapels increases to seven or even nine; and they are then contiguous, forming a complete corona or chevet.

The first beginnings of this system go back to so early a date as the fifth century. De Rossi has argued, apparently on good grounds, that some early Roman, Italian, and African basilicas were furnished with an ambulatory round the apse. This form of design, however, was soon abandoned in Italy, and in the Romanesque pre-Gothic period it cannot be said to have been usual anywhere except in France, where it proved a seed rich with the promise of future developments. The earliest instance of its adoption there was almost certainly the ancient church of St-Martin of Tours, as rebuilt by Bishop Perpetuus in A. D. 470. This edifice, as Quicherat has shown, had a semicircular ambulatory at the back of the altar, in which, a few years later, was placed the tomb of Perpetuus himself. From Tours the type seems to have past to Clermont-Ferrand (Sts. Vitalis and Agricola), and thence, many centuries later, to Orléans (St-Aignan, 1029). Meanwhile, in 997, the church of St. Martin had been rebuilt, and in the foundations of this edifice, which can still be traced, we find what is probably the earliest example of a chevet or corona of radiating chapels. It served, in its turn, in the course of the following century, as the model, in this respect, of Notre-Dame de la Couture at Le Mans (c. 1000), St-Remi at Reims (c. 1010), St-Savin at Saint Savin (1020-30), the cathedral at Vannes (c. 1030), St-Hilaire at Poitiers (1049), and the abbey church at Cluny, as rebuilt in 1089. Shortly before 1100 the church of St. Martin was once more rebuilt, on a scale of greater splendour; and once more the new building became the model for other churches, chief among which were those of St-Sernin at Toulouse (1096), of Santiago at Compostela (c. 1105), and of the cathedral at Chartres (1112).

ROMANESQUE VAULTING

The history of ecclesiastical architecture in Western Europe during the relatively short period which alone deserves to be regarded as one of more or less continuous and steady advance, and which extends, roughly speaking, from 1000 to 1300, may be described as the history of successive and progressive attempts to solve the problem, how best to cover with stone vaulting a basilican or quasi-basilican church, that is to say, a building of which the leading feature is a nave flanked with aisles and lighted with clerestory windows (Dehio and v. Bezold, op. cit. I, 296; Bond, op. cit., 6). It was the conditions of this problem, and the failure, more or less complete, of all previous attempts to solve it satisfactorily, and by no means a mere aesthetic striving after beauty of architectural form, which led step by step to the development of the Gothic architecture of the thirteenth century in its unsurpassed and unsurpassable perfection.

The advantages of a vaulted, as compared with a timber, roof are so obvious that we are not surprised to find, dating from the tenth century or at latest from the beginning of the eleventh, examples of basilican churches with vaulted aisles. Indeed these first attempts at continuous vaulting would probably have been made much earlier, but for the invasions of Saracens and Northmen, which delayed till that period the first beginnings of a steady development in ecclesiastical architecture, but which by their wholesale destruction of pre-existing buildings may be said to have prepared the way for that same development. The vaulting of the nave, however, in the case of any church of considerable size, was a very different matter; and it was not until the eleventh century was well advanced that the problem was seriously faced. And when at last it was definitely taken in hand, this was done under pressure of dire necessity. Everyone who is at all conversant with medieval chronicles, or with the history of the cathedrals of Western Europe, must be aware how extremely frequent were the disasters caused by conflagrations, and it was natural enough that the church-builders of the later Middle Ages should aim at making their buildings, at least relatively, fire-proof.

The simplest form which the vaulting of a rectangular chamber can take is, of course, the cylindrical barrel-vault; and this is, in fact, the form which was adopted in many of the earliest examples of vaulted roofs, especially in the south of France; a form, too, which was extensively used in Italy during the age of the Renaissance. But, though simplest alike in conception and in construction, the cylindrical barrel-vault is in fact the least satisfactory that could be devised for its purpose; and the objections which militate against its employment are equally valid against that of the barrel-vault whose cross section forms a pointed arch. Of these objections the chief is that the horizontal thrust of a barrel-vault is evenly distributed throughout its entire length. Theoretically, then, this thrust requires to be met, not by a series of buttresses, but by a continuous wall of sufficient thickness to resist the outward pressure at any and every point along the line. Moreover, the higher the wall, the greater is the thickness needed, assuming of course that the wall stands free, like the clerestory wall of an aisled church. Much, too, will depend on the cohesiveness of the vaulting itself; and as the Romanesque church-builders were either unacquainted with, or unable to use, the methods by which the Romans and the Byzantines respectively contrived to give an almost rigid solidity to their masonry, it is no matter for surprise that in two large classes of instances they should have been content to sacrifice either the clerestory or the aisles to the advantages of a vaulted roof and to the exigencies of stability. Of aisleless churches indeed, we must forbear here to speak. But of an important group of buildings which German writers have designated Hallenkirchen (hall-churches) a word must be said, as they unquestionably played a part in preparing the way for the final solution of the problem of vaulting.

The most rudimentary form of hall-church is that in which the nave and aisles are roofed with three parallel barrel-vaults, those of the aisles springing from the same level as those of the nave. Examples are found at Lyons (St-Martin d'Ainay), at Lesterps, at Civray, and Carcassonne (St-Nazaire). An improvement on this design, in view of the illumination of the nave, consists in giving to the vaulting of the aisles the form of a “rampant” arch, as at Silvacanne, and from this it was but a step to the arrangement by which the section took the form of a simple quadrant as at Parthenay-le-Vieux, Preuilly, and Fontfroide. This method of quadrant vaulting, as Viollet-le-Duc and others have observed, provides a kind of continuous internal “flying buttress”, though it is by no means certain that the idea of the flying buttress in the Gothic architecture of Northern France was actually suggested by these Southern buildings. In point of stability. the hall-churches of the eleventh century leave nothing to be desired. Their great defect is want of light. And this defect almost equally affects a class of buildings which may be described as two-storied hall-churches, and which are found principally, if not exclusively, in Auvergne and its neighbourhood. These are furnished, like a few of the Roman basilicas and certain Byzantine churches, with a gallery, which is not a mere triforium contrived in the thickness of the walls, but a chamber of equal dimension with the aisle. This arrangement not only affords additional spaces but also, by reason of the greater height of the edifice, might seem to facilitate the provision of a more liberal supply of light, unimpeded by neighbouring buildings. This last mentioned advantage is, however, almost entirely negatived by the circumstance that, in this class of buildings, each bay of the gallery is subdivided by means of coupled or grouped arches, so that the additional obstruction offered to the passage of the light almost entirely counterbalance the possible gain through additional fenestration. We say “the possible gain” because, in fact, the galleries of these churches are but sparingly provided with windows. In these churches (which to the English reader should be of special interest by reason of their affinity in point of construction to the Westminster cathedral) the aisle is usually cross-vaulted, while the gallery has a quadrant vault abutting in the wall of the nave just below the springing of the transverse arches. The most noteworthy examples are found at Clermont-Ferrand (Notre Dame du Port), Issoire (St-Paul), and Conques. To the same family belongs moreover, the great church of St-Sernin at Toulouse already mentioned, which is distinguished from those previously named by having a double aisle. At Nevers the church of St-Etienne resembles those at Clermont, Issoire, and Conques, except that it is provided with a range of upper windows which break through the barrel-vaulting, somewhat after the fashion which afterwards became so common in Italy in churches of the Renaissance period.

The inherent shortcomings of the barrel-vault, especially when used as a roof for the nave of an aisled church, have been sufficiently illustrated. These disadvantages, so far as structural stability and fenestration are concerned, might indeed be overcome by adopting the system of a succession of transverse barrel-vaults, such as are seen in the unique instance of the church of St-Philibert at Tournus. Such a construction is, however, “ponderous and inelegant, and never came into general use” (Moore, Gothic Architecture, 42). The system of cross-vaulting, which has now to be considered, may be regarded as a combination of longitudinal with transverse barrel-vaulting, inasmuch as it may be described as consisting of a central barrel which is penetrated or intersected by a series of transverse vaults, corresponding of course to the successive bays or compartments of the nave. The advantages of cross-vaulting are threefold. In the first place the total amount of the outward lateral thrust is very greatly diminished, since one half of it is now replaced by longitudinal thrusts, which, being opposed in pairs, neutralize one another. Secondly, all that is left of the lateral thrust, as well as the longitudinal thrusts, and the whole of the vertical pressure instead of being distributed throughout the whole length of the building, is now collected and delivered at definite points, namely the summits of the columns or pillars. Thirdly and lastly, a perfectly developed system of cross-vaulting makes it possible so to heighten the clerestory windows that their archivolts shall reach the utmost interior height of the building, and so to broaden them that their width between reveals may approximate very closely to the interval between column and column below. By these improvements (as ultimately realized in the perfected Gothic of the thirteenth century) the somewhat rudimentary design of the ancient Roman basilica may be said to have reached the highest development of which it is capable. The gradual development of cross-vaulting it is to be observed, did not take place in those districts of Southern and Central France which had already become the home of the barrel-vault and to a less degree of the cupola, but first in Lombardy then in Germany, and finally in Northern France and in England. In these countries the evolution of the Romanesque timber-roofed basilican church had — with local variations of course — reached a far more advanced stage than was ever attained in these regions in which the adoption of barrel-vaulting at a relatively early date had in a manner put a check on architectural progress. And it is noteworthy that in Lombardy and Germany, when cross-vaulting was first adopted, its development was far less complete than in Northern France, and that in like manner the advance towards perfection was both less rapid and less complete in Normandy than in Picardy and the Ile-de-France. These two districts were the last to adopt the system, but it was here that it was within the brief space of less than fifty years (1170-1220), brought to its final perfection. The reason may probably have been, as Dehio and von Bezold suggest, that the architects of the Ile-de-France, in the days of Philip Augustus and St. Louis, were less trammelled than those of Normandy by the traditions of a school. The comparative lack of important architectural monuments of an earlier date left them, say these writers, a more open field for their inventive enterprise (op. cit. I, 418).

The simplest form of cross-vaulting is of course that which is formed by the intersection of two cylindrical barrel-vaults of equal span. And this, without the use of ribbed groining, was the method mostly adopted by the Roman builders in their civic edifices. In the case of a pillared or columned church, however, this method had its disadvantages. In particular, having regard to the dimensions of the aisle and its vaulting, the builders of Northern Europe had all but universally adopted the plan of so spacing the columns and pillars which flank the nave that the intervals between them should be one-half the width of the church. Now the only means by which an equal height could be given to vaults of unequal span was the use of the pointed arch; and so it came about that the pointed arch was adopted, not primarily for aesthetic reasons, but rather for constructive purposes. And the same is to be said of the use of ribbed groining. The medieval builders, who, as has been said above, possessed neither a tenacious mortar nor the command of an abundant supply of rough labour, and who therefore could not — even had they wished it — have adopted the massive concrete masonry of the Romans, were driven by the very necessities of the case to aim at the same time to depend for stability not on the cohesion of the materials, but on the reduction of thrusts to a minimum, and on their skilful transmission to points where they could be effectively resisted. It was, then, plainly desirable to substitute for a vaulting of uniform thickness a framework of ribs on which a comparatively thin layer of stones (cut to the requisite curvature) could be laid, and as far as possible to lighten the whole construction by moulding the ribs and likewise the columns which supported the vaulting. The same principle of aiming at lightness of construction led to the elimination, as far as possible, of arches of the nave. This was done by the enlargement of the windows and the development of the triforium, till the entire building, with the exception of the buttresses, and of the spandrels below the triforium, became a graceful framework of grouped shafts and interlacing ribs (Moore, op. cit., 17). The final stage in the evolution of architecture of the pointed arch was not, however, reached, until, for the solid Romanesque buttresses, which rested on the vaulting of the aisles, and which were not only clumsy but often proved inadequate for their purpose, the genius of the Gothic builders hit upon the epoch-making device of the flying buttress. By means of this device the thrust of the main vaulting was not, indeed, as has been too often said, “met by a counter-thrust”, but was transmitted to the solid buttresses, mostly weighted with pinnacles, which were now built outwards to a great distance from the aisles, and the spaces between which were sometimes utilized, and might with advantage have been more often utilized, for a range of lateral chapels. The subject of Gothic architecture in its details is, however, one that needs separate treatment, and for present purposes this very inadequate indication of some of the general principles involved in its development must suffice.

THE CIRCULAR CHURCH AND ITS DERIVATIVES

It was stated at the outset of the article that all ecclesiastical architecture may be said to have been developed from two primitive germs, the oblong and the circular chamber. Of those very numerous churches, principally, but by no means exclusively, Eastern or Italian, which may be regarded as the products of the second line of development, we shall speak very briefly. That a circular chamber without any kind of annex was unsuitable for the ordinary purposes of public worship is plain enough. And the most obvious modification of this rudimentary form was to throw out a projecting sanctuary on one side of the building, as in St. George's, Thessalonica, or in the little church of S. Tommaso in Limine, near Bergamo. It was hardly less obviously convenient to build a projecting porch or narthex on the opposite side, as in St. Elias's, also at Thessalonica, and to complete the cross by means of lateral projection, as in the sepulchral chapel of Galla Placidia at Ravenna. Thus it was that churches having the form of a Greek cross, as well as other varieties of what German authors call the Centralbau, may be said to owe their origin to a very simple process of evolution from the circular domed building. Among the almost endless varieties on the main theme may be here enumerated:

• buildings in which a circular, or polygonal, or quadrilateral aisle, whether in one or more stories, surrounds the central space,
• buildings in which, though the principal open space is cruciform, and the whole is dominated by a central cupola, the ground-plan shows a rectangular outline, the cross being, as it were, boxed within a square; and
• buildings in which one of the arms of the cross is considerably elongated, as in the Duomo at Florence, St. Peter's in Rome, and St. Paul's in London.

The last-named modification, it is to be observed, has the effect of assimilating the ground-plan of those great churches, and of many lesser examples of the same character, to that of the Romanesque and Gothic cruciform buildings whose genealogical descent from the columned rectangular basilica is contestable. Among ecclesiastical edifices of historical importance or interest which are either circular or polygonal, or in which the circular or polygonal centre predominates over subsidiary parts of the structure, may be mentioned the Pantheon in Rome, St. Sergius at Constantinople, S. Vitale at Ravenna, S. Lorenzo at Milan, the great baptisteries of Florence, Siena, and Pisa, and the churches of the Knights Templars in various parts of Europe. St. Luke at Stiris in Phocis, besides being an excellent typical instance of true Byzantine architecture, affords a good example of the “boxing” of a cruciform building of the Greek type, by enclosing within the walls the square space between the adjacent limbs of the cross.

Practically, however, the full development of cruciform from circular buildings became possible only when the problem had been solved of roofing a square chamber with a circular dome. This has in some cases been done by first reducing the square to an octagon, by means of “squinches” or “trompettes”, and then raising the dome on the octagon, by filling in the obtuse angles of the figure with rudimentary pendentives or faced corbelling. But already in the sixth century the architect and builder of Santa Sophia had showed for all time that it was possible by means of “true” pendentives, to support a dome, even of immense size, on four arches (with their piers) forming a square. The use of pendentives being once understood, it became possible, not only to combine the advantages of a great central dome with those of a cruciform church, but also to substitute domical for barrel-vaulting over the limbs of the cross, as at S. Marco, Venice, St-Front, Périgueux, and S. Antonio, Padua, or even to employ domical vaulting for a nave divided into square bays, as in the cathedral at Angouleme and other eleventh century churches in Perigord, in S. Salvatore at Venice, in the London Oratory, and (with the difference that saucer domes are here employed) in the Westminster Cathedral. Nor should it be forgotten that in the nave of St. Paul's, London, the architect had shown that domical vaulting is possible even when the bays of nave or aisles are not square, but pronouncedly oblong. Indeed, if account be taken of the manifold disadvantages of barrel-vaulting as a means of roofing the nave of a large church, it may safely be said that the employment of some form of the dome or cupola is as necessary to the logical and structural perfection of the architecture of the round arch as ribbed groining and the use of flying buttresses are necessary to the logical and structural perfection of the architecture of the pointed arch.

SYSTEMS AND STYLES OF ARCHITECTURE IN RELIGION TO MODERN NEEDS

A word must now be said, in conclusion, as to the merits of the several systems and styles of architecture, more especially in relation to the needs of our own day. Of systems, indeed, there are in truth only three, the trabeate or that of which the horizontal lintel may be regarded as the generating element, and which of necessity postulates a timber roof; that of the round arch, which by virtue of the law of economy postulates, as has been said, the use of domical rather than barrel-vaulting and that of the pointed arch, which, if carried to perfection postulates ribbed groining and the use of the flying buttress. The second system, however, admits of two methods of treatment which are sufficiently distinctive to be classed as two “styles”, viz. the neoclassical, or Renaissance, and the Byzantine, and which shall be particularized presently.

Now the trabeate system, or that of the timber roof, may be very briefly dismissed. In the great majority of cases we must, indeed, of necessity be content with such a covering, for our churches; but no one would choose a wooden roof who could afford a vaulted building. Again, the various types of Romanesque architecture, with their imperfect and tentative methods of vaulting, though historically of great interest, should be regarded as finally out of court. On the other hands of the Gothic architecture of the thirteenth century as exemplified in the great cathedrals of Northern France and of Cologne, it mas be quite fearlessly asserted:

• that every single principle of construction employed therein was the outcome of centuries of practical experience, in the form of successive and progressive attempts to solve the problems of church vaulting;
• that the great loftiness of these buildings was not primarily due (as has been sometimes suggested) to any mere Emporstreben, or “upward-soaring” propensity, but was simply the aggregate result of giving to the windows of the aisles and of the clerestory a height in suitable proportion to their width, and to the triforium a height sufficient to allow of the abutment of the aisle roof; and
• that every subsequent attempt to modify in any substantial particular, this perfected Gothic style, was of its nature retrogressive and decadent, as may be illustrated from the English perpendicular and the Italian and Spanish varieties of Gothic architecture.

Nevertheless it must be admitted that thirteenth-century Gothic, though perfect of its kind, has its limitations, the most serious of which — in relation to modern needs — is the necessarily restricted width of the nave. When the architect of the Milan cathedral attempted to improve on his French predecessors by exceeding their maximum width of fifty feet, and to construct a Gothic building with a nave measuring sixty feet across it was found impossible, as the building proceeded, to carry out the original design without incurring the almost certain risk of a collapse, and hence it was necessary to depress the clerestory to its present stunted proportions. Now under modern conditions of life, especially in the case of a cathedral of first-class importance, a nave of far greater width is by all means desirable; and in order to secure this greater width it is necessary either to fall back on the unsatisfactory compromise of Italian or Spanish Gothic, as illustrated in the cathedrals of Milan, Florence, or Gerona, or else to adopt the principle of the round arch, combined, by preference, with domical vaulting. This, as everyone knows, is what Mr. Bentley has done, with altogether conspicuous success, in the case of the Westminster Cathedral. Of the design of this noble edifice it is impossible to speak here. But it may be worth while to indicate one main reason for the choice of the Byzantine rather than the neoclassic or Renaissance treatment of the round-arch system. The principal difference between the two is this: that, whereas the neoclassical style, by its use of pilasters, treats every pier as though it were a cluster of huge, flat-faced columns; the Byzantine boldly distinguishes between piers and columns, and employs the latter exclusively for the purposes which monolithic shafts are suited to fulfil, for instance the support of a gallery while the piers in a Byzantine building make no pretence of being other than what they are, viz., the main supports of the vaulting. The Byzantine method of construction was employed at Westminster has the further advantage that it brings within the building the whole of the spaces between the buttresses thereby at the same time increasing the interior dimensions and avoiding the awkward appearance of ponderous external supports. Nor is the Byzantine style of architecture suitable for a great cathedral alone; and one may venture to hope that the great experiment which has been tried at Westminster will be fruitful of results in the future development of ecclesiastical architecture.

HERBERT LUCAS

Pope St. Evaristus

Date of birth unknown; died about 107. In the Liberian Catalogue his name is given as Aristus. In papal catalogues of the second century used by Irenaeus and Hippolytus, he appears as the fourth successor of St. Peter, immediately after St Clement. The same lists allow him eight years of reign, covering the end of the first and the beginning of the second century (from about 98 or 99 to about 106 or 107). The earliest historical sources offer no authentic data about him. In his “Ecclesiastical History” Eusebius says merely that he succeeded Clement in the episcopate of the Roman Church which fact was already known from St. Irenaeus. This order of succession is undoubtedly correct. The “Liber Pontificalis” says that Evaristus came of a Hellenic family, and was the son of a Bethlehem Jew. It also attributes to him the allotment of definite churches as tituli to the Roman presbyters, and the division of the city into seven diaconias or deaconries; in this statement, however, the “Liber Pontificalis “ arbitrarily refers to the time of Evaristus a later institution of the Roman Church. More trustworthy is the assertion of the “Liber Pontificalis” that he was laid to rest in Vaticano, near the tomb of St. Peter. The martyrdom of Evaristus, though traditional, is not historically proven. His feast occurs 26 Oct. The two decretals ascribed to him by Pseudo-Isidore are forged.

J. P. KIRSCH

Faith

I. THE MEANING OF THE WORD

(pistis, fides). In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word means essentially steadfastness, cf. Exod., xvii, 12, where it is used to describe the strengthening of Moses' hands; hence it comes to mean faithfulness, whether of God towards man (Deut., xxxii, 4) or of man towards God (Ps. cxviii, 30). As signifying man's attitude towards God it means trustfulness or fiducia. It would, however, be illogical to conclude that the word cannot, and does not, mean belief or faith in the Old Testament for it is clear that we cannot put trust in a person's promises without previously assenting to or believing in that person's claim to such confidence. Hence even if it could be proved that the Hebrew word does not in itself contain the notion of belief, it must necessarily presuppose it. But that the word does itself contain the notion of belief is clear from the use of the radical, which in the causative conjugation, or Hiph'il, means “to believe”, e.g. Gen., xv, 6, and Deut., i, 32, in which latter passage the two meanings — viz. of believing and of trusting — are combined. That the noun itself often means faith or belief, is clear from Hab., ii, 4, where the context demands it. The witness of the Septuagint is decisive; they render the verb by pisteuo, and the noun by pistis; and here again the two factors, faith and trust, are connoted by the same term. But that even in classical Greek pisteuo was used to signify believe, is clear from Euripides (Helene, 710), logois d'emoisi pisteuson tade, and that pistis could mean “belief” is shown by the same dramatist's theon d'ouketi pistis arage (Medea, 414; cf. Hipp., 1007). In the New Testament the meanings “to believe” and “belief”, for pisteon and pistis, come to the fore; in Christ's speech, pistis frequently means “trust”, but also “belief” (cf. Matt., viii, 10). In Acts it is used objectively of the tenets of the Christians, but is often to be rendered “belief” (cf. xvii, 31; xx, 21; xxvi, 8). In Romans, xiv, 23, it has the meaning of “conscience” — “all that is not of faith is sin” — but the Apostle repeatedly uses it in the sense of “belief” (cf . Rom., iv, and Gal., iii). How necessary it is to point this out will be evident to all who are familiar with modern theological literature; thus, when a writer in the “Hibbert Journal”, Oct., 1907, says, “From one end of the Scripture to the other, faith is trust and only trust”, it is hard to see how he would explain 1 Cor. xiii, 13, and Heb., xi, 1. The truth is that many theological writers of the present day are given to very loose thinking, and in nothing is this so evident as in their treatment of faith. In the article just referred to we read: “Trust in God is faith, faith is belief, belief may mean creed, but creed is not equivalent to trust in God.” A similar vagueness was especially noticeable in the “Do we believe?” controversy- one correspondent says- “We unbelievers, if we have lost faith, cling more closely to hope and — the greatest of these — charity” (“Do we believe?”, p. 180, ed. W. L. Courtney, 1905). Non-Catholic writers have repudiated all idea of faith as an intellectual assent, and consequently they fail to realize that faith must necessarily result in a body of dogmatic beliefs. “How and by what influence”, asks Harnack, “was the living faith transformed into the creed to be believed, the surrender to Christ into a philosophical Christology?” (quoted in Hibbert Journal, loc. cit.).

II. FAITH MAY BE CONSIDERED BOTH OBJECTIVELY AND SUBJECTIVELY

Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church (see FAITH, RULE OF) presents to us in a brief form in her creeds, subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths. It is with this subjective aspect of faith that we are here primarily concerned. Before we proceed to analyze the term faith, certain preliminary notions must be made clear.

(a) The twofold order of knowledge. — “The Catholic Church”, says the First Vatican Council, III, iv, “has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation.”

(b) Now intellectual knowledge may be defined in a general way as the union between the intellect and an intelligible object. But a truth is intelligible to us only in so far as it is evident to us, and evidence is of different kinds; hence, according to the varying character of the evidence, we shall have varying kinds of knowledge. Thus a truth may be self-evident — e.g. the whole is greater than its part — in which case we are said to have intuitive knowledge of it; or the truth may not be self-evident, but deducible from premises in which it is contained — such knowledge is termed reasoned knowledge; or again a truth may be neither self-evident nor deducible from premises in which it is contained, yet the intellect may be obliged to assent to it because It would else have to reject some other universally accepted truth; lastly, the intellect may be induced to assent to a truth for none of the foregoing reasons, but solely because, though not evident in itself, this truth rests on grave authority — for example, we accept the statement that the sun is 90,000,000 miles distant from the earth because competent, veracious authorities vouch for the fact. This last kind of knowledge is termed faith, and is clearly necessary in daily life. If the authority upon which we base our assent is human and therefore fallible, we have human and fallible faith; if the authority is Divine, we have Divine and infallible faith. If to this be added the medium by which the Divine authority for certain statements is put before us, viz. the Catholic Church, we have Divine-Catholic Faith (see FAITH, RULE OF).

(c) Again, evidence, whatever its source, may be of various degrees and so cause greater or less firmness of adhesion on the part of the mind which assents to a truth. Thus arguments or authorities for and against a truth may be either wanting or evenly balanced, in this case the intellect does not give in its adherence to the truth, but remains in a state of doubt or absolute suspension of judgment; or the arguments on one side may predominate; though not to the exclusion of those on the other side; in this case we have not complete adhesion of the intellect to the truth in question but only opinion. Lastly, the arguments or authorities brought forward may be so convincing that the mind gives its unqualified assent to the statement proposed and has no fear whatever lest it should not be true; this state of mind is termed certitude, and is the perfection of knowledge. Divine faith, then, is that form of knowledge which is derived from Divine authority, and which consequently begets absolute certitude in the mind of the recipient

(d) That such Divine faith is necessary, follows from the fact of Divine revelation. For revelation means that the Supreme Truth has spoken to man and revealed to him truths which are not in themselves evident to the human mind. We must, then, either reject revelation altogether, or accept it by faith; that is, we must submit our intellect to truths which we cannot understand, but which come to us on Divine authority.

(e) We shall arrive at a better understanding of the habit or virtue of faith if we have previously analysed an act of faith; and this analysis will be facilitated by examining an act of ocular vision and an act of reasoned knowledge. In ocular vision we distinguish three things: the eye, or visual faculty the coloured object, and the light which serves as the medium between the eye and the object. It is usual to term colour the formal object (objectum formale quod) of vision, since it is that which precisely and alone makes a thing the object of vision, the individual object seen may be termed the material object, e.g. this apple, that man, etc. Similarly, the light which serves as the medium between the eye and the object is termed the formal reason (objectum formale quo) of our actual vision. In the same way, when we analyze an act of intellectual assent to any given truth, we must distinguish the intellectual faculty which elicits the act the intelligible object towards which the intellect is directed, and the evidence whether intrinsic to that object or extrinsic to it, which moves us to assent to it. None of these factors can be omitted, each cooperates in bringing about the act, whether of ocular vision or of intellectual assent.

(f) Hence, for an act of faith we shall need a faculty capable of eliciting the act, an object commensurate with that faculty, and evidence — not intrinsic but extrinsic to that object — which shall serve as the link between faculty and object. We will commence our analysis with the object:—

III. ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECT OR TERM IN AN ACT OF DIVINE FAITH

(a) For a truth to be the object of an act of Divine faith, it must be itself Divine, and this not merely as coming from God, but as being itself concerned with God. Just as in ocular vision the formal object must necessarily be something coloured, so in Divine faith the formal object must be something Divine — in theological language, the objectum formale quod of Divine faith is the First Truth in Being, Prima Veritas in essendo — we could not make an act of Divine faith in the existence of India.

(b) Again, the evidence upon which we assent to this Divine truth must also be itself Divine, and there must be as close a relation between that truth and the evidence upon which it comes to us as there is between the coloured object and the light; the former is a necessary condition for the exercise of our visual faculty, the latter is the cause of our actual vision. But no one but God can reveal God; in other words, God is His own evidence. Hence, just as the formal object of Divine faith is the First Truth Itself, so the evidence of that First Truth is the First Truth declaring Itself. To use scholastic language once more, the objectum formale quod, or the motive, or the evidence, of Divine faith is the Prima Veritas in dicendo.

(c) There is a controversy whether the same truth can be an object both of faith and of knowledge. In other words, can we believe a thing both because we are told it on good authority and because we ourselves perceive it to be true? St. Thomas, Scotus, and others hold that once a thing is seen to be true, the adhesion of the mind is in no wise strengthened by the authority of one who states that it is so, but the majority of theologians maintain, with De Lugo, that there may be a knowledge which does not entirely satisfy the mind, and that authority may then find a place, to complete its satisfaction. — We may note here the absurd expression Credo quia impossibile, which has provoked many sneers. It is not an axiom of the Scholastics, as was stated in the “Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale” (March, 1896, p. 169), and as was suggested more than once in the “Do we believe?” correspondence. The expression is due to Tertullian, whose exact words are: “Natus est Dei Filius; non pudet, quia pudendum est: et mortuus est Dei Filius; prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus, resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile” (De Carne Christi, cap. v). This treatise dates from Tertullian's Montanist days, when he was carried away by his love of paradox. At the same time it is clear that the writer only aims at bringing out the wisdom of God manifested in the humiliation of the Cross; he is perhaps paraphrasing St. Paul's words in 1 Cor., i, 25.

(d) Let us now take some concrete act of faith, e.g. “I believe in the Most Holy Trinity.” This mystery is the material or individual object upon which we are now exercising our faith, the formal object is its character as being a Divine truth, and this truth is clearly inevident as far as we are concerned; it in no way appeals to our intellect, on the contrary it rather repels it. And yet we assent to it by faith, consequently upon evidence which is extrinsic and not intrinsic to the truth we are accepting. But there can be no evidence commensurate with such a mystery save the Divine testimony itself, and this constitutes the motive for our assent to the mystery, and is, in scholastic language, the objectum formale quo of our assent. If then, we are asked why we believe with Divine faith any Divine truth, the only adequate answer must be because God has revealed it.

(e) We may point out in this connexion the falsity of the prevalent notion that faith is blind. “We believe”, says the First Vatican Council (III, iii), “that revelation is true, not indeed because the intrinsic truth of the mysteries is clearly seen by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Who reveals them, for He can neither deceive nor be deceived.” Thus, to return to the act of faith which we make in the Holy Trinity, we may formulate it in syllogistic fashion thus: Whatever God reveals is true but God has revealed the mystery of the Holy Trinity therefore this mystery is true. The major premise is indubitable and intrinsically evident to reason; the minor premise is also true because it is declared to us by the infallible Church (cf. FAITH, RULE OF), and also because, as the First Vatican Council says, “in addition to the internal assistance of His Holy Spirit, it has pleased God to give us certain external proofs of His revelation, viz. certain Divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies, for since these latter clearly manifest God's omnipotence and infinite knowledge, they afford most certain proofs of His revelation and are suited to the capacity of all.” Hence St. Thomas says: “A man would not believe unless he saw the things he had to believe, either by the evidence of miracles or of something similar” (II-II, Q. i, a. 4, ad 1). The saint is here speaking of the motives of credibility.

IV. MOTIVES OF CREDIBILITY

(a) When we say that a certain statement is incredible we often mean merely that it is extraordinary, but it should be borne in mind that this is a misuse of language, for the credibility or incredibility of a statement has nothing to do with its intrinsic probability or improbability; it depends solely upon the credentials of the authority who makes the statement. Thus the credibility of the statement that a secret alliance has been entered into between England and America depends solely upon the authoritative position and the veracity of our informant. If he be a clerk in a government office it is possible that he may have picked up some genuine information, but if our informant be the Prime Minister of England, his statement has the highest degree of credibility because his credentials are of the highest. When we speak of the motives of credibility of revealed truth we mean the evidence that the things asserted are revealed truths. In other words, the credibility of the statements made is correlative with and proportionate to the credentials of the authority who makes them. Now the credentials of God are indubitable, for the very idea of God involves that of omniscience and of the Supreme Truth. Hence, what God says is supremely credible, though not necessarily supremely intelligible for us. Here, however, the real question is not as to the credentials of God or the credibility of what He says, but as to the credibility of the statement that God has spoken. In other words who or what is the authority for this statement, and what credentials does this authority show? What are the motives of credibility of the statement that God has revealed this or that?

(b) These motives of credibility may be briefly stated as follows: in the Old Testament considered not as an inspired book, but merely as a book having historical value, we find detailed the marvellous dealings of God with a particular nation to whom He repeatedly reveals Himself; we read of miracles wrought in their favour and as proofs of the truth of the revelation He makes; we find the most sublime teaching and the repeated announcement of God's desire to save the world from sin and its consequences. And more than all we find throughout the pages of this book a series of hints, now obscure, now clear, of some wondrous person who is to come as the world's saviour; we find it asserted at one time that he is man, at others that he is God Himself. When we turn to the New Testament we find that it records the birth, life, and death of One Who, while clearly man, also claimed to be God, and Who proved the truth of His claim by His whole life, miracles, teachings, and death, and finally by His triumphant resurrection. We find, moreover, that He founded a Church which should, so He said, continue to the end of time, which should serve as the repository of His teaching, and should be the means of applying to all men the fruits of the redemption He had wrought. When we come to the subsequent history of this Church we find it speedily spreading everywhere, and this in spite of its humble origin, its unworldly teaching, and the cruel persecution which it meets at the hands of the rulers of this world. And as the centuries pass we find this Church battling against heresies schisms, and the sins of her own people-nay, of her own rulers — and yet continuing ever the same, promulgating ever the same doctrine, and putting before men the same mysteries of the life, death and resurrection of the world's Saviour, Who had, so she taught, gone before to prepare a home for those who while on earth should have believed in Him and fought the good fight. But if the history of the Church since New-Testament times thus wonderfully confirms the New Testament itself, and if the New Testament so marvellously completes the Old Testament, these books must really contain what they claim to contain, viz. Divine revelation. And more than all, that Person Whose life and death were so minutely foretold in the Old Testament, and Whose story, as told in the New Testament, so perfectly corresponds with its prophetic delineation in the Old Testament, must be what He claimed to be, viz. the Son of God. His work, therefore, must be Divine. The Church which He founded must also be Divine and the repository and guardian of His teaching. Indeed, we can truly say that for every truth of Christianity which we believe Christ Himself is our testimony, and we believe in Him because the Divinity He claimed rests upon the concurrent testimony of His miracles, His prophecies His personal character, the nature of His doctrine, the marvellous propagation of His teaching in spite of its running counter to flesh and blood, the united testimony of thousands of martyrs, the stories of countless saints who for His sake have led heroic lives, the history of the Church herself since the Crucifixion, and, perhaps more remarkable than any, the history of the papacy from St. Peter to Pius X.

(c) These testimonies are unanimous; they all point in one direction, they are of every age, they are clear and simple, and are within the grasp of the humblest intelligence. And, as the First Vatican Council has said, “the Church herself, is, by her marvellous propagation, her wondrous sanctity, her inexhaustible fruitfulness in good works, her Catholic unity, and her enduring stability, a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefragable witness to her Divine commission” (Const. Dei Filius) . “The Apostles”, says St. Augustine, “saw the Head and believed in the Body; we see the Body let us believe in the Head” [Sermo ccxliii, 8 (al. cxliii), de temp., P.L., V 1143]. Every believer will echo the words of Richard of St. Victor, “Lord, if we are in error, by Thine own self we have been deceived- for these things have been confirmed by such signs and wonders in our midst as could only have been done by Thee!” (de Trinitate, 1, cap. ii).

(d) But much misunderstanding exists regarding the meaning and office of the motives of credibility. In the first place, they afford us definite and certain knowledge of Divine revelation; but this knowledge precedes faith; it is not the final motive for our assent to the truths of faith— as St. Thomas says, “Faith has the character of a virtue, not because of the things it believes, for faith is of things that appear not, but because it adheres to the testimony of one in whom truth is infallibly found” (De Veritate, xiv, 8); this knowledge of revealed truth which precedes faith can only beget human faith it is not even the cause of Divine faith (cf. Suarez, be Fide disp. iii, 12), but is rather to be considered a remote disposition to it. We must insist upon this because in the minds of many faith is regarded as a more or less necessary consequence of a careful study of the motives of credibility, a view which the First Vatican Council condemns expressly: “If anyone says that the assent of Christian faith is not free, but that it necessarily follows from the arguments which human reason can furnish in its favour; or if anyone says that God's grace is only necessary for that living faith which worketh through charity, let him be anathema” (Sess. IV). Nor can the motives of credibility make the mysteries of faith clear in themselves, for, as St. Thomas says, “the arguments which induce us to believe, e.g. miracles, do not prove the faith itself, but only the truthfulness of him who declares it to us, and consequently they do not beget knowledge of faith's mysteries, but only faith” (in Sent., III, xxiv, Q. i, art. 2, sol. 2, ad 4). On the other hand, we must not minimize the real probative force of the motives of credibility within their true sphere- “Reason declares that from the very outset the Gospel teaching was rendered conspicuous by signs and wonders which gave, as it were, definite proof of a definite truth” (Leo XIII, AEterni Patris).

(e) The Church has twice condemned the view that faith ultimately rests on an accumulation of probabilities. Thus the proposition, “The assent of supernatural faith . . is consistent with merely probable knowledge of revelation” was condemned by Innocent XI in 1679 (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., no. 1171); and the Syllabus Lamentabili sane (July, 1907) condemns the proposition (XXV) that “the assent of faith rests ultimately on an accumulation of probabilities.” But since the great name of Newman has been dragged into the controversy regarding this last proposition, we may point out that, in the Grammar of Assent (chap. x, sect. 2), Newman refers solely to the proof of faith afforded by the motives of credibility, and he rightly concludes that, since these are not demonstrative, this line of proof may be termed “an accumulation of probabilities”. But it would be absurd to say that Newman therefore based the final assent of faith on this accumulation- as a matter of fact he is not here making an analysis of an act of faith, but only of the grounds for faith; the question of authority does not come into his argument (cf. McNabb, Oxford Conferences on Faith, pp. 121-122).

V. ANALYSIS OF THE ACT OF FAITH FROM THE SUBJECTIVE STANDPOINT

(a) The light of faith. — An angel understands truths which are beyond man's comprehension; if then a man were called upon to assent to a truth beyond the ken of the human intellect, but within the grasp of the angelic intellect, he would require for the time being something more than his natural light of reason, he would require what we may call “the angelic light”. If, now, the same man were called upon to assent to a truth beyond the grasp of both men and angels, he would clearly need a still higher light, and this light we term “the light of faith” — a light, because it enables him to assent to those supernatural truths, and the light of faith because it does not so illumine those truths as to make them no longer obscure, for faith must ever be “the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not” (Heb., xi, 1). Hence St. Thomas (De Veritate, xiv, 9, ad 2) says: “Although the Divinely infused light of faith is more powerful than the natural light of reason, nevertheless in our present state we only imperfectly participate in it; and hence it comes to pass that it does not beget in us real vision of those things which it is meant to teach us; such vision belongs to our eternal home, where we shall perfectly participate in that light, where, in fine, in God's light we shall see light' (Ps. xxxv, 10).”

(b) The necessity of such light is evident from what has been said, for faith is essentially an act of assent, and just as assent to a series of deductive or inductive reasonings, or to intuition of first principles, would be impossible without the light of reason, so, too assent to a supernatural truth would be inconceivable without a supernatural strengthening of the natural light “Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?” (i.e. what is faith but belief in that which thou seest not?) asks St. Augustine; but he also says: “Faith has its eyes by which it in some sort sees that to be true which it does not yet see- and by which, too, it most surely sees that it does not see what it believes” [Ep. ad Consent., ep. cxx 8 (al. ccxxii), P.L., II, 456].

(c) Again, it is evident that this “light of faith” is a supernatural gift and is not the necessary outcome of assent to the motives of credibility. No amount of study will win it, no intellectual conviction as to the credibility of revealed religion nor even of the claims of the Church to be our infallible guide in matters of faith, will produce this light in a man's mind. It is the free gift of God. Hence the First Vatican Council (III, iii;) teaches that “faith is a supernatural virtue by which we with the inspiration and assistance of God's grace, believe those things to be true which He has revealed”. The same decree goes on to say that “although the assent of faith is in no sense blind, yet no one can assent to the Gospel teaching in the way necessary for salvation without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, Who bestows on all a sweetness in believing and consenting to the truth”. Thus, neither as regards the truth believed nor as regards the motives for believing, nor as regards the subjective principle by which we believe — viz. the infused light — can faith be considered blind.

(d) The place of the will in an act of faith. — So far we have seen that faith is an act of the intellect assenting to a truth which is beyond its grasp, e.g. the mystery of the Holy Trinity. But to many it will seem almost as futile to ask the intellect to assent to a proposition which is not intrinsically evident as it would be to ask the eye to see a sound. It is clear, however, that the intellect can be moved by the will either to study or not to study a certain truth, though if the truth be a self-evident one — e.g., that the whole is greater than its part — the will cannot affect the intellect's adhesion to it, it can, however, move it to think of something else, and thus distract it from the contemplation of that particular truth. If, now, the will moves the intellect to consider some debatable point-e.g. the Copernican and Ptolemaic theories of the relationship between the sun and the earth — it is clear that the intellect can only assent to one of these views in proportion as it is convinced that the particular view is true. But neither view has, as far as we can know, more than probable truth, hence of itself the intellect can only give in its partial adherence to one of these views, it must always be precluded from absolute assent by the possibility that the other view may be right. The fact that men hold much more tenaciously to one of these than the arguments warrant can only be due to some extrinsic consideration, e.g. that it is absurd not to hold what the vast majority of men hold. And here it should be noted that, as St. Thomas says repeatedly, the intellect only assents to a statement for one of two reasons: either because that statement is immediately or mediately evident in itself — e.g. a first principle or a conclusion from premises — or because the will moves it to do so. Extrinsic evidence of course comes into play when intrinsic evidence is wanting, but though it would be absurd, without weighty evidence in its support, to assent to a truth which we do not grasp, yet no amount of such evidence can make us assent, it could only show that the statement in question was credible, our ultimate actual assent could only be due to the intrinsic evidence which the statement itself offered, or, failing that, due to the will. Hence it is that St. Thomas repeatedly defines the act of faith as the assent of the intellect determined by the will (De Veritate, xiv, 1; II-II, Q. ii, a. 1, ad 3; 2, c.; ibid., iv, 1, c., and ad 2). The reason, then, why men cling to certain beliefs more tenaciously than the arguments in their favour would warrant, is to be sought in the will rather than in the intellect. Authorities are to be found on both sides, the intrinsic evidence is not convincing, but something is to be gained by assenting to one view rather than the other, and this appeals to the will, which therefore determines the intellect to assent to the view which promises the most. Similarly, in Divine faith the credentials of the authority which tells us that God has made certain revelations are strong, but they are always extrinsic to the proposition, “God has revealed this or that”, and consequently they cannot compel our assent; they merely show us that this statement is credible. When, then, we ask whether we are to give in our free assent to any particular statement or not, we feel that in the first place we cannot do so unless there be strong extrinsic evidence in its favour, for to believe a thing merely because we wished to do so would be absurd. Secondly, the proposition itself does not compel our assent, since it is not intrinsically evident, but there remains the fact that only on condition of our assent to it shall we have what the human soul naturally yearns for, viz., the possession of God, Who is, as both reason and authority declare, our ultimate end; “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved”, and “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” St. Thomas expresses this by saying: “The disposition of a believer is that of one who accepts another's word for some statement, because it seems fitting or useful to do so. In the same way we believe Divine revelation because the reward of eternal life is promised us for so doing. It is the will which is moved by the prospect of this reward to assent to what is said, even though the intellect is not moved by something which it understands. Hence St. Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joannem, 2): Cetera potest homo nolens, credere nonnisi volens' [i.e. other things a man can do against his will but to believe he must will]” (De Ver., xiv, 1).

(e) But just as the intellect needed a new and special light in order to assent to the supernatural truths of faith, so also the will needs a special grace from God in order that it may tend to that supernatural good which is eternal life. The light of faith, then, illumines the understanding, though the truth still remains obscure, since it is beyond the intellect's grasp; but supernatural grace moves the will, which, having now a supernatural good put before it, moves the intellect to assent to what it does not understand. Hence it is that faith is described as “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (II Cor., x, 5).

VI. DEFINITION OF FAITHThe foregoing analyses will enable us to define an act of Divine supernatural faith as “the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God” (St. Thomas, II-II, Q. iv, a. 2). And just as the light of faith is a gift supernaturally bestowed upon the understanding, so also this Divine grace moving the will is, as its name implies, an equally supernatural and an absolutely gratuitous gift. Neither gift is due to previous study neither of them can be acquired by human efforts, but “Ask and ye shall receive.”

From all that has been said two most important corollaries follow:

• That temptations against faith are natural and inevitable and are in no sense contrary to faith, “since”, says St. Thomas, “the assent of the intellect in faith is due to the will, and since the object to which the intellect thus assents is not its own proper object — for that is actual vision of an intelligible object — it follows that the intellect's attitude towards that object is not one of tranquillity, on the contrary it thinks and inquires about those things it believes, all the while that it assents to them unhesitatingly; for as far as it itself is concerned the intellect is not satisfied” (De Ver., xiv, 1).
• (b) It also follows from the above that an act of supernatural faith is meritorious, since it proceeds from the will moved by Divine grace or charity, and thus has all the essential constituents of a meritorious act (cf. II-II, Q. ii, a. 9). This enables us to understand St. James's words when he says, “The devils also believe and tremble” (ii, 19) . “It is not willingly that they assent”, says St. Thomas, “but they are compelled thereto by the evidence of those signs which prove that what believers assent to is true, though even those proofs do not make the truths of faith so evident as to afford what is termed vision of them” (De Ver., xiv 9, ad 4); nor is their faith Divine, but merely philosophical and natural. Some may fancy the foregoing analyses superfluous, and may think that they savour too much of Scholasticism. But if anyone will be at the pains to compare the teaching of the Fathers, of the Scholastics, and of the divines of the Anglican Church in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with that of the non-Catholic theologians of to-day, he will find that the Scholastics merely put into shape what the Fathers taught, and that the great English divines owe their solidity and genuine worth to their vast patristic knowledge and their strictly logical training.

Let anyone who doubts this statement compare Bishop Butler's Analogy of Religion, chaps. v, vi, with the paper on “Faith” contributed to Lux Mundi. The writer of this latter paper tells us that “faith is an elemental energy of the soul”, “a tentative probation”, that “its primary note will be trust”, and finally that “in response to the demand for definition, it can only reiterate: “Faith is faith. Believing is just believing'”. Nowhere is there any analysis of terms, nowhere any distinction between the relative parts played by the intellect and the will; and we feel that those who read the paper must have risen from its perusal with the feeling that they had been wandering through — we use the writer's own expression — “a juggling maze of words.”

VII. THE: HABIT OF FAITH AND THE LIFE OF FAITH

(a) We have defined the act of faith as the assent of the intellect to a truth which is beyond its comprehension, but which it accepts under the influence of the will moved by grace and from the analysis we are now in a position to define the virtue of faith as a supernatural habit by which we firmly believe those things to be true which God has revealed. Now every virtue is the perfection of some faculty, but faith results from the combined action of two faculties, viz., the intellect which elicits the act, and the will which moves the intellect to do so; consequently, the perfection of faith will depend upon the perfection with which each of these faculties performs its allotted task; the intellect must assent unhesitatingly, the will must promptly and readily move it to do so.

(b) The unhesitating assent of the intellect cannot be due to intellectual conviction of the reasonableness of faith, whether we regard the grounds on which it rests or the actual truths we believe, for “faith is the evidence of things that appear not”; it must, then, be referred to the fact that these truths come to us on Divine infallible testimony. And though faith is so essentially of “the unseen” it may be that the peculiar function of the light of faith, which we have seen to be so necessary, is in some sort to afford us, not indeed vision, but an instinctive appreciation of the truths which are declared to be revealed. St. Thomas seems to hint at this when he says: “As by other virtuous habits a man sees what accords with those habits, so by the habit of faith a man's mind is inclined to assent to those things which belong to the true faith and not to other things” (II-II, Q. iv, 4, ad 3). In every act of faith this unhesitating assent of the intellect is due to the motion of the will as its efficient cause, and the same must be said of the theological virtue of faith when we consider it as a habit or as a moral virtue, for, as St. Thomas insists (I-II, Q. lvi, ), there is no virtue, properly so called, in the intellect except in so far as it is subject to the will. Thus the habitual promptitude of the will in moving the intellect to assent to the truths of faith is not only the efficient cause of the intellect's assent, but is precisely what gives to this assent its virtuous, and consequently meritorious, character. Lastly, this promptitude of the will can only come from its unswerving tendency to the Supreme Good. And at the risk of repetition we must again draw attention to the distinction between faith as a purely intellectual habit, which as such is dry and barren, and faith resident, indeed, in the intellect, but motived by charity or love of God, Who is our beginning, our ultimate end, and our supernatural reward. “Every true motion of the will”, says St. Augustine, “proceeds from true love” (de Civ. Dei, XIV, ix), and, as he elsewhere beautifully expresses it, “Quid est ergo credere in Eum? Credendo amare, credendo diligere, credendo in Eum ire, et Ejus membris incorporari. Ipsa est ergo fides quam de nobis Deus exigit- et non invenit quod exigat, nisi donaverit quod invenerit.” (Tract. xxix in Joannem, 6. — “What, then, is to believe in God? — It is to love Him by believing, to go to Him by believing, and to be incorporated in His members. This, then, is the faith which God demands of us; and He finds not what He may demand except where He has given what He may find.”) This then is what is meant by “living” faith, or as theologians term it, fides formata, viz., “informed” by charity, or love of God. If we regard faith precisely as an assent elicited by the intellect, then this bare faith is the same habit numerically as when the informing principle of charity is added to it, but it has not the true character of a moral virtue and is not a source of merit. If, then, charity be dead — if, in other words, a man be in mortal sin and so without the habitual sanctifying grace of God which alone gives to his will that due tendency to God as his supernatural end which is requisite for supernatural and meritorious acts — it is evident that there is no longer in the will that power by which it can, from supernatural motives, move the intellect to assent to supernatural truths. The intellectual and Divinely infused habit of faith remains, however, and when charity returns this habit acquires anew the character of “living” and meritorious faith.

(c) Again, faith being a virtue, it follows that a man's promptitude in believing will make him love the truths he believes, and he will therefore study them, not indeed in the spirit of doubting inquiry, but in order the better to grasp them as far as human reason will allow. Such inquiry will be meritorious and will render his faith more robust, because, at the same time that he is brought face to face with the intellectual difficulties which are involved, he will necessarily exercise his faith and repeatedly “bring his intellect into submission”. Thus St. Augustine says, “What can be the reward of faith, what can its very name mean if you wish to see now what you believe? You ought not to see in order to believe, you ought to believe in order to see; you ought to believe so long as you do not see, lest when you do see you may be put to the blush” (Sermo, xxxviii, 2, P.L., V, 236). And it is in this sense we must understand his oft-repeated words: “Crede ut intelligas” (Believe that you may understand). Thus, commenting on the Septuagint version of Isaias vii 9 which reads: “nisi credideritis non intelligetis”, he says: “Proficit ergo noster intellectus ad intelligenda quae credat, et fides proficit ad credenda quae intelligat; et eadem ipsa ut magis magisque intelligantur, in ipso intellectu proficit mens. Sed hoc non fit propriis tanquam naturalibus viribus sed Deo donante atque adjuvante” (Enarr. in Ps. cxviii, Sermo xviii, 3, “Our intellect therefore is of use to understand whatever things it believes, and faith is of use to believe whatever it understands; and in order that these same things may be more and more understood, the thinking faculty [mens] is of use in the intellect. But this is not brought about as by our own natural powers but by the gift and the aid of God.” Cf. Sermo xliii, 3, in Is., vii, 9; P.L., V, 255).

(d) Further, the habit of faith may be stronger in one person than in another, “whether because of the greater certitude and firmness in the faith which one has more than another, or because of his greater promptitude in assenting, or because of his greater devotion to the truths of faith, or because of his greater confidence” (II-II, Q. v, a. 4).

(e) We are sometimes asked whether we are really certain of the things we believe, and we rightly answer in the affirmative; but strictly speaking, certitude can be looked at from two standpoints: if we look at its cause, we have in faith the highest form of certitude, for its cause is the Essential Truth; but if we look at the certitude which arises from the extent to which the intellect grasps a truth, then in faith we have not such perfect certitude as we have of demonstrable truths, since the truths believed are beyond the intellect's comprehension (II-II, Q. iv, 8; de Ver., xiv, and i, ad 7).

VIII. THE GENESIS OF FAITH IN THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL

(a) Many receive their faith in their infancy, to others it comes later in life, and its genesis is often misunderstood. Without encroaching upon the article REVELATION, we may describe the genesis of faith in the adult mind somewhat as follows: Man being endowed with reason, reasonable investigation must precede faith; now we can prove by reason the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and the origin and destiny of man; but from these facts there follows the necessity of religion, and true religion must be the true worship of the true God not according to our ideas, but according to what He Himself has revealed. But can God reveal Himself to us? And, granting that He can, where is this revelation to be found? The Bible is said to contain it; does investigation confirm the Bible's claim? We will take but one point: the Old Testament looks forward, as we have already seen, to One Who is to come and Who is God; the New Testament shows us One Who claimed to be the fulfilment of the prophecies and to be God; this claim He confirmed by His life, death, and resurrection by His teaching, miracles, and prophecies. He further claimed to have founded a Church which should enshrine His revelation and should be the infallible guide for all who wished to carry out His will and save their souls. Which of the numerous existing Churches is His? It must have certain definite characteristics or notes. It must be One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, it must claim infallible teaching power. None but the Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church can claim these characteristics, and her history is an irrefragable proof of her Divine mission. If, then, she be the true Church, her teaching must be infallible and must be accepted.

(b) Now what is the state of the inquirer who has come thus far? He has proceeded by pure reason, and, if on the grounds stated he makes his submission to the authority of the Catholic Church and believes her doctrines, he has only human, reasonable, fallible, faith. Later on he may see reason to question the various steps in his line of argument, he may hesitate at some truth taught by the Church, and he may withdraw the assent he has given to her teaching authority. In other words, he has not Divine faith at all. For Divine faith is supernatural both in the principle which elicits the acts and in the objects or truths upon which it falls. The principle which elicits assent to a truth which is beyond the grasp of the human mind must be that same mind illumined by a light superior to the light of reason, viz. the light of faith, and since, even with this light of faith, the intellect remains human, and the truth to be believed remains still obscure, the final assent of the intellect must come from the will assisted by Divine grace, as seen above. But both this Divine light and this Divine grace are pure gifts of God, and are consequently only bestowed at His good pleasure. It is here that the heroism of faith comes in; our reason will lead us to the door of faith but there it leaves us; and God asks of us that earnest wish to believe for the sake of the reward — “I am thy reward exceeding great” — which will allow us to repress the misgivings of the intellect and say, “I believe, Lord, help Thou my unbelief.” As St. Augustine expresses it, “Ubi defecit ratio, ibi est fidei aedificatio” (Sermo ccxlvii, P.L., V, 1157 — “Where reason fails there faith builds up”).

(c) When this act of submission has been made, the light of faith floods the soul and is even reflected back upon those very motives which had to be so laboriously studied in our search after the truth; and even those preliminary truths which precede all investigation e.g. the very existence of God, become now the object of our faith.

IX. FAITH IN RELATION TO WORKS

(a) Faith and no works may be described as the Lutheran view. “Esto peccator, pecca fortiter sed fortius fide” was the heresiarch's axiom, and the Diet of Worms, In 1527, condemned the doctrine that good works are necessary for salvation.

(b) Works and no faith may be described as the modern view, for the modern world strives to make the worship of humanity take the place of the worship of the Deity (Do we believe? as issued by the Rationalist Press, 1904, ch. x: “Creed and Conduct” and ch. xv: “Rationalism and Morality”. Cf. also Christianity and Rationalism on Trial, published by the same press, 1904).

(c) Faith shown by works has ever been the doctrine of the Catholic Church and is explicitly taught by St. James, ii, 17: “Faith, if it have not works, is dead.” The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, canons xix, xx, xxiv, and xxvi) condemned the various aspects of the Lutheran doctrine, and from what has been said above on the necessity of charity for “living” faith, it will be evident that faith does not exclude, but demands, good works, for charity or love of God is not real unless it induces us to keep the Commandments; “He that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected” (1 John, ii, 5). St. Augustine sums up the whole question by saying “Laudo fructum boni operis, sed in fide agnosco radicem” — i. e. “I praise the fruit of good works, but their root I discern in faith” (Enarr. in Ps. xxxi, P.L., IV, 259).

X. LOSS OF FAITH

From what has been said touching the absolutely supernatural character of the gift of faith, it is easy to understand what is meant by the loss of faith. God's gift is simply withdrawn. And this withdrawal must needs be punitive, “Non enim deseret opus suum, si ab opere suo non deseratur” (St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. cxlv — “He will not desert His own work, if He be not deserted by His own work”). And when the light of faith is withdrawn, there inevitably follows a darkening of the mind regarding even the very motives of credibility which before seemed so convincing. This may perhaps explain why those who have had the misfortune to apostatize from the faith are often the most virulent in their attacks upon the grounds of faith; “Vae homini illi”, says St. Augustine, “nisi et ipsius fidem Dominus protegat”, i. e. “Woe be to a man unless the Lord safeguard his faith” (Enarr. in Ps. cxx, 2, P.L., IV, 1614).

XI. FAITH IS REASONABLE

(a) If we are to believe present-day Rationalists and Agnostics, faith, as we define it, is unreasonable. An Agnostic declines to accept it because he considers that the things proposed for his acceptance are preposterous, and because he regards the motives assigned for our belief as wholly inadequate. “Present me with a reasonable faith based on reliable evidence, and I will joyfully embrace it. Until that time I have no choice but to remain an Agnostic” (Medicus in the Do we Believe? Controversy, p. 214). Similarly, Francis Newman says: “Paul was satisfied with a kind of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus which fell exceedingly short of the demands of modern logic, it is absurd in us to believe, barely because they believed” (Phases of Faith, p. 186). Yet the supernatural truths of faith, however they may transcend our reason, cannot be opposed to it, for truth cannot be opposed to truth, and the same Deity Who bestowed on us the light of reason by which we assent to first principles is Himself the cause of those principles, which are but a reflection of His own Divine truth. When He chooses to manifest to us further truths concerning Himself, the fact that these latter are beyond the grasp of the natural light which He has bestowed upon us will not prove them to be contrary to our reason. Even so pronounced a rationalist as Sir Oliver Lodge says: “I maintain that it is hopelessly unscientific to imagine it possible that man is the highest intelligent existence” (Hibbert Journal, July, 1906, p. 727).

Agnostics, again, take refuge in the unknowableness of truths beyond reason, but their argument is fallacious, for surely knowledge has its degrees. I may not fully comprehend a truth in all its bearings, but I can know a great deal about it; I may not have demonstrative knowledge of it, but that is no reason why I should reject that knowledge which comes from faith. To listen to many Agnostics one would imagine that appeal to authority as a criterion was unscientific, though perhaps nowhere is authority appealed to so unscientifically as by modern scientists and modern critics. But, as St. Augustine says, “If God's providence govern human affairs we must not despair or doubt but that He hath ordained some certain authority, upon which staying ourselves as upon a certain ground or step, we may be lifted up to God” (De utilitate credendi); and it is in the same spirit that he says: “Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas” (Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6 — “I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not oblige me to believe”).

(b) Naturalism, which is only another name for Materialism, rejects faith because there is no place for it in the naturalistic scheme; yet the condemnation of this false philosophy by St. Paul and by the author of the Book of Wisdom is emphatic (cf. Rom., i, 18-23; Wis., xiii, 1-19). Materialists fail to see in nature what the greatest minds have always discovered in it, viz., “ratio cujusdam artis; scilicet divinae, indita rebus, qua ipsae res moventur ad finem determinatum” — “the manifestation of a Divine plan whereby all things are directed towards their appointed end” (St. Thomas, Lect. xiv, in II Phys.). Similarly, the vagaries of Humanism blind men to the fact of man's essentially finite character and hence preclude all idea of faith in the infinite and the supernatural (cf. “Naturalism and Humanism” in Hibbert Journal, Oct., 1907).

XII. FAITH IS NECESSARY

“He that believeth and is baptized”, said Christ, “shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark, xvi, 16); and St. Paul sums up this solemn declaration by saying: “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb., xi, 6). The absolute necessity of faith is evident from the following considerations: God is our beginning and our end and has supreme dominion over us, we owe Him, consequently, due service which we express by the term religion. Now true religion is the true worship of the true God. But it is not for man to fashion a worship according to his own ideals; none but God can declare to us in what true worship consists, and this declaration constitutes the body of revealed truths, whether natural or supernatural. To these, if we would attain the end for which we came into the world, we are bound to give the assent of faith. It is clear, moreover, that no one can profess indifference in a matter of such vital importance. During the Reformation period no such indifference was professed by those who quitted the fold; for them it was not a question of faith or unfaith, so much as of the medium by which the true faith was to be known and put into practice. The attitude of many outside the Church is now one of absolute indifference, faith is regarded as an emotion, as a peculiarly subjective disposition which is regulated by no known psychological laws. Thus Taine speaks of faith as “une source vive qui s'est formee au plus profond de l'ame, sous la poussee et la chaleur des instincts immanents” — “a living fountain which has come into existence in the lowest depths of the soul under the impulse and the warmth of the immanent instincts”. Indifferentism in all its phases was condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus Quanta cura: in Prop. XV, “Any man is free to embrace and profess whatever form of religion his reason approves of”; XVI, “Men can find the way of salvation and can attain to eternal salvation in any form of religious worship”; XVII “We can at least have good hopes of the eternal salvation of all those who have never been in the true Church of Christ”; XVIII, “Protestantism is only another form of the same true Christian religion, and men can be as pleasing to God in it as in the Catholic Church.”

XIII. THE OBJECTIVE UNITY AND IMMUTABILITY OF FAITH

Christ's prayer for the unity of His Church the highest form of unity conceivable, “that they all may be one as thou, Father, in me, and I in Thee” (John, xvii, 21), has been brought into effect by the unifying force of a bond of a faith such as that which we have analysed. All Christians have been taught to be “careful to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, one body and one spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph., iv, 3-6). The objective unity of the Catholic Church becomes readily intelligible when we reflect upon the nature of the bond of union which faith offers us. For our faith comes to us from the one unchanging Church, “the pillar and ground of truth”, and our assent to it comes as a light in our minds and a motive power in our wills from the one unchanging God Who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Hence, for all who possess it, this faith constitutes an absolute and unchanging bond of union. The teachings of this faith develop, of course, with the needs of the ages, but the faith itself remains unchanged. Modern views are entirely destructive of such unity of belief because their root principle is the supremacy of the individual judgment. Certain writers do indeed endeavour to overcome the resulting conflict of views by upholding the supremacy of universal human reason as a criterion of truth; thus Mr. Campbell writes: “One cannot really begin to appreciate the value of united Christian testimony until one is able to stand apart from it, so to speak, and ask whether it rings true to the reason and moral sense” (The New Theology, p. 178; cf. Cardinal Newman, “Palmer on Faith and Unity” in Essays Critical and Historical, vol. 1, also, Thomas Harper, S.J., Peace Through the Truth, London, 1866, 1st Series.)

I. Patristic. — The Fathers in general have never attempted any analysis of faith, and most patristic treatises De fide consist of expositions of the true doctrine to be held. But the reader will have already noticed the precise teaching of ST. AUGUSTINE on the nature of faith. Besides the gems of thought which are scattered throughout his works, we may refer to his two treatises De Utilitate Credendi and De Fide Rerum quae non videntur, in P.L., VI, VII.

II. Scholastics. — The minute analysis of faith was worked out by the theologians of the thirteenth century and onwards they followed mainly the lines laid down by St. Augustine. ST. THOMAS, Summa, II-II, QQ. i-vii; Quaest. Disp., Q. xiv; HOLCOT, De actibus fidei et intellectus et de libertate Voluntatis (Paris, 1512); SUAREZ De fide, spe, et charitate, in Opera, ed. VIVES (Paris, 1878), XII; DE LUGO, De virtute fidei divinae (Venice, 1718); JOANNES A S. THOMA, Comment. on the Summa especially on the De Fide, in Opera, ed. VIVES (Paris, 1886), VII; CAJETAN, De Fide et Operibus (1532), especially his Commentary on the Summa, II-II, QQ i-vii.

III. Modern Writers. — The decrees of the First Vatican Council, a handy edition by McNabb (London, 1907); cf. also Coll. Lacencis, VIII; PIUS X, Syllabus Lamentabili Sane (1907); id., Encyclical, Pascendi Gregis (1907); ZIGLIARA, Propaedeutica ad Sacram Theologiam (5th ed., Rome, 1906), 1, xvi, xvii; NEWMAN, Grammar of Assent, Essay on Development, and especially The Ventures of Faith in Vol. IV of his Sermons, and Peace in Believing and Faith without Demonstration, VI; WEISS, Apologie du Christianisme, Fr. tr., V, conf. iv, La Foi, and VI, conf. xxi, La Vie de la Foi; BAINVEL, La Foi et l'acte de Foi (Paris, 1898); ULLATHORNE, The Groundwork of the Christian Virtues, ch. xiv, The Humility of Faith; HEDLEY, The Light of Life (1889),ii; BOWDEN, The Assent of Faith, taken mainly from KLEUTGEN, Theologie der Vorzeit, IV, and serving as an introductory chapter to the tr. of HETTINGER, Revealed Religion (1895); MCNABB, Oxford Conferences on Faith (London, 1905); Implicit Faith, in The Month for April, 1869; Reality of the Sin of Unbelief, ibid., October, 1881; The Conceivable Dangers of Unbelief in Dublin Review Jan., 1902; HARENT in VACANT AND MANGENOT, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, s. v. Croyance.

IV. Against Rationalist, Positivist, and Humanist Views. — NEWMAN, The Introduction of Rationalistic Principles into Revealed Religion, in Tracts for the Times (1835), republished in Essays Historical and Critical as Essay ii; St. Paul on Rationalism in The Month for Oct., 1877; WARD, The Clothes of Religion, a Reply to Popular Positivism (1886); The Agnosticism of Faith in Dublin Review, July, 1903.

V. The motives of faith and its relation to reason and science. — MANNING, The Grounds of Faith (1852, and often since); Faith and Reason in Dublin Review, July, 1889; AVELING, Faith and Science in Westminster Lectures (London, 1906); GARDEIL, La crédibilité et l'apologétique (PARIS, 1908); IDEM in VACANT AND MANGENOT, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, s. v. Crédibilite.

VI. Non-Catholic writers. — Lux Mundi, i, Faith (1Oth ed. 1890); BALFOUR Foundations of Belief (2nd ed., 1890); COLERIDGE, Essay on Faith (1838), in Aids to Reflection; MALLOCK, Religion as a Credible Doctrine (1903), xii.

VII. Rationalistic Works. — The Do We Believe correspondence, held in the Daily Telegraph, has been published in the form of selections (1905) under the title, A Record of a Great Correspondence in the Daily Telegraph, with Introduction by COURTNEY. Similar selections by the Rationalist Press (1904); SANTAYANA, The Life of Reason (3 vols., London, 1905-6); Faith and Belief in Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1907. Cf. also LODGE, ibid., for Jan., 1908, and July, 1906.

First-Born

The word, though casually taken in Holy Writ in a metaphorical sense, is most generally used by the sacred writers to designate the first male child in a family. The first-cast male animal is, in the English Bibles, termed “firstling”. The firstlings, both human and animal, being considered as the best representatives of the race, because its blood flows purest and strongest in them, were commonly believed, among the early nomad Semitic tribes, to belong to God in a special way. Hence, very likely, the custom of sacrificing the first-cast animals; hence also the prerogatives of the first-born son; hence, possibly, even some of the superstitious practices which mar a few pages of the history of Israel.

Among the Hebrews, as well as among other nations, the first-born enjoyed special privileges. Besides having a greater share in the paternal affection, he had everywhere the first place after his father (Gen., xliii, 33) and a kind of directive authority over his younger brothers (Gen., xxxvii, 21-22, 30, etc.); a special blessing was reserved to him at his father's death, and he succeeded him as the head of the family, receiving a double portion among his brothers (Deut., xxi, 17). Moreover, the first-birthright, up to the time of the promulgation of the Law, included a right to the priesthood. Of course this latter privilege, as also the headship of the family, to which it was attached, continued in force only when brothers dwelt together in the same house; for; as soon as they made a family apart and separated, each one became the head and priest of his own house.

When God chose unto Himself the tribe of Levi to discharge the office of priesthood in Israel, He wished that His rights over the first-born should not thereby be forfeited. He enacted therefore that every first-born be redeemed, one month after his birth, for five sicles (Num., iii, 47; xviii, 15-16). This redemption tax, calculated also to remind the Israelites of the death inflicted upon the first-born of the Egyptians in punishment of Pharaoh's stubbornness (Ex., xiii, 15-16), went to the endowment-fund of the clergy. No law, however, stated that the first-born should be presented to the Temple. It seems, however, that after the Restoration parents usually took advantage of the mother's visit to the sanctuary to bring the child thither. This circumstance is recorded in St. Luke's Gospel, in reference to Christ (ii, 22-38). It might be noted here that St. Paul refers the title primogenitus to Christ (Heb., i, 6), the “first-born” of the Father. The Messianic sacrifice was the first-fruits of the Atonement offered to God for man's redemption. It must be remembered, however, contrary to what is too often asserted and seems, indeed, intimated by the liturgical texts, that the “pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons” mentioned in this connexion, were offered for the purification of the mother, and not for the child. Nothing was especially prescribed with regard to the latter.

As polygamy was, at least in early times, in vogue among the Israelites, precise regulations were enacted to define who, among the children, should enjoy the legal right of primogeniture, and who were to be redeemed. The right of primogeniture belonged to the first male child born in the family, either of wife or concubine; the first child of any woman having a legal status in the family (wife or concubine) was to be redeemed, provided that child were a boy.

As the first-born, so were the firstlings of the Egyptians smitten by the sword of the destroying angel, whereas those of the Hebrews were spared. As a token of recognition, God declared that all firstlings belonged to Him (Ex., xiii, 2; Num., iii, 3). They accordingly should be immolated. In case of clean animals, as a calf, a lamb, or a kid (Num., xviii, 15-18), they were, when one year old, brought to the sanctuary and offered in sacrifice; the blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar, the fat burned, and the flesh belonged to the priests. Unclean animals, however, which could not be immolated to the Lord, were redeemed with money. Exception was made in the case of the firstling of the ass, which was to be redeemed with a sheep (Ex., xxxiv, 20) or its own price (Josephus, Ant. Jud., IV, iv, 4), or else to be slain (Ex., xiii, 13; xxxiv, 20) and buried in the ground. Firstlings sacrificed in the temple should be without blemish; such as were “lame or blind, or in any part disfigured or feeble”, were to be eaten unconditionally within the gates of the owner's home-city.

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

St. Francis de Sales

Bishop of Geneva, Doctor of the Universal Church; born at Thorens, in the Duchy of Savoy, 21 August, 1567; died at Lyons, 28 December, 1622. His father, François de Sales de Boisy, and his mother, Françoise de Sionnaz, belonged to old Savoyard aristocratic families. The future saint was the eldest of six brothers. His father intended him for the magistracy and sent him at an early age to the colleges of La Roche and Annecy. From 1583 till 1588 he studied rhetoric and humanities at the college of Clermont, Paris, under the care of the Jesuits. While there he began a course of theology. After a terrible and prolonged temptation to despair, caused by the discussions of the theologians of the day on the question of predestination, from which he was suddenly freed as he knelt before a miraculous image of Our Lady at St. Etienne-des-Grès, he made a vow of chastity and consecrated himself to the Blessed Virgin Mary. In 1588 he studied law at Padua, where the Jesuit Father Possevin was his spiritual director. He received his diploma of doctorate from the famous Pancirola in 1592. Having been admitted as a lawyer before the senate of Chambéry, he was about to be appointed senator. His father had selected one of the noblest heiresses of Savoy to be the partner of his future life, but Francis declared his intention of embracing the ecclesiastical life. A sharp struggle ensued. His father would not consent to see his expectations thwarted. Then Claude de Granier, Bishop of Geneva, obtained for Francis, on his own initiative, the position of Provost of the Chapter of Geneva, a post in the patronage of the pope. It was the highest office in the diocese, M. de Boisy yielded and Francis received Holy Orders (1593).

From the time of the Reformation the seat of the Bishopric of Geneva had been fixed at Annecy. There with apostolic zeal, the new provost devoted himself to preaching, hearing confessions, and the other work of his ministry. In the following year (1594) he volunteered to evangelize Le Chablais, where the Genevans had imposed the Reformed Faith, and which had just been restored to the Duchy of Savoy. He made his headquarters in the fortress of Allinges. Risking his life, he journeyed through the entire district, preaching constantly; by dint of zeal, learning, kindness and holiness he at last obtained a hearing. He then settled in Thonon, the chief town. He confuted the preachers sent by Geneva to oppose him; he converted the syndic and several prominent Calvinists. At the request of the pope, Clement VIII, he went to Geneva to interview Theodore Beza, who was called the Patriarch of the Reformation. The latter received him kindly and seemed for a while shaken, but had not the courage to take the final steps. A large part of the inhabitants of Le Chablais returned to the true fold (1597 and 1598). Claude de Granier then chose Francis as his coadjutor, in spite of his refusal, and sent him to Rome (1599).

Pope Clement VIII ratified the choice; but he wished to examine the candidate personally, in presence of the Sacred College. The improvised examination was a triumph for Francis. “Drink, my son”, said the Pope to him. “from your cistern, and from your living wellspring; may your waters issue forth, and may they become public fountains where the world may quench its thirst.” The prophesy was to be realized. On his return from Rome the religious affairs of the territory of Gex, a dependency of France, necessitated his going to Paris. There the coadjutor formed an intimate friendship with Cardinal de Bérulle, Antoine Deshayes, secretary of Henry IV, and Henry IV himself, who wished “to make a third in this fair friendship” (être de tiers dans cette belle amitié). The king made him preach the Lent at Court, and wished to keep him in France. He urged him to continue, by his sermons and writings, to teach those souls that had to live in the world how to have confidence in God, and how to be genuinely and truly pious - graces of which he saw the great necessity.

On the death of Claude de Granier, Francis was consecrated Bishop of Geneva (1602). His first step was to institute catechetical instructions for the faithful, both young and old. He made prudent regulations for the guidance of his clergy. He carefully visited the parishes scattered through the rugged mountains of his diocese. He reformed the religious communities. His goodness, patience and mildness became proverbial. He had an intense love for the poor, especially those who were of respectable family. His food was plain, his dress and his household simple. He completely dispensed with superfluities and lived with the greatest economy, in order to be able to provide more abundantly for the wants of the needy. He heard confessions, gave advice, and preached incessantly. He wrote innumerable letters (mainly letters of direction) and found time to publish the numerous works mentioned below. Together with St. Jane Frances de Chantal, he founded (1607) the Institute of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin, for young girls and widows who, feeling themselves called to the religious life, have not sufficient strength, or lack inclination, for the corporal austerities of the great orders. His zeal extended beyond the limits of his own diocese. He delivered the Lent and Advent discourses which are still famous - those at Dijon (1604), where he first met the Baroness de Chantal; at Chambéry (1606); at Grenoble (1616, 1617, 1618), where he converted the Maréchal de Lesdiguières. During his last stay in Paris (November, 1618, to September, 1619) he had to go into the pulpit each day to satisfy the pious wishes of those who thronged to hear him. “Never”, said they, “have such holy, such apostolic sermons been preached.” He came into contact here with all the distinguished ecclesiastics of the day, and in particular with St. Vincent de Paul. His friends tried energetically to induce him to remain in France, offering him first the wealthy Abbey of Ste. Geneviève and then the coadjutor-bishopric of Paris, but he refused all to return to Annecy.

In 1622 he had to accompany the Court of Savoy into France. At Lyons he insisted on occupying a small, poorly furnished room in a house belonging to the gardener of the Visitation Convent. There, on 27 December, he was seized with apoplexy. He received the last sacraments and made his profession of faith, repeating constantly the words: “God's will be done! Jesus, my God and my all!” He died next day, in the fifty-sixth year of his age. Immense crowds flocked to visit his remains, which the people of Lyons were anxious to keep in their city. With much difficulty his body was brought back to Annecy, but his heart was left at Lyons. A great number of wonderful favours have been obtained at his tomb in the Visitation Convent of Annecy. His heart, at the time of the French Revolution, was carried by the Visitation nuns from Lyons to Venice, where it is venerated to-day. St. Francis de Sales was beatified in 1661, and canonized by Alexander VII in 1665; he was proclaimed Doctor of the Universal Church by Pope Pius IX, in 1877.

The following is a list of the principal works of the holy Doctor:

• (1) “Controversies”, leaflets which the zealous missioner scattered among the inhabitants of Le Chablais in the beginning, when t hese people did not venture to come and hear him preach. They form a complete proof of the Catholic Faith. In the first part, the author defends the authority of the Church, and in the second and third parts, the rules of faith, which were not observed by the heretical ministers. The primacy of St. Peter is amply vindicated.
• >(2) “Defense of the Standard of the Cross”, a demonstration of the virtue

• of the True Cross;
• of the Crucifix;
• of the Sign of the Cross;
• an explanation of the Veneration of the Cross.

• (3) “An Introduction to the Devout Life”, a work intended to lead “Philothea”, the soul living in the world, into the paths of devotion, that is to say, of true and solid piety. Every one should strive to become pious, and “it is an error, it is even a heresy”, to hold that piety is incompatible with any state of life. In the first part the author helps the soul to free itself from all inclination to, or affection for, sin; in the second, he teaches it how to be united to God by prayer and the sacraments; in the third, he exercises it in the practice of virtue; in the fourth, he strengthens it against temptation; in the fifth, he teaches it how to form its resolutions and to persevere. The “Introduction”, which is a masterpiece of psychology, practical morality, and common sense, was translated into nearly every language even in the lifetime of the author, and it has since gone through innumerable editions.
• (4) “Treatise on the Love of God”, an authoritative work which reflects perfectly the mind and heart of Francis de Sales as a great genius and a great saint. It contains twelve books. The first four give us a history, or rather explain the theory, of Divine love, its birth in the soul, its growth, its perfection, and its decay and annihilation; the fifth book shows that this love is twofold - the love of complacency and the love of benevolence; the sixth and seventh treat of affective love, which is practised in prayer; the eight and ninth deal with effective love, that is, conformity to the will of God, and submission to His good pleasure. The last three resume what has preceded and teach how to apply practically the lessons taught therein.
• (5) “Spiritual Conferences”; familiar conversations on religious virtues addressed to the sisters of the Visitation and collected by them. We find in them that practical common sense, keenness of perception and delicacy of feeling which were characteristic of the kind-hearted and energetic Saint.
• (6) “Sermons”. - These are divided into two classes: those composed previously to his consecration as a bishop, and which he himself wrote out in full; and the discourses he delivered when a bishop, of which, as a rule, only outlines and synopses have been preserved. Some of the latter, however, were taken down in extenso by his hearers. Pius IX, in his Bull proclaiming him Doctor of the Church calls the Saint “The Master and Restorer of Sacred Eloquence”. He is one of those who at the beginning of the seventeenth century formed the beautiful French language; he foreshadows and prepares the way for the great sacred orators about to appear. He speaks simply, naturally, and from his heart. To speak well we need only love well, was his maxim. His mind was imbued with the Holy Writings, which he comments, and explains, and applies practically with no less accuracy than grace.
• (7) “Letters”, mostly letters of direction, in which the minister of God effaces himself and teaches the soul to listen to God, the only true director. The advice given is suited to all the circumstances and necessities of life and to all persons of good will. While trying to efface his own personality in these letters, the saint makes himself known to us and unconsciously discovers to us the treasures of his soul.
• (8) A large number of very precious treatises or opuscula.

Migne (5 vols., quarto) and Vivès (12 vols., octavo, Paris) have edited the works of St. Francis de Sales. But the edition which we may call definitive was published at Annecy in 1892, by the English Benedictine, Dom Mackey: a work remarkable for its typographical execution, the brilliant criticism that settles the text, the large quantity of hitherto unedited matter, and the interesting study accompanying each volume. Dom Mackey published twelve volumes. Father Navatel, S.J., is continuing the work. We may give here a brief résumé of the spiritual teaching contained in these works, of which the Church has said: “The writings of Francis de Sales, filled with celestial doctrine are a bright light in the Church, pointing out to souls an easy and safe way to arrive at the perfection of a Christian life.” (Breviarium Romanum, 29 January, lect. VI.)

There are two elements in the spiritual life: first, a struggle against our lower nature; secondly, union of our wills with God, in other words, penance and love. St. Francis de Sales looks chiefly to love. Not that he neglects penance, which is absolutely necessary, but he wishes it to be practised from a motive of love. He requires mortification of the senses, but he relies first on mortification of the mind, the will, and the heart. This interior mortification he requires to be unceasing and always accompanied by love. The end to be realized is a life of loving, simple, generous, and constant fidelity to the will of God, which is nothing else than our present duty. The model proposed is Christ, whom we must ever keep before our eyes. “You will study His countenance, and perform your actions as He did” (Introd., 2nd part, ch. i). The practical means of arriving at this perfection are: remembrance of the presence of God, filial prayer, a right intention in all our actions, and frequent recourse to God by pious and confiding ejaculations and interior aspirations.

Besides the Institute of the Visitation, which he founded, the nineteenth century has seen associations of the secular clergy and pious laymen, and several religious congregations, formed under the patronage of the holy Doctor. Among them we may mention the Missionaries of St. Francis de Sales, of Annecy; the Salesians, founded at Turin by the Venerable Don Bosco, specially devoted to the Christian and technical education of the children of the poorer classes; the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, established at Troyes (France) by Father Brisson, who try to realize in the religious and priestly life the spirit of the holy Doctor, such as we have described it, and such as he bequeathed it to the nuns of the Visitation.

MACKEY, OEuvres de St François de Sales (Annecy, 1892-); CHARLES-AUGUSTE DE SALES, Histoire du Bienheureux François de Sales (2nd ed., Paris, 1885); CAMUS, Esprit de S. François de Sales (2d ed., Paris, 1833); and in Collection S. Honore d'Eylau (Paris, 1904); Vie de S. François de Sales by HAMON (Paris); PÉRENNÈS (Paris); DE MARGERIE (Paris); STROWSKI, St. François de Sales (Paris); Annales Salesiennes in Revu Mensuelle (Paris, 1906, etc.). MACKEY has given an English translation of the Letters to Persons in the World, and of the Letters to Persons in Religion (London); he has also published noteworthy articles on St. Francis de Sales as an Orator (London) and St. Francis de Sales as a Director in Am. Eccl. Rev. (1898).

RAPHAEL PERNIN

St. Francis of Assisi

Founder of the Franciscan Order, born at Assisi in Umbria, in 1181 or 1882 — the exact year is uncertain; died there, 3 October, 1226. His father, Pietro Bernardone, was a wealthy Assisian cloth merchant. Of his mother, Pica, little is known, but she is said to have belonged to a noble family of Provence. Francis was one of several children. The legend that he was born in a stable dates from the fifteenth century only, and appears to have originated in the desire of certain writers to make his life resemble that of Christ. At baptism the saint received the name of Giovanni, which his father afterwards altered to Francesco, through fondness it would seem for France, whither business had led him at the time of his son's birth. In any case, since the child was renamed in infancy, the change can hardly have had anything to do with his aptitude for learning French, as some have thought. Francis received some elementary instruction from the priests of St. George's at Assisi, though he learned more perhaps in the school of the Troubadours, who were just then making for refinement in Italy. However this may be, he was not very studious, and his literary education remained incomplete. Although associated with his father in trade, he showed little liking for a merchant's career, and his parents seemed to have indulged his every whim. Thomas of Celano, his first biographer, speaks in very severe terms of Francis's youth. Certain it is that the saint's early life gave no presage of the golden years that were to come. No one loved pleasure more than Francis; he had a ready wit, sang merrily, delighted in fine clothes and showy display. Handsome, gay, gallant, and courteous, he soon became the prime favourite among the young nobles of Assisi, the foremost in every feat of arms, the leader of the civil revels, the very king of frolic. But even at this time Francis showed an instinctive sympathy with the poor, and though he spent money lavishly, it still flowed in such channels as to attest a princely magnanimity of spirit. When about twenty, Francis went out with the townsmen to fight the Perugians in one of the petty skirmishes so frequent at that time between the rival cities. The Assisians were defeated on this occasion, and Francis, being among those taken prisoners, was held captive for more than a year in Perugia. A low fever which he there contracted appears to have turned his thoughts to the things of eternity; at least the emptiness of the life he had been leading came to him during that long illness. With returning health, however, Francis's eagerness after glory reawakened and his fancy wandered in search of victories; at length he resolved to embrace a military career, and circumstances seemed to favour his aspirations. A knight of Assisi was about to join “the gentle count”, Walter of Brienne, who was then in arms in the Neapolitan States against the emperor, and Francis arranged to accompany him. His biographers tell us that the night before Francis set forth he had a strange dream, in which he saw a vast hall hung with armour all marked with the Cross. “These”, said a voice, “are for you and your soldiers.” “I know I shall be a great prince”, exclaimed Francis exultingly, as he started for Apulia. But a second illness arrested his course at Spoleto. There, we are told, Francis had another dream in which the same voice bade him turn back to Assisi. He did so at once. This was in 1205.

Although Francis still joined at times in the noisy revels of his former comrades, his changed demeanour plainly showed that his heart was no longer with them; a yearning for the life of the spirit had already possessed it. His companions twitted Francis on his absent-mindedness and asked if he were minded to be married. “Yes”, he replied, “I am about to take a wife of surpassing fairness.” She was no other than Lady Poverty whom Dante and Giotto have wedded to his name, and whom even now he had begun to love. After a short period of uncertainty he began to seek in prayer and solitude the answer to his call; he had already given up his gay attire and wasteful ways. One day, while crossing the Umbrian plain on horseback, Francis unexpectedly drew near a poor leper. The sudden appearance of this repulsive object filled him with disgust and he instinctively retreated, but presently controlling his natural aversion he dismounted, embraced the unfortunate man, and gave him all the money he had. About the same time Francis made a pilgrimage to Rome. Pained at the miserly offerings he saw at the tomb of St. Peter, he emptied his purse thereon. Then, as if to put his fastidious nature to the test, he exchanged clothes with a tattered mendicant and stood for the rest of the day fasting among the horde of beggars at the door of the basilica. Not long after his return to Assisi, whilst Francis was praying before an ancient crucifix in the forsaken wayside chapel of St. Damian's below the town, he heard a voice saying: “Go, Francis, and repair my house, which as you see is falling into ruin.” Taking this behest literally, as referring to the ruinous church wherein he knelt, Francis went to his father's shop, impulsively bundled together a load of coloured drapery, and mounting his horse hastened to Foligno, then a mart of some importance, and there sold both horse and stuff to procure the money needful for the restoration of St. Damian's. When, however, the poor priest who officiated there refused to receive the gold thus gotten, Francis flung it from him disdainfully. The elder Bernardone, a most niggardly man, was incensed beyond measure at his son's conduct, and Francis, to avert his father's wrath, hid himself in a cave near St. Damian's for a whole month. When he emerged from this place of concealment and returned to the town, emaciated with hunger and squalid with dirt, Francis was followed by a hooting rabble, pelted with mud and stones, and otherwise mocked as a madman. Finally, he was dragged home by his father, beaten, bound, and locked in a dark closet. Freed by his mother during Bernardone's absence, Francis returned at once to St. Damian's, where he found a shelter with the officiating priest, but he was soon cited before the city consuls by his father. The latter, not content with having recovered the scattered gold from St. Damian's, sought also to force his son to forego his inheritance. This Francis was only too eager to do; he declared, however, that since he had entered the service of God he was no longer under civil jurisdiction. Having therefore been taken before the bishop, Francis stripped himself of the very clothes he wore, and gave them to his father, saying: “Hitherto I have called you my father on earth; henceforth I desire to say only 'Our Father who art in Heaven.'” Then and there, as Dante sings, were solemnized Francis's nuptials with his beloved spouse, the Lady Poverty, under which name, in the mystical language afterwards so familiar to him, he comprehended the total surrender of all worldly goods, honours, and privileges. And now Francis wandered forth into the hills behind Assisi, improvising hymns of praise as he went. “I am the herald of the great King”, he declared in answer to some robbers, who thereupon despoiled him of all he had and threw him scornfully in a snow drift. Naked and half frozen, Francis crawled to a neighbouring monastery and there worked for a time as a scullion. At Gubbio, whither he went next, Francis obtained from a friend the cloak, girdle, and staff of a pilgrim as an alms. Returning to Assisi, he traversed the city begging stones for the restoration of St. Damian's. These he carried to the old chapel, set in place himself, and so at length rebuilt it. In the same way Francis afterwards restored two other deserted chapels, St. Peter's, some distance from the city, and St. Mary of the Angels, in the plain below it, at a spot called the Porziuncola. Meantime he redoubled his zeal in works of charity, more especially in nursing the lepers.

On a certain morning in 1208, probably 24 February, Francis was hearing Mass in the chapel of St. Mary of the Angels, near which he had then built himself a hut; the Gospel of the day told how the disciples of Christ were to possess neither gold nor silver, nor scrip for their journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, nor a staff, and that they were to exhort sinners to repentance and announce the Kingdom of God. Francis took these words as if spoken directly to himself, and so soon as Mass was over threw away the poor fragment left him of the world's goods, his shoes, cloak, pilgrim staff, and empty wallet. At last he had found his vocation. Having obtained a coarse woolen tunic of “beast colour”, the dress then worn by the poorest Umbrian peasants, and tied it round him with a knotted rope, Francis went forth at once exhorting the people of the country-side to penance, brotherly love, and peace. The Assisians had already ceased to scoff at Francis; they now paused in wonderment; his example even drew others to him. Bernard of Quintavalle, a magnate of the town, was the first to join Francis, and he was soon followed by Peter of Cattaneo, a well-known canon of the cathedral. In true spirit of religious enthusiasm, Francis repaired to the church of St. Nicholas and sought to learn God's will in their regard by thrice opening at random the book of the Gospels on the altar. Each time it opened at passages where Christ told His disciples to leave all things and follow Him. “This shall be our rule of life”, exclaimed Francis, and led his companions to the public square, where they forthwith gave away all their belongings to the poor. After this they procured rough habits like that of Francis, and built themselves small huts near his at the Porziuncola. A few days later Giles, afterwards the great ecstatic and sayer of “good words”, became the third follower of Francis. The little band divided and went about, two and two, making such an impression by their words and behaviour that before long several other disciples grouped themselves round Francis eager to share his poverty, among them being Sabatinus, vir bonus et justus, Moricus, who had belonged to the Crucigeri, John of Capella, who afterwards fell away, Philip “the Long”, and four others of whom we know only the names. When the number of his companions had increased to eleven, Francis found it expedient to draw up a written rule for them. This first rule,as it is called, of the Friars Minor has not come down to us in its original form, but it appears to have been very short and simple, a mere adaptation of the Gospel precepts already selected by Francis for the guidance of his first companions, and which he desired to practice in all their perfection. When this rule was ready the Penitents of Assisi, as Francis and his followers styled themselves, set out for Rome to seek the approval of the Holy See, although as yet no such approbation was obligatory. There are differing accounts of Francis's reception by Innocent III. It seems, however, that Guido, Bishop of Assisi, who was then in Rome, commended Francis to Cardinal John of St. Paul, and that at the instance of the latter, the pope recalled the saint whose first overtures he had, as it appears, somewhat rudely rejected. Moreover, in site of the sinister predictions of others in the Sacred College, who regarded the mode of life proposed by Francis as unsafe and impracticable, Innocent, moved it is said by a dream in which he beheld the Poor Man of Assisi upholding the tottering Lateran, gave a verbal sanction to the rule submitted by Francis and granted the saint and his companions leave to preach repentance everywhere. Before leaving Rome they all received the ecclesiastical tonsure, Francis himself being ordained deacon later on.

After their return to Assisi, the Friars Minor, for thus Francis had names his brethren — either after the minores, or lower classes, as some think, or as others believe, with reference to the Gospel (Matt. xxv, 40-45), and as a perpetual reminder of their humility — found shelter in a deserted hut at Rivo Torto in the plain below the city, but were forced to abandon this poor abode by a rough peasant who drove in his ass upon them. About 1211 they obtained a permanent foothold near Assisi, through the generosity of the Benedictines of Monte Subasio, who gave them the little chapel of St. Mary of the Angels or the Porziuncola. Adjoining this humble sanctuary, already dear to Francis, the first Franciscan convent was formed by the erection of a few small huts or cells of wattle, straw, and mud, and enclosed by a hedge. From this settlement, which became the cradle of the Franciscan Order (Caput et Mater Ordinis) and the central spot in the life of St. Francis, the Friars Minor went forth two by two exhorting the people of the surrounding country. Like children “careless of the day”, they wandered from place to place singing in their joy, and calling themselves the Lord's minstrels. The wide world was their cloister; sleeping in haylofts, grottos, or church porches, they toiled with the labourers in the fields, and when none gave them work they would beg. In a short while Francis and his companions gained an immense influence, and men of different grades of life and ways of thought flocked to the order. Among the new recruits made about this time By Francis were the famous Three Companions, who afterwards wrote his life, namely: Angelus Tancredi, a noble cavalier; Leo, the saint's secretary and confessor; and Rufinus, a cousin of St. Clare; besides Juniper, “the renowned jester of the Lord”.

During the Lent of 1212, a new joy, great as it was unexpected, came to Francis. Clare, a young heiress of Assisi, moved by the saint's preaching at the church of St. George, sought him out, and begged to be allowed to embrace the new manner of life he had founded. By his advice, Clare, who was then but eighteen, secretly left her father's house on the night following Palm Sunday, and with two companions went to the Porziuncola, where the friars met her in procession, carrying lighted torches. Then Francis, having cut off her hair, clothed her in the Minorite habit and thus received her to a life of poverty, penance, and seclusion. Clare stayed provisionally with some Benedictine nuns near Assisi, until Francis could provide a suitable retreat for her, and for St. Agnes, her sister, and the other pious maidens who had joined her. He eventually established them at St. Damian's, in a dwelling adjoining the chapel he had rebuilt with his own hands, which was now given to the saint by the Benedictines as domicile for his spiritual daughters, and which thus became the first monastery of the Second Franciscan Order of Poor Ladies, now known as Poor Clares (see CLARE OF ASSISI, SAINT; POOR CLARES).

In the autumn of the same year (1212) Francis's burning desire for the conversion of the Saracens led him to embark for Syria, but having been shipwrecked on the coast of Slavonia, he had to return to Ancona. The following spring he devoted himself to evangelizing Central Italy. About this time (1213) Francis received from Count Orlando of Chiusi the mountain of La Verna, an isolated peak among the Tuscan Apennines, rising some 4000 feet above the valley of the Casentino, as a retreat, “especially favourable for contemplation”, to which he might retire from time to time for prayer and rest. For Francis never altogether separated the contemplative from the active life, as the several hermitages associated with his memory, and the quaint regulations he wrote for those living in them bear witness. At one time, indeed, a strong desire to give himself wholly to a life of contemplation seems to have possessed the saint. During the next year (1214) Francis set out for Morocco, in another attempt to reach the infidels and, if needs be, to shed his blood for the Gospel, but while yet in Spain was overtaken by so severe an illness that he was compelled to turn back to Italy once more.

Authentic details are unfortunately lacking of Francis's journey to Spain and sojourn there. It probably took place in the winter of 1214-1215. After his return to Umbria he received several noble and learned men into his order, including his future biographer Thomas of Celano. The next eighteen months comprise, perhaps, the most obscure period of the saint's life. That he took part in the Lateran Council of 1215 may well be, but it is not certain; we know from Eccleston, however, that Francis was present at the death of Innocent II, which took place at Perugia, in July 1216. Shortly afterwards, i.e. very early in the pontificate of Honorius III, is placed the concession of the famous Porziuncola Indulgence. It is related that once, while Francis was praying at the Porziuncola, Christ appeared to him and offered him whatever favour he might desire.The salvation of souls was ever the burden of Francis's prayers,and wishing moreover, to make his beloved Porziuncola a sanctuary where many might be saved, he begged a plenary Indulgence for all who, having confessed their sins, should visit the little chapel. Our Lord acceded to this request on condition that the pope should ratify the Indulgence. Francis thereupon set out for Perugia, with Brother Masseo, to find Honorius III. The latter, notwithstanding some opposition from the Curia at such an unheard-of favour, granted the Indulgence, restricting it, however, to one day yearly. He subsequently fixed 2 August in perpetuity, as the day for gaining this Porziuncola Indulgence, commonly known in Italy as il perdono d'Assisi. Such is the traditional account. The fact that there is no record of this Indulgence in either the papal or diocesan archives and no allusion to it in the earliest biographies of Francis or other contemporary documents has led some writers to reject the whole story. This argumentum ex silentio has, however, been met by M. Paul Sabatier, who in his critical edition of the “Tractatus de Indulgentia” of Fra Bartholi (see BARTHOLI, FRANCESCO DELLA ROSSA) has adduced all the really credible evidence in its favour. But even those who regard the granting of this Indulgence as traditionally believed to be an established fact of history, admit that its early history is uncertain. (See PORTIUNCULA.)

The first general chapter of the Friars Minor was held in May, 1217, at Porziuncola, the order being divided into provinces, and an apportionment made of the Christian world into so many Franciscan missions. Tuscany, Lombardy, Provence, Spain, and Germany were assigned to five of Francis's principal followers; for himself the saint reserved France, and he actually set out for that kingdom, but on arriving at Florence, was dissuaded from going further by Cardinal Ugolino, who had been made protector of the order in 1216. He therefore sent in his stead Brother Pacificus, who in the world had been renowned as a poet, together with Brother Agnellus, who later on established the Friars Minor in England. Although success came indeed to Francis and his friars, with it came also opposition, and it was with a view to allaying any prejudices the Curia might have imbibed against their methods that Francis, at the instance of Cardinal Ugolino, went to Rome and preached before the pope and cardinals in the Lateran. This visit to the Eternal City, which took place 1217-18, was apparently the occasion of Francis's memorable meeting with St. Dominic. The year 1218 Francis devoted to missionary tours in Italy, which were a continual triumph for him. He usually preached out of doors, in the market-places, from church steps, from the walls of castle court-yards. Allured by the magic spell of his presence, admiring crowds, unused for the rest to anything like popular preaching in the vernacular, followed Francis from place to place hanging on his lips; church bells rang at his approach; processions of clergy and people advanced to meet him with music and singing; they brought the sick to him to bless and heal, and kissed the very ground on which he trod, and even sought to cut away pieces of his tunic. The extraordinary enthusiasm with which the saint was everywhere welcomed was equalled only by the immediate and visible result of his preaching. His exhortations of the people, for sermons they can hardly be called, short, homely, affectionate, and pathetic, touched even the hardest and most frivolous, and Francis became in sooth a very conqueror of souls. Thus it happened, on one occasion, while the saint was preaching at Camara, a small village near Assisi, that the whole congregation were so moved by his “words of spirit and life” that they presented themselves to him in a body and begged to be admitted into his order. It was to accede, so far as might be, to like requests that Francis devised his Third Order, as it is now called, of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance, which he intended as a sort of middle state between the world and the cloister for those who could not leave their home or desert their wonted avocations in order to enter either the First Order of Friars Minor or the Second Order of Poor Ladies. That Francis prescribed particular duties for these tertiaries is beyond question. They were not to carry arms, or take oaths, or engage in lawsuits, etc. It is also said that he drew up a formal rule for them, but it is clear that the rule, confirmed by Nicholas IV in 1289, does not, at least in the form in which it has come down to us, represent the original rule of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance. In any event, it is customary to assign 1221 as the year of the foundation of this third order, but the date is not certain.

At the second general chapter (May, 1219) Francis, bent on realizing his project of evangelizing the infidels, assigned a separate mission to each of his foremost disciples, himself selecting the seat of war between the crusaders and the Saracens. With eleven companions, including Brother Illuminato and Peter of Cattaneo, Francis set sail from Ancona on 21 June, for Saint-Jean d'Acre, and he was present at the siege and taking of Damietta. After preaching there to the assembled Christian forces, Francis fearlessly passed over to the infidel camp, where he was taken prisoner and led before the sultan. According to the testimony of Jacques de Vitry, who was with the crusaders at Damietta, the sultan received Francis with courtesy, but beyond obtaining a promise from this ruler of more indulgent treatment for the Christian captives, the saint's preaching seems to have effected little. Before returning to Europe, the saint is believed to have visited Palestine and there obtained for the friars the foothold they still retain as guardians of the holy places. What is certain is that Francis was compelled to hasten back to Italy because of various troubles that had arisen there during his absence. News had reached him in the East that Matthew of Narni and Gregory of Naples, the two vicars-general whom he had left in charge of the order, had summoned a chapter which, among other innovations, sought to impose new fasts upon the friars, more severe than the rule required. Moreover, Cardinal Ugolino had conferred on the Poor Ladies a written rule which was practically that of the Benedictine nuns, and Brother Philip, whom Francis had charged with their interests, had accepted it. To make matters worse, John of Capella, one of the saint's first companions, had assembled a large number of lepers, both men and women, with a view to forming them into a new religious order, and had set out for Rome to seek approval for the rule he had drawn up for these unfortunates. Finally a rumour had been spread abroad that Francis was dead, so that when the saint returned to Italy with brother Elias — he appeared to have arrived at Venice in July, 1220 — a general feeling of unrest prevailed among the friars. Apart from these difficulties, the order was then passing through a period of transition. It had become evident that the simple, familiar, and unceremonious ways which had marked the Franciscan movement at its beginning were gradually disappearing, and that the heroic poverty practiced by Francis and his companions at the outset became less easy as the friars with amazing rapidity increased in number. And this Francis could not help seeing on his return. Cardinal Ugolino had already undertaken the task “of reconciling inspirations so unstudied and so free with an order of things they had outgrown.” This remarkable man, who afterwards ascended the papal throne as Gregory IX, was deeply attached to Francis, whom he venerated as a saint and also, some writers tell us, managed as an enthusiast. That Cardinal Ugolino had no small share in bringing Francis's lofty ideals “within range and compass” seems beyond dispute, and it is not difficult to recognize his hand in the important changes made in the organization of the order in the so-called Chapter of Mats. At this famous assembly, held at Porziuncola at Whitsuntide, 1220 or 1221 (there is seemingly much room for doubt as to the exact date and number of the early chapters), about 5000 friars are said to have been present, besides some 500 applicants for admission to the order. Huts of wattle and mud afforded shelter for this multitude. Francis had purposely made no provision for them, but the charity of the neighbouring towns supplied them with food, while knights and nobles waited upon them gladly. It was on this occasion that Francis, harassed no doubt and disheartened at the tendency betrayed by a large number of the friars to relax the rigours of the rule, according to the promptings of human prudence, and feeling, perhaps unfitted for a place which now called largely for organizing abilities, relinquished his position as general of the order in favour of Peter of Cattaneo. But the latter died in less than a year, being succeeded as vicar-general by the unhappy Brother Elias (see ELIAS OF CORTONA), who continued in that office until the death of Francis. The saint, meanwhile, during the few years that remained in him, sought to impress on the friars by the silent teaching of personal example of what sort he would fain have them to be. Already, while passing through Bologna on his return from the East, Francis had refused to enter the convent there because he had heard it called the “House of the Friars” and because a studium had been instituted there. He moreover bade all the friars, even those who were ill, quit it at once, and it was only some time after, when Cardinal Ugolino had publicly declared the house to be his own property, that Francis suffered his brethren to re-enter it. Yet strong and definite as the saint's convictions were, and determinedly as his line was taken, he was never a slave to a theory in regard to the observances of poverty or anything else; about him indeed, there was nothing narrow or fanatical. As for his attitude towards study, Francis desiderated for his friars only such theological knowledge as was conformable to the mission of the order, which was before all else a mission of example. Hence he regarded the accumulation of books as being at variance with the poverty his friars professed, and he resisted the eager desire for mere book-learning, so prevalent in his time, in so far as it struck at the roots of that simplicity which entered so largely into the essence of his life and ideal and threatened to stifle the spirit of prayer, which he accounted preferable to all the rest.

In 1221, so some writers tell us, Francis drew up a new rule for the Friars Minor. Others regard this so-called Rule of 1221 not as a new rule, but as the first one which Innocent had orally approved; not, indeed, its original form, which we do not possess, but with such additions and modifications as it has suffered during the course of twelve years. However this may be, the composition called by some the Rule of 1221 is very unlike any conventional rule ever made. It was too lengthy and unprecise to become a formal rule, and two years later Francis retired to Fonte Colombo, a hermitage near Rieti, and rewrote the rule in more compendious form. This revised draft he entrusted to Brother Elias, who not long after declared he had lost it through negligence. Francis thereupon returned to the solitude of Fonte Colombo, and recast the rule on the same lines as before, its twenty-three chapters being reduced to twelve and some of its precepts being modified in certain details at the instance of Cardinal Ugolino. In this form the rule was solemnly approved by Honorius III, 29 November, 1223 (Litt. “Solet annuere”). This Second Rule, as it is usually called or Regula Bullata of the Friars Minor, is the one ever since professed throughout the First Order of St. Francis (see FRANCIS, RULE OF SAINT). It is based on the three vows of obedience, poverty, and chastity, special stress however being laid on poverty, which Francis sought to make the special characteristic of his order, and which became the sign to be contradicted. This vow of absolute poverty in the first and second orders and the reconciliation of the religious with the secular state in the Third Order of Penance are the chief novelties introduced by Francis in monastic regulation.

It was during Christmastide of this year (1223) that the saint conceived the idea of celebrating the Nativity “in a new manner”, by reproducing in a church at Greccio the praesepio of Bethlehem, and he has thus come to be regarded as having inaugurated the population devotion of the Crib. Christmas appears indeed to have been the favourite feast of Francis, and he wished to persuade the emperor to make a special law that men should then provide well for the birds and the beasts, as well as for the poor, so that all might have occasion to rejoice in the Lord.

Early in August, 1224, Francis retired with three companions to “that rugged rock 'twixt Tiber and Arno”, as Dante called La Verna, there to keep a forty days fast in preparation for Michaelmas. During this retreat the sufferings of Christ became more than ever the burden of his meditations; into few souls, perhaps, had the full meaning of the Passion so deeply entered. It was on or about the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (14 September) while praying on the mountainside, that he beheld the marvellous vision of the seraph, as a sequel of which there appeared on his body the visible marks of the five wounds of the Crucified which, says an early writer, had long since been impressed upon his heart. Brother Leo, who was with St. Francis when he received the stigmata, has left us in his note to the saint's autograph blessing, preserved at Assisi, a clear and simple account of the miracle, which for the rest is better attested than many another historical fact. The saint's right side is described as bearing on open wound which looked as if made by a lance, while through his hands and feet were black nails of flesh, the points of which were bent backward. After the reception of the stigmata, Francis suffered increasing pains throughout his frail body, already broken by continual mortification. For, condescending as the saint always was to the weaknesses of others, he was ever so unsparing towards himself that at the last he felt constrained to ask pardon of “Brother Ass”, as he called his body, for having treated it so harshly. Worn out, moreover, as Francis now was by eighteen years of unremitting toil, his strength gave way completely, and at times his eyesight so far failed him that he was almost wholly blind. During an access of anguish, Francis paid a last visit to St. Clare at St. Damian's, and it was in a little hut of reeds, made for him in the garden there, that the saint composed that “Canticle of the Sun”, in which his poetic genius expands itself so gloriously. This was in September, 1225. Not long afterwards Francis, at the urgent instance of Brother Elias, underwent an unsuccessful operation for the eyes, at Rieti. He seems to have passed the winter 1225-26 at Siena, whither he had been taken for further medical treatment. In April, 1226, during an interval of improvement, Francis was moved to Cortona, and it is believed to have been while resting at the hermitage of the Celle there, that the saint dictated his testament, which he describes as a “reminder, a warning, and an exhortation”. In this touching document Francis, writing from the fullness of his heart, urges anew with the simple eloquence, the few, but clearly defined, principles that were to guide his followers, implicit obedience to superiors as holding the place of God, literal observance of the rule “without gloss”, especially as regards poverty, and the duty of manual labor, being solemnly enjoined on all the friars. Meanwhile alarming dropsical symptoms had developed, and it was in a dying condition that Francis set out for Assisi. A roundabout route was taken by the little caravan that escorted him, for it was feared to follow the direct road lest the saucy Perugians should attempt to carry Francis off by force so that he might die in their city, which would thus enter into possession of his coveted relics. It was therefore under a strong guard that Francis, in July, 1226, was finally borne in safety to the bishop's palace in his native city amid the enthusiastic rejoicings of the entire populace. In the early autumn Francis, feeling the hand of death upon him, was carried to his beloved Porziuncola, that he might breathe his last sigh where his vocation had been revealed to him and whence his order had struggled into sight. On the way thither he asked to be set down, and with painful effort he invoked a beautiful blessing on Assisi, which, however, his eyes could no longer discern. The saint's last days were passed at the Porziuncola in a tiny hut, near the chapel, that served as an infirmary. The arrival there about this time of the Lady Jacoba of Settesoli, who had come with her two sons and a great retinue to bid Francis farewell, caused some consternation, since women were forbidden to enter the friary. But Francis in his tender gratitude to this Roman noblewoman, made an exception in her favour, and “Brother Jacoba”, as Francis had named her on account of her fortitude, remained to the last. On the eve of his death, the saint, in imitation of his Divine Master, had bread brought to him and broken. This he distributed among those present, blessing Bernard of Quintaville, his first companion, Elias, his vicar, and all the others in order. “I have done my part,” he said next, “may Christ teach you to do yours.” Then wishing to give a last token of detachment and to show he no longer had anything in common with the world, Francis removed his poor habit and lay down on the bare ground, covered with a borrowed cloth, rejoicing that he was able to keep faith with his Lady Poverty to the end. After a while he asked to have read to him the Passion according to St. John, and then in faltering tones he himself intoned Psalm cxli. At the concluding verse, “Bring my soul out of prison”, Francis was led away from earth by “Sister Death”, in whose praise he had shortly before added a new strophe to his “Canticle of the Sun”. It was Saturday evening, 3 October, 1226, Francis being then in the forty-fifth year of his age, and the twentieth from his perfect conversion to Christ.

The saint had, in his humility, it is said, expressed a wish to be buried on the Colle d'Inferno, a despised hill without Assisi, where criminals were executed. However this may be, his body was, on 4 October, borne in triumphant procession to the city, a halt being made at St. Damian's, that St. Clare and her companions might venerate the sacred stigmata now visible to all, and it was placed provisionally in the church of St. George (now within the enclosure of the monastery of St. Clare), where the saint had learned to read and had first preached. Many miracles are recorded to have taken place at his tomb. Francis was canonized at St. George's by Gregory IX, 16 July, 1228. On that day following the pope laid the first stone of the great double church of St. Francis, erected in honour of the new saint, and thither on 25 May, 1230, Francis's remains were secretly transferred by Brother Elias and buried far down under the high altar in the lower church. Here, after lying hidden for six centuries, like that of St. Clare's, Francis's coffin was found, 12 December, 1818, as a result of a toilsome search lasting fifty-two nights. This discovery of the saint's body is commemorated in the order by a special office on 12 December, and that of his translation by another on 25 May. His feast is kept throughout the Church on 4 October, and the impression of the stigmata on his body is celebrated on 17 September.

It has been said with pardonable warmth that Francis entered into glory in his lifetime, and that he is the one saint whom all succeeding generations have agreed in canonizing. Certain it is that those also who care little about the order he founded, and who have but scant sympathy with the Church to which he ever gave his devout allegiance, even those who know that Christianity to be Divine, find themselves, instinctively as it were, looking across the ages for guidance to the wonderful Umbrian Poverello, and invoking his name in grateful remembrance. This unique position Francis doubtless owes in no small measure to his singularly lovable and winsome personality. Few saints ever exhaled “the good odour of Christ” to such a degree as he. There was about Francis, moreover, a chivalry and a poetry which gave to his other-worldliness a quite romantic charm and beauty. Other saints have seemed entirely dead to the world around them, but Francis was ever thoroughly in touch with the spirit of the age. He delighted in the songs of Provence, rejoiced in the new-born freedom of his native city, and cherished what Dante calls the pleasant sound of his dear land. And this exquisite human element in Francis's character was the key to that far-reaching, all-embracing sympathy, which may be almost called his characteristic gift. In his heart, as an old chronicler puts it, the whole world found refuge, the poor, the sick and the fallen being the objects of his solicitude in a more special manner. Heedless as Francis ever was of the world's judgments in his own regard, it was always his constant care to respect the opinions of all and to wound the feelings of none. Wherefore he admonishes the friars to use only low and mean tables, so that “if a beggar were to come to sit down near them he might believe that he was but with his equals and need not blush on account of his poverty.” One night, we are told, the friary was aroused by the cry “I am dying.” “Who are you”, exclaimed Francis arising, “and why are dying?” “I am dying of hunger”, answered the voice of one who had been too prone to fasting. Whereupon Francis had a table laid out and sat down beside the famished friar, and lest the latter might be ashamed to eat alone, ordered all the other brethren to join in the repast. Francis's devotedness in consoling the afflicted made him so condescending that he shrank not from abiding with the lepers in their loathly lazar-houses and from eating with them out of the same platter. But above all it is his dealings with the erring that reveal the truly Christian spirit of his charity. “Saintlier than any of the saint”, writes Celano, “among sinners he was as one of themselves”. Writing to a certain minister in the order, Francis says: “Should there be a brother anywhere in the world who has sinned, no matter how great soever his fault may be, let him not go away after he has once seen thy face without showing pity towards him; and if he seek not mercy, ask him if he does not desire it. And by this I will know if you love God and me.” Again, to medieval notions of justice the evil-doer was beyond the law and there was no need to keep faith with him. But according to Francis, not only was justice due even to evil-doers, but justice must be preceded by courtesy as by a herald. Courtesy, indeed, in the saint's quaint concept, was the younger sister of charity and one of the qualities of God Himself, Who “of His courtesy”, he declares, “gives His sun and His rain to the just and the unjust”. This habit of courtesy Francis ever sought to enjoin on his disciples. “Whoever may come to us”, he writes, “whether a friend or a foe, a thief or a robber, let him be kindly received”, and the feast which he spread for the starving brigands in the forest at Monte Casale sufficed to show that “as he taught so he wrought”. The very animals found in Francis a tender friend and protector; thus we find him pleading with the people of Gubbio to feed the fierce wolf that had ravished their flocks, because through hunger “Brother Wolf” had done this wrong. And the early legends have left us many an idyllic picture of how beasts and birds alike susceptible to the charm of Francis's gentle ways, entered into loving companionship with him; how the hunted leveret sought to attract his notice; how the half-frozen bees crawled towards him in the winter to be fed; how the wild falcon fluttered around him; how the nightingale sang with him in sweetest content in the ilex grove at the Carceri, and how his “little brethren the birds” listened so devoutly to his sermon by the roadside near Bevagna that Francis chided himself for not having thought of preaching to them before. Francis's love of nature also stands out in bold relief in the world he moved in. He delighted to commune with the wild flowers, the crystal spring, and the friendly fire, and to greet the sun as it rose upon the fair Umbrian vale. In this respect, indeed, St. Francis's “gift of sympathy” seems to have been wider even than St.Paul's, for we find no evidence in the great Apostle of a love for nature or for animals.

Hardly less engaging than his boundless sense of fellow-feeling was Francis's downright sincerity and artless simplicity. “Dearly beloved,” he once began a sermon following upon a severe illness, “I have to confess to God and you that during this Lent I have eaten cakes made with lard.” And when the guardian insisted for the sake of warmth upon Francis having a fox skin sewn under his worn-out tunic, the saint consented only upon condition that another skin of the same size be sewn outside. For it was his singular study never to hide from men that which known to God. “What a man is in the sight of God,” he was wont to repeat, “so much he is and no more” — a saying which passed into the “Imitation”, and has been often quoted. Another winning trait of Francis which inspires the deepest affection was his unswerving directness of purpose and unfaltering following after an ideal. “His dearest desire so long as he lived”, Celano tells us, “was ever to seek among wise and simple, perfect and imperfect, the means to walk in the way of truth.” To Francis love was the truest of all truths; hence his deep sense of personal responsibility towards his fellows. The love of Christ and Him Crucified permeated the whole life and character of Francis, and he placed the chief hope of redemption and redress for a suffering humanity in the literal imitation of his Divine Master. The saint imitated the example of Christ as literally as it was in him to do so; barefoot, and in absolute poverty, he proclaimed the reign of love. This heroic imitation of Christ's poverty was perhaps the distinctive mark of Francis's vocation, and he was undoubtedly, as Bossuet expresses it, the most ardent, enthusiastic, and desperate lover of poverty the world has yet seen. After money Francis most detested discord and divisions. Peace, therefore, became his watchword, and the pathetic reconciliation he effected in his last days between the Bishop and Potesta of Assisi is bit one instance out of many of his power to quell the storms of passion and restore tranquility to hearts torn asunder by civil strife. The duty of a servant of God, Francis declared, was to lift up the hearts of men and move them to spiritual gladness. Hence it was not “from monastic stalls or with the careful irresponsibility of the enclosed student” that the saint and his followers addressed the people” “they dwelt among them and grappled with the evils of the system under which the people groaned”. They worked in return for their fare, doing for the lowest the most menial labour, and speaking to the poorest words of hope such as the world had not heard for many a day. In this wise Francis bridged the chasm between an aristocratic clergy and the common people, and though he taught no new doctrine, he so far repopularized the old one given on the Mount that the Gospel took on a new life and called forth a new love.

Such in briefest outline are some of the salient features which render the figure of Francis one of such supreme attraction that all manner of men feel themselves drawn towards him, with a sense of personal attachment. Few, however, of those who feel the charm of Francis's personality may follow the saint to his lonely height of rapt communion with God. For, however engaging a “minstrel of the Lord”, Francis was none the less a profound mystic in the truest sense of the word. The whole world was to him one luminous ladder, mounting upon the rungs of which he approached and beheld God. It is very misleading, however, to portray Francis as living “at a height where dogma ceases to exist”, and still further from the truth to represent the trend of his teaching as one in which orthodoxy is made subservient to “humanitarianism”. A very cursory inquiry into Francis's religious belief suffices to show that it embraced the entire catholic dogma, nothing more or less. If then the saint's sermons were on the whole moral rather than doctrinal, it was less because he preached to meet the wants of his day, and those whom he addressed had not strayed from dogmatic truth; they were still “hearers”, if not “doers”, of the Word. For this reason Francis set aside all questions more theoretical than practical, and returned to the Gospel. Again, to see in Francis only the loving friend of all God's creatures, the joyous singer of nature, is to overlook altogether that aspect of his work which is the explanation of all the rest — its supernatural side. Few lives have been more wholly imbued with the supernatural, as even Renan admits. Nowhere, perhaps, can there be found a keener insight into the innermost world of spirit, yet so closely were the supernatural and the natural blended in Francis, that his very asceticism was often clothed in the guide of romance, as witness his wooing the Lady Poverty, in a sense that almost ceased to be figurative. For Francis's singularly vivid imagination was impregnate with the imagery of the chanson de geste, and owing to his markedly dramatic tendency, he delighted in suiting his action to his thought. So, too, the saint's native turn for the picturesque led him to unite religion and nature. He found in all created things, however trivial, some reflection of the Divine perfection, and he loved to admire in them the beauty, power, wisdom, and goodness of their Creator. And so it came to pass that he saw sermons even in stones, and good in everything. Moreover, Francis's simple, childlike nature fastened on the thought, that if all are from one Father then all are real kin. Hence his custom of claiming brotherhood with all manner of animate and inanimate objects. The personification, therefore, of the elements in the “Canticle of the Sun” is something more than a mere literary figure. Francis's love of creatures was not simply the offspring of a soft or sentimental disposition; it arose rather from that deep and abiding sense of the presence of God, which underlay all he said and did. Even so, Francis's habitual cheerfulness was not that of a careless nature, or of one untouched by sorrow. None witnessed Francis's hidden struggles, his long agonies of tears, or his secret wrestlings in prayer. And if we meet him making dumb-show of music, by playing a couple of sticks like a violin to give vent to his glee, we also find him heart-sore with foreboding at the dire dissensions in the order which threatened to make shipwreck of his ideal. Nor were temptations or other weakening maladies of the soul wanting to the saint at any time. Francis's lightsomeness had its source in that entire surrender of everything present and passing, in which he had found the interior liberty of the children of God; it drew its strength from his intimate union with Jesus in the Holy Communion. The mystery of the Holy Eucharist, being an extension of the Passion, held a preponderant place in the life of Francis, and he had nothing more at heart than all that concerned the cultus of the Blessed Sacrament. Hence we not only hear of Francis conjuring the clergy to show befitting respect for everything connected with the Sacrifice of the Mass, but we also see him sweeping out poor churches, questing sacred vessels for them, and providing them with altar-breads made by himself. So great, indeed, was Francis's reverence for the priesthood, because of its relation to the Adorable Sacrament, that in his humility he never dared to aspire to that dignity. Humility was, no doubt, the saint's ruling virtue. The idol of an enthusiastic popular devotion, he ever truly believed himself less than the least. Equally admirable was Francis's prompt and docile obedience to the voice of grace within him, even in the early days of his ill-defined ambition, when the spirit of interpretation failed him. Later on, the saint, with as clear as a sense of his message as any prophet ever had, yielded ungrudging submission to what constituted ecclesiastical authority. No reformer, moreover, was ever, less aggressive than Francis. His apostolate embodied the very noblest spirit of reform; he strove to correct abuses by holding up an ideal. He stretched out his arms in yearning towards those who longed for the “better gifts”. The others he left alone.

And thus, without strife or schism, God's Poor Little Man of Assisi became the means of renewing the youth of the Church and of imitating the most potent and popular religious movement since the beginnings of Christianity. No doubt this movement had its social as well as its religious side. That the Third Order of St. Francis went far towards re-Christianizing medieval society is a matter of history. However, Francis's foremost aim was a religious one. To rekindle the love of God in the world and reanimate the life of the spirit in the hearts of men — such was his mission. But because St. Francis sought first the Kingdom of God and His justice, many other things were added unto him. And his own exquisite Franciscan spirit, as it is called, passing out into the wide world, became an abiding source of inspiration. Perhaps it savours of exaggeration to say, as has been said, that “all the threads of civilization in the subsequent centuries seem to hark back to Francis”, and that since his day “the character of the whole Roman Catholic Church is visibly Umbrian”. It would be difficult, none the less, to overestimate the effect produced by Francis upon the mind of his time, or the quickening power he wielded on the generations which have succeeded him. To mention two aspects only of his all-pervading influence, Francis must surely be reckoned among those to whom the world of art and letters is deeply indebted. Prose, as Arnold observes, could not satisfy the saint's ardent soul, so he made poetry. He was, indeed, too little versed in the laws of composition to advance far in that direction. But his was the first cry of a nascent poetry which found its highest expression in the “Divine Comedy”; wherefore Francis has been styled the precursor of Dante. What the saint did was to teach a people “accustomed to the artificial versification of courtly Latin and Provencal poets, the use of their native tongue in simple spontaneous hymns, which became even more popular with the Laudi and Cantici of his poet-follower Jacopone of Todi”. In so far, moreover, as Francis's repraesentatio, as Salimbene calls it, of the stable at Bethlehem is the first mystery-play we hear of in Italy, he is said to have borne a part in the revival of the drama. However this may be, if Francis's love of song called forth the beginnings of Italian verse, his life no less brought about the birth of Italian art. His story, says Ruskin, became a passionate tradition painted everywhere with delight. Full of colour, dramatic possibilities, and human interest, the early Franciscan legend afforded the most popular material for painters since the life of Christ. No sooner, indeed did Francis's figure make an appearance in art than it became at once a favourite subject, especially with the mystical Umbrian School. So true is this that it has been said we might by following his familiar figure “construct a history of Christian art, from the predecessors of Cimabue down to Guido Reni, Rubens, and Van Dyck”.

Probably the oldest likeness of Francis that has come down to us is that preserved in the Sacro Speco at Subiaco. It is said that it was painted by a Benedictine monk during the saint's visit there, which may have been in 1218. The absence of the stigmata, halo, and title of saint in this fresco form its chief claim to be considered a contemporary picture; it is not, however, a real portrait in the modern sense of the word, and we are dependent for the traditional presentment of Francis rather on artists' ideals, like the Della Robbia statue at the Porziuncola, which is surely the saint's vera effigies, as no Byzantine so-called portrait can ever be, and the graphic description of Francis given by Celano (Vita Prima, c.lxxxiii). Of less than middle height, we are told, and frail in form, Francis had a long yet cheerful face and soft but strong voice, small brilliant black eyes, dark brown hair, and a sparse beard. His person was in no way imposing, yet there was about the saint a delicacy, grace, and distinction which made him most attractive.

The literary materials for the history of St. Francis are more than usually copious and authentic. There are indeed few if any medieval lives more thoroughly documented. We have in the first place the saint's own writings. These are not voluminous and were never written with a view to setting forth his ideas systematically, yet they bear the stamp of his personality and are marked by the same unvarying features of his preaching. A few leading thoughts taken “from the words of the Lord” seemed to him all sufficing, and these he repeats again and again, adapting them to the needs of the different persons whom he addresses. Short, simple, and informal, Francis's writings breathe the unstudied love of the Gospel and enforce the same practical morality, while they abound in allegories and personification and reveal an intimate interweaving of Biblical phraseology. Not all the saint's writings have come down to us, and not a few of these formerly attributed to him are now with greater likelihood ascribed to others. The extant and authentic opuscula of Francis comprise, besides the rule of the Friars Minor and some fragments of the other Seraphic legislation, several letters, including one addressed “to all the Christians who dwell in the whole world,” a series of spiritual counsels addressed to his disciples, the “Laudes Creaturarum” or “Canticle of the Sun”, and some lesser praises, an Office of the Passion compiled for his own use, and few other orisons which show us Francis even as Celano saw him, “not so much a man's praying as prayer itself”. In addition to the saint's writings the sources of the history of Francis include a number of early papal bulls and some other diplomatic documents, as they are called, bearing upon his life and work. Then come the biographies properly so called. These include the lives written 1229-1247 by Thomas of Celano, one of Francis's followers; a joint narrative of his life compiled by Leo, Rufinus, and Angelus, intimate companions of the saint, in 1246; and the celebrated legend of St. Bonaventure, which appeared about 1263; besides a somewhat more polemic legend called the “Speculum Perfectionis”, attributed to Brother Leo, the sate of which is a matter of controversy. There are also several important thirteenth-century chronicles of the order, like those of Jordan, Eccleston, and Bernard of Besse, and not a few later works, such as the “Chronica XXIV. Generalium” and the “Liber de Conformitate”, which are in some sort a continuation of them. It is upon these works that all the later biographies of Francis's life are based.

Recent years have witnessed a truly remarkable upgrowth of interest in the life and work of St. Francis, more especially among non-Catholics, and Assisi has become in consequence the goal of a new race of pilgrims. This interest, for the most part literary and academic, is centered mainly in the study of the primitive documents relating to the saint's history and the beginnings of the Franciscan Order. Although inaugurated some years earlier, this movement received its greatest impulse from the publication in 1894 of Paul Sabatier's “Vie de S. Francois”, a work which was almost simultaneously crowned by the French Academy and placed upon the Index. In spite of the author's entire lack of sympathy with the saint's religious standpoint, his biography of Francis bespeaks vast erudition, deep research, and rare critical insight, and it has opened up a new era in the study of Franciscan sources. To further this study an International Society of Franciscan Studies was founded at Assisi in 1902, the aim of which is to collect a complete library of works on Franciscan history and to compile a catalogue of scattered Franciscan manuscripts; several periodicals devoted to Franciscan documents and discussions exclusively, have moreover been established in different countries. Although a large literature has grown up around the figure of the Poverello within a short time, nothing new of essential value has been added to what was already known of the saint. The energetic research work of recent years had resulted in the recovery of several important early texts, and has called forth many really fine critical studies dealing with the sources, but the most welcome feature of the modern interest in Franciscan origins has been the careful re-editing and translating of Francis's own writings and of nearly all the contemporary manuscript authorities bearing on his life. Not a few of the controverted questions connected therewith are of considerable import, even to those not especially students of the Franciscan legend, but they could not be made intelligible within the limits of the present article. It must suffice, moreover, to indicate only some of the chief works on the life of St. Francis.

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Gabriel

“Fortitudo Dei”, one of the three archangels mentioned in the Bible. Only four appearances of Gabriel are recorded:

• In Dan., viii, he explains the vision of the horned ram as portending the destruction of the Persian Empire by the Macedonian Alexander the Great, after whose death the kingdom will be divided up among his generals, from one of whom will spring Antiochus Epiphanes.
• In chapter ix, after Daniel had prayed for Israel, we read that “the man Gabriel.......flying swiftly touched me” and he communicated to him the mysterious prophecy of the “seventy weeks” of years which should elapse before the coming of Christ. In chapter x, it is not clear whether the angel is Gabriel or not, but at any rate we may apply to him the marvellous description in verses 5 and 6.
• In N.T. he foretells to Zachary the birth of the Precursor, and
• to Mary that of the Saviour.

Thus he is throughout the angel of the Incarnation and of Consolation, and so in Christian tradition Gabriel is ever the angel of mercy while Michael is rather the angel of judgment. At the same time, even in the Bible, Gabriel is, in accordance with his name, the angel of the Power of God, and it is worth while noting the frequency with which such words as “great”, “might”, “power”, and “strength” occur in the passages referred to above. The Jews indeed seem to have dwelt particularly upon this feature in Gabriel's character, and he is regarded by them as the angel of judgment, while Michael is called the angel of mercy. Thus they attribute to Gabriel the destruction of Sodom and of the host of Sennacherib, though they also regard him as the angel who buried Moses, and as the man deputed to mark the figure Tau on the foreheads of the elect (Ezech., 4). In later Jewish literature the names of angels were considered to have a peculiar efficacy, and the British Museum possesses some magic bowls inscribed with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac incantations in which the names of Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel occur. These bowls were found at Hillah, the site of Babylon, and constitute an interesting relic of the Jewish captivity. In apocryphal Christian literature the same names occur, cf. Enoch, ix, and the Apocalypse of the Blessed Virgin.

As remarked above, Gabriel is mentioned only twice in the New Testament, but it is not unreasonable to suppose with Christian tradition that it is he who appeared to St. Joseph and to the shepherds, and also that it was he who “strengthened” Our Lord in the garden (cf. the Hymn for Lauds on 24 March). Gabriel is generally termed only an archangel, but the expression used by St. Raphael, “I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord” (Tob., xii, 15) and St. Gabriel's own words, “I am Gabriel, who stand before God” (Luke 1, 19), have led some to think that these angels must belong to the highest rank; but this is generally explained as referring to their rank as the highest of God's messengers, and not as placing them among the Seraphim and Cherubim (cf. St. Thomas, I, Q. cxii, a.3; III, Q. xxx, a.2, ad 4um).

In addition to the literature under ANGEL and in the biblical dictionaries, see PUSEY, The Prophet Daniel (London, 1868); EDERSHEIM, Jesus the Messiah (London and New York, 1890), Append. XIII; H. CROSBY, Michael and Gabriel in Homiletic Review (1890), XIX, 160-162; BARDENHEWER, Mariä-Verkündigung in Bibl. Studien, X, 496 sqq.

HUGH POPE

Gallicanism

This term is used to designate a certain group of religious opinions for some time peculiar to the Church of France, or Gallican Church, and the theological schools of that country. These opinions, in opposition to the ideas which were called in France “Ultramontane”, tended chiefly to a restraint of the pope's authority in the Church in favour of that of the bishops and the temporal ruler. It is important, however, to remark at the outset that the warmest and most accredited partisans of Gallican ideas by no means contested the pope's primacy in the Church, and never claimed for their ideas the force of articles of faith. They aimed only at making it clear that their way of regarding the authority of the pope seemed to them more in conformity with Holy Scripture and tradition. At the same time, their theory did not, as they regarded it, transgress the limits of free opinions, which it is allowable for any theological school to choose for itself provided that the Catholic Creed be duly accepted.

General Notions

Nothing can better serve the purpose of presenting an exposition at once exact and complete of the Gallican ideas than a summary of the famous Declaration of the Clergy of France of 1682. Here, for the first time, those ideas are organized into a system, and receive their official and definitive formula. Stripped of the arguments which accompany it, the doctrine of the Declaration reduces to the following four articles:

1. St. Peter and the popes, his successors, and the Church itself have received dominion [puissance] from God only over things spiritual and such as concern salvation and not over things temporal and civil. Hence kings and sovereigns are not by God's command subject to any ecclesiastical dominion in things temporal; they cannot be deposed, whether directly or indirectly, by the authority of the rulers of the Church, their subjects cannot be dispensed from that submission and obedience which they owe, or absolved from the oath of allegiance.
2. The plenitude of authority in things spiritual, which belongs to the Holy See and the successors of St. Peter, in no wise affects the permanence and immovable strength of the decrees of the Council of Constance contained in the fourth and fifth sessions of that council, approved by the Holy See, confirmed by the practice of the whole Church and the Roman pontiff, and observed in all ages by the Gallican Church. That Church does not countenance the opinion of those who cast a slur on those decrees, or who lessen their force by saying that their authority is not well established, that they are not approved or that they apply only to the period of the schism.
3. The exercise of this Apostolic authority [puissance] must also be regulated in accordance with the canons made by the Spirit of God and consecrated by the respect of the whole world. The rules, customs and constitutions received within the kingdom and the Gallican Church must have their force and their effect, and the usages of our fathers remain inviolable since the dignity of the Apostolic See itself demands that the laws and customs established by consent of that august see and of the Churches be constantly maintained.
4. Although the pope have the chief part in questions of faith, and his decrees apply to all the Churches, and to each Church in particular, yet his judgment is not irreformable, at least pending the consent of the Church.

According to the Gallican theory, then, the papal primacy was limited, first, by the temporal power of princes, which, by the Divine will, was inviolable; secondly by the authority of the general council and that of the bishops, who alone could, by their assent, give to his decrees that infallible authority which, of themselves, they lacked; lastly, by the canons and customs of particular Churches, which the pope was bound to take into account when he exercised his authority.

But Gallicanism was more than pure speculation. It reacted from the domain of theory into that of facts. The bishops and magistrates of France used it, the former as warrant for increased power in the government of dioceses, the latter to extend their jurisdiction so as to cover ecclesiastical affairs. Moreover, there was an episcopal and political Gallicanism, and a parliamentary or judicial Gallicanism. The former lessened the doctrinal authority of the pope in favour of that of the bishops, to the degree marked by the Declaration of 1682; the latter, affecting the relations of the temporal and spiritual powers, tended to augment the rights of the State more and more, to the prejudice of those of the Church, on the grounds of what they called “the Liberties of the Gallican Church” (Libertes de l'Eglise Gallicane).

These Liberties, which are enumerated in a collection, or corpus, drawn up by the jurisconsults Guy Coquille and Pierre Pithou, were, according to the latter, eighty-three in number. Besides the four articles cited above, which were incorporated, the following may be noted as among the more important: The Kings of France had the right to assemble councils in their dominions, and to make laws and regulations touching ecclesiastical matters. The pope's legates could not be sent into France, or exercise their power within that kingdom, except at the king's request or with his consent. Bishops, even when commanded by the pope, could not go out of the kingdom without the king's consent. The royal officers could not be excommunicated for any act performed in the discharge of their official duties. The pope could not authorize the alienation of any landed estate of the Churches, or the diminishing of any foundations. His Bulls and Letters might not be executed without the Pareatis of the king or his officers. He could not issue dispensations to the prejudice of the laudable customs and statutes of the cathedral Churches. It was lawful to appeal from him to a future council, or to have recourse to the “appeal as from an abuse” (appel comme d'abus) against acts of the ecclesiastical power.

Parliamentary Gallicanism, therefore, was of much wider scope than episcopal; indeed, it was often disavowed by the bishops of France, and about twenty of them condemned Pierre Pithou's book when a new edition of it was published, in 1638, by the brothers Dupuy.

Origin and History

The Declaration of 1682 and the work of Pithou codified the principles of Gallicanism, but did not create them. We have to inquire, then, how there came to be formed in the bosom of the Church of France a body of doctrines and practices which tended to isolate it, and to impress upon it a physiognomy somewhat exceptional in the Catholic body. Gallicans have held that the reason of this phenomenon is to be found in the very origin and history of Gallicanism.

For the more moderate among them, Gallican ideas and liberties were simply privileges — concessions made by the popes, who had been quite willing to divest themselves of a part of their authority in favour of the bishops or kings or France. It was thus that the latter could lawfully stretch their powers in ecclesiastical matters beyond the normal limits. This idea made its appearance as early as the reign of Philip the Fair, in some of the protests of that monarch against the policy of Boniface VIII. In the view of some partisans of the theory, the popes had always thought fit to show especial consideration for the ancient customs of the Gallican Church, which in every age had distinguished itself by its exactitude in the preservation of the Faith and the maintenance of ecclesiastical discipline. Others, again, assigned a more precise date to the granting of these concessions, referring their origin to the period of the earliest Carlovingians and explaining them somewhat differently. They said that the popes had found it impossible to recall to their allegiance and to due respect for ecclesiastical discipline the Frankish lords who had possessed themselves of episcopal sees; that these lords, insensible to censures and anathemas, rude and untaught, recognized no authority but that of force; and that the popes had, therefore, granted to Carloman, Pepin, and Charles the Great a spiritual authority which they were to exercise only under papal control. It was this authority that the Kings of France, successors of these princes, had inherited. This theory comes into collision with difficulties so serious as to have caused its rejection as well by the majority of Gallicans as by their Ultramontane adversaries. The former by no means admitted that the Liberties were privileges since a privilege can be revoked by him who has granted it; and, as they regarded the matter, these Liberties could not be touched by any pope. Moreover, they added, the Kings of France have at times received from the popes certain clearly defined privileges; these privileges have never been confounded with the Gallican Liberties. As a matter of fact, historians could have told them, the privileges accorded by popes to the King of France in the course of centuries are known from the texts, of which an authentic collection could be compiled, and there is nothing in them resembling the Liberties in question. Again, why should not these Gallican Liberties have been transmitted to the German Emperors as well since they, too, were the heirs of Pepin and Charlemagne? Besides, the Ultramontanes pointed out there are some privileges which the pope himself could not grant. Is it conceivable that a pope should allow any group of bishops the privilege of calling his infallibility in question, putting his doctrinal decisions upon trial, to be accepted or rejected? — or grant any kings the privilege of placing his primacy under tutelage by suppressing or curtailing his liberty of communication with the faithful in a certain territory?

Most of its partisans regarded Gallicanism rather as a revival of the most ancient traditions of Christianity, a persistence of the common law, which law, according to some (Pithou, Quesnel), was made up of the conciliar decrees of the earliest centuries or, according to others (Marca, Bossuet), of canons of the general and local councils, and the decretals, ancient and modern, which were received in France or conformable to their usage. “Of all Christian countries”, says Fleury, “France has been the most careful to conserve the liberty of her Church and oppose the novelties introduced by Ultramontane canonists”. The Liberties were so called, because the innovations constituted conditions of servitude with which the popes had burdened the Church, and their legality resulted from the fact that the extension given by the popes to their own primacy was founded not upon Divine institution, but upon the false Decretals. If we are to credit these authors, what the Gallicans maintained in 1682 was not a collection of novelties, but a body of beliefs as old as the Church, the discipline of the first centuries. The Church of France had upheld and practised them at all times; the Church Universal had believed and practised them of old, until about the tenth century; St. Louis had supported, but not created, them by the Pragmatic Sanction; the Council of Constance had taught them with the pope's approbation. Gallican ideas, then, must have had no other origin than that of Christian dogma and ecclesiastical discipline. It is for history to tell us what these assertions of the Gallican theorists were worth.

To the similarity of the historical vicissitudes through which they passed, their common political allegiance, and the early appearance of a national sentiment, the Churches of France owed it that they very soon formed an individual, compact, and homogeneous body. From the end of the fourth century the popes themselves recognized this solidarity. It was to the “Gallican” bishops that Pope Damasus — as M. Babut seems to have demonstrated recently — addressed the most ancient decretal which has been preserved to our times. Two centuries later St. Gregory the Great pointed out the Gallican Church to his envoy Augustine, the Apostle of England, as one of those whose customs he might accept as of equal stability with those of the Roman Church or of any other whatsoever. But already — if we are to believe the young historian just mentioned — a Council of Turin, at which bishops of the Gauls assisted, had given the first manifestation of Gallican sentiment. Unfortunately for M. Babut's thesis, all the significance which he attaches to this council depends upon the date, 417, ascribed to it by him, on the mere strength of a personal conjecture, in opposition to the most competent historians. Besides, It is not at all plain how a council of the Province of Milan is to be taken as representing the ideas of the Gallican Church.

In truth, that Church, during the Merovingian period, testifies the same deference to the Holy See as do all the others. Ordinary questions of discipline are in the ordinary course settled in councils, often held with the assent of the kings, but on great occasions — at the Councils of Epaone (517), of Vaison (529), of Valence (529), of Orleans (538), of Tours (567) — the bishops do not fail to declare that they are acting under the impulse of the Holy See, or defer to its admonitions; they take pride in the approbation of the pope; they cause his name to be read aloud in the churches, just as is done in Italy and in Africa they cite his decretals as a source of ecclesiastical law; they show indignation at the mere idea that anyone should fail in consideration for them. Bishops condemned in councils — like Salonius of Embrun Sagitarius of Gap, Contumeliosus of Riez — have no difficulty in appealing to the pope, who, after examination, either confirms or rectifies the sentence pronounced against them.

The accession of the Carlovingian dynasty is marked by a splendid act of homage paid in France to the power of the papacy: before assuming the title of king, Pepin makes a point of securing the assent of Pope Zachary. Without wishing to exaggerate the significance of this act, the bearing of which the Gallicans have done every thing to minimize, one may be permitted to see in it the evidence that, even before Gregory VII, public opinion in France was not hostile to the intervention of the pope in political affairs. From that time on, the advances of the Roman primacy find no serious opponents in France before Hincmar, the famous Archbishop of Reims, in whom some have been willing to see the very founder of Gallicanism. It is true that with him there already appears the idea that the pope must limit his activity to ecclesiastical matters, and not intrude in those pertaining to the State, which concern kings only; that his supremacy is bound to respect the prescriptions of the ancient canons and the privileges of the Churches; that his decretals must not be placed upon the same footing as the canons of the councils. But it appears that we should see here the expression of passing feelings, inspired by the particular circumstances, much rather than a deliberate opinion maturely conceived and conscious of its own meaning. The proof of this is in the fact that Hincmar himself, when his claims to the metropolitan dignity are not in question, condemns very sharply, though at the risk of self-contradiction, the opinion of those who think that the king is subject only to God, and he makes it his boast to “follow the Roman Church whose teachings”, he says quoting the famous words of Innocent I, “are imposed upon all men”. His attitude, at any rate, stands out as an isolated accident; the Council of Troyes (867) proclaims that no bishop can be deposed without reference to the Holy See, and the Council of Douzy (871), although held under the influence of Hincmar condemns the Bishop of Laon only under reserve of the rights of the pope.

With the first Capets the secular relations between the pope and the Gallican Church appeared to be momentarily strained. At the Councils of Saint-Basle de Verzy (991) and of Chelles (c. 993), in the discourses of Arnoul, Bishop of Orleans, in the letters of Gerbert, afterwards Pope Sylvester II, sentiments of violent hostility to the Holy See are manifested, and an evident determination to elude the authority in matters of discipline which had until then been recognized as belonging to it. But the papacy at that period, given over to the tyranny of Crescentius and other local barons, was undergoing a melancholy obscuration. When it regained its independence, its old authority in France came back to it, the work of the Councils of Saint-Basle and of Chelles was undone; princes like Hugh Capet, bishops like Gerbert, held no attitude but that of submission. It has been said that during the early Capetian period the pope was more powerful in France than he had ever been. Under Gregory VII the pope's legates traversed France from north to south, they convoked and presided over numerous councils, and, in spite of sporadic and incoherent acts of resistance, they deposed bishops and excommunicated princes just as in Germany and Spain

In the following two centuries Gallicanism is even yet unborn; the pontifical power attains its apogee in France as elsewhere, St. Bernard, then the standard bearer of the University of Paris, and St. Thomas outline the theory of that power, and their opinion is that of the school in accepting the attitude of Gregory VII and his successors in regard to delinquent princes, St. Louis, of whom it has been sought to make a patron of the Gallican system, is still ignorant of it — for the fact is now established that the Pragmatic Sanction, long attributed to him was a wholesale fabrication put together (about 1445) in the purlieus of the Royal Chancellery of Charles VII to lend countenance to the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges.

At the opening of the fourteenth century, however, the conflict between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII brings out the first glimmerings of the Gallican ideas. That king does not confine himself to maintaining that, as sovereign he is sole and independent master of his temporalities; he haughtily proclaims that, in virtue of the concession made by the pope, with the assent of a general council to Charlemagne and his successors, he has the right to dispose of vacant ecclesiastical benefices. With the consent of the nobility, the Third Estate, and a great part of the clergy, he appeals in the matter from Boniface VIII to a future general council — the implication being that the council is superior to the pope. The same ideas and others still more hostile to the Holy See reappear in the struggle of Fratricelles and Louis of Bavaria against John XXII; they are expressed by the pens of William Occam, of John of Jandun, and of Marsilius of Padua, professors in the University of Paris. Among other things, they deny the Divine origin of the papal primacy, and subject the exercise of it to the good pleasure of the temporal ruler. Following the pope, the University of Paris condemned these views; but for all that they did not entirely disappear from the memory, or from the disputations, of the schools, for the principal work of Marsilius, “Defensor Pacis”, wax translated into French in 1375, probably by a professor of the University of Paris The Great Schism reawakened them suddenly. The idea of a council naturally suggested itself as a means of terminating that melancholy rending asunder of Christendom. Upon that idea was soon grafted the “conciliary theory”, which sets the council above the pope, making it the sole representative of the Church, the sole organ of infallibility. Timidly sketched by two professors of the University of Paris, Conrad of Gelnhausen and Henry of Langenstein, this theory was completed and noisily interpreted to the public by Pierre d'Ailly and Gerson. At the same time the clergy of France, disgusted with Benedict XIII, took upon itself to withdraw from his obedience. It was in the assembly which voted on this measure (1398) that for the first time there was any question of bringing back the Church of France to its ancient liberties and customs — of giving its prelates once more the right of conferring and disposing of benefices. The same idea comes into the foreground in the claims put, forward in 1406 by another assembly of the French clergy; to win the votes of the assembly, certain orators cited the example of what was happening in England. M. Haller has concluded from this that these so-called Ancient Liberties were of English origin, that the Gallican Church really borrowed them from its neighbour, only imagining them to be a revival of its own past. This opinion does not seem well founded. The precedents cited by M. Haller go back to the parliament held at Carlisle in 1307, at which date the tendencies of reaction against papa reservations had already manifested themselves in the assemblies convoked by Philip the Fair in 1302 and 1303. The most that we can admit is, that the same ideas received parallel development from both sides of the channel.

Together with the restoration of the “Ancient Liberties” the assembly of the clergy in 1406 intended to maintain the superiority of the council to the pope, and the fallibility of the latter. However widely they may have been accepted at the time, these were only individual opinions or opinions of a school, when the Council of Constance came to give them the sanction of its high authority. In its fourth and fifth sessions it declared that the council represented the Church that every person, no matter of what dignity, even the pope, was bound to obey it in what concerned the extirpation of the schism and the reform of the Church; that even the pope, if he resisted obstinately, might be constrained by process of law to obey It in the above-mentioned points. This was the birth or, if we prefer to call it so, the legitimation of Gallicanism. So far we bad encountered in the history of the Gallican Church recriminations of malcontent bishops, or a violent gesture of some prince discomforted in his avaricious designs; but these were only fits of resentment or ill humor, accidents with no attendant consequences; this time the provisions made against exercise of the pontifical authority took to themselves a body and found a fulcrum. Gallicanism has implanted itself in the minds of men as a national doctrine e and it only remains to apply it in practice. This is to be the work of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges. In that instrument the clergy of France inserted the articles of Constance repeated at Basle, and upon that warrant assumed authority to regulate the collation of benefices and the temporal administration of the Churches on the sole basis of the common law, under the king's patronage, and independently of the pope's action. From Eugene IV to Leo X the popes did not cease to protest against the Pragmatic Sanction, until it was replaced by the Concordat of 1516. But, if its provisions disappeared from the laws of France, the principles it embodied for a time none the less continued to inspire the schools of theology and parliamentary jurisprudence. Those principles even appeared at the Council of Trent, where the ambassadors, theologians, and bishops of France repeatedly championed them, notably when the questions for decision were as to whether episcopal jurisdiction comes immediately from God or through the pope, whether or not the council ought to ask confirmation of its decrees from the sovereign pontiff, etc. Then again, it was in the name of the Liberties of the Gallican Church that a part of the clergy and the Parlementaires opposed the publication of that same council; and the crown decided to detach from it and publish what seemed good, in the form of ordinances emanating from the royal authority.

Nevertheless, towards the end of the sixteenth century, the reaction against the Protestant denial of all authority to the pope and, above all, the triumph of the League had enfeebled Gallican convictions in the minds of the clergy, if not of the parliament. But the assassination of Henry IV, which was exploited to move public opinion against Ultramontanism and the activity of Edmond Richer, syndic of the Sorbonne, brought about, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, a strong revival of Gallicanism, which was thenceforward to continue gaining in strength from day to day. In 1663 the Sorbonne solemnly declared that it admitted no authority of the pope over the king's temporal dominion, nor his superiority to a general council, nor infallibility apart from the Church's consent. In 1682 matters were much worse. Louis XIV having decided to extend to all the Churches of his kingdom the regale, or right of receiving the revenue of vacant sees, and of conferring the sees themselves at his pleasure, Pope Innocent XI strongly opposed the king's designs. Irritated by this resistance, the king assembled the clergy of France and, on 19 March, 1682, the thirty-six prelates and thirty-four deputies of the second order who constituted that assembly adopted the four articles recited above and transmitted them to all the other bishops and archbishops of France. Three days later the king commanded the registration of the articles in all the schools and faculties of theology; no one could even be admitted to degrees in theology without having maintained this doctrine in one of his theses and it was forbidden to write anything against them. The Sorbonne, however, yielded to the ordinance of registration only after a spirited resistance. Pope Innocent XI testified his displeasure by the Rescript of 11 April, 1682, in which he voided and annulled all that the assembly had done in regard to the regale, as well as all the consequences of that action; he also refused Bulls to all members of the assembly who were proposed for vacant bishoprics. In like manner his successor Alexander VIII by a Constitution dated 4 August, 1690, quashed as detrimental to the Holy See the proceedings both in the matter of the regale and in that of the declaration on the ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction, which had been prejudicial to the clerical estate and order. The bishops designate to whom Bulls had been refused received them at length, in 1693, only after addressing to Pope Innocent XII a letter in which they disavowed everything that had been decreed in that assembly in regard to the ecclesiastical power and the pontifical authority. The king himself wrote to the pope (14 September, 1693) to announce that a royal order had been issued against the execution of the edict of 23 March, 1682. In spite of these disavowals, the Declaration of 1682 remained thenceforward the living symbol of Gallicanism, professed by the great majority of the French clergy, obligatorily defended in the faculties of theology, schools, and seminaries, guarded from the lukewarmness of French theologians and the attacks of foreigners by the inquisitorial vigilance of the French parliaments, which never failed to condemn to suppression every work that seemed hostile to the principles of the Declaration.

From France Gallicanism spread, about the middle of the eighteenth century, into the Low Countries, thanks to the works of the jurisconsult Van-Espen. Under the pseudonym of Febronius, Hontheim introduced it into Germany where it took the forms of Febronianism and Josephism. The Council of Pistoia (1786) even tried to acclimatize it in Italy. But its diffusion was sharply arrested by the Revolution, which took away its chief support by overturning the thrones of kings. Against the Revolution that drove them out and wrecked their sees, nothing was left to the bishops of France but to link themselves closely with the Holy See. After the Concordat of 1801 — itself the most dazzling manifestation of the pope's supreme power — French Governments made some pretence of reviving, in the Organic Articles, the “Ancient Gallican Liberties” and the obligation of teaching the articles of 1682, but ecclesiastical Gallicanism was never again resuscitated except in the form of a vague mistrust of Rome. On the fall of Napoleon and the Bourbons, the work of Lamennais, of “L'Avenir” and other publications devoted to Roman ideas, the influence of Dom Guéranger, and the effects of religious teaching ever increasingly deprived it of its partisans. When the Vatican Council opened, in 1869, it had in France only timid defenders. When that council declared that the pope has in the Church the plenitude of jurisdiction in matters of faith, morals discipline, and administration that his decisions ex cathedra. are of themselves, and without the assent of he Church, infallible and irreformable, it dealt Gallicanism a mortal blow. Three of the four articles were directly condemned. As to the remaining one, the first, the council made no specific declaration; but an important indication of the Catholic doctrine was given in the condemnation fulminated by Pius IX against the 24th proposition of the Syllabus, in which it was asserted that the Church cannot have recourse to force and is without any temporal authority, direct or indirect. Leo XIII shed more direct light upon the question in his Encyclical “Immortale Dei” (12 November, 1885), where we read: “God has apportioned the government of the human race between two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the former set over things divine, the latter over things human. Each is restricted within limits which are perfectly determined and defined in conformity with its own nature and special aim. There is therefore, as it were a circumscribed sphere in which each exercises its functions jure proprio”. And in the Encyclical “Sapientiae Christianae” (10 January, 1890), the same pontiff adds: “The Church and the State have each its own power, and neither of the two powers is subject to the other.”

Stricken to death, as a free opinion, by the Council of the Vatican, Gallicanism could survive only as a heresy; the Old Catholics have endeavoured to keep it alive under this form. Judging by the paucity of the adherents whom they have recruited — daily becoming fewer — in Germany and Switzerland, it seems very evident that the historical evolution of these ideas has reached its completion.

Critical Examination

The principal force of Gallicanism always was that which it drew from the external circumstances in which it arose and grew up: the difficulties of the Church, torn by schism; the encroachments of the civil authorities; political turmoil; the interested support of the kings of France. None the less does it seek to establish its own right to exist, and to legitimize its attitude towards the theories of the schools. There is no denying that it has had in its service a long succession of theologians and jurists who did much to assure its success. At the beginning, its first advocates were Pierre d'Ailly and Gerson, whose somewhat daring theories, reflecting the then prevalent disorder of ideas, were to triumph in the Council of Constance. In the sixteenth century Almain and Major make but a poor figure in contrast with Torquemada and Cajetan, the leading theorists of pontifical primacy. But in the seventeenth century the Gallican doctrine takes its revenge with Richer and Launoy, who throw as much passion as science into their efforts to shake the work of Bellarmine, the most solid edifice ever raised in defence of the Church's constitution and the papal supremacy. Pithou, Dupuy, and Marca edited texts or disinterred from archives the judicial monuments best calculated to support parliamentary Gallicanism. After 1682 the attack and defence of Gallicanism were concentrated almost entirely upon the four Articles. While Charlas in his anonymous treatise on the Liberties of the Catholic Church, d'Aguirre, in his “Auctoritas infallibilis et summa sancti Petri”, Rocaberti, in his treatise “De Romani pontificis auctoritate”, Sfondrato, in his “Gallia vindicata”, dealt severe blows at the doctrine of the Declaration, Alexander Natalis and Ellies Dupin searched ecclesiastical history for titles on which to support it. Bossuet carried on the defence at once on the ground of theology and of history. In his “Defensio declarationis”, which was not to see the light of day until 1730, he discharged his task with equal scientific power and moderation. Again Gallicanism was ably combatted in the works of Muzzarelli, Bianchi, and Ballerini, and upheld in those of Durand de Maillane, La Luzerne, Maret and Doellinger. But the strife is prolonged beyond its interest; except for the bearing of some few arguments on either side, nothing that is altogether new, after all, is adduced for or against, and it may be said that with Bossuet's work Gallicanism had reached its full development, sustained its sharpest assaults, and exhibited its most efficient means of defence.

Those means are well known. For the absolute independence of the civil power, affirmed in the first Article, Gallicans drew their argument from the proposition that the theory of indirect power, accepted by Bellarmine, is easily reducible to that of direct power, which he did not accept. That theory was a novelty introduced into the Church by Gregory VII; until his time the Christian peoples and the popes had suffered injustice from princes without asserting for themselves the right to revolt or to excommunicate. As for the superiority of councils over popes, as based upon the decrees of the Council of Constance, the Gallicans essayed to defend it chiefly by appealing to the testimony of history which, according to them, shows that general councils have never been dependent on the popes, but had been considered the highest authority for the settlement of doctrinal disputes or the establishment of disciplinary regulations. The third Article was supported by the same arguments or upon the declarations of the popes. It is true that that Article made respect for the canons a matter rather of high propriety than of obligation for the Holy See. Besides, the canons alleged were among those that had been established with the consent of the pope and of the Churches, the plenitude of the pontifical jurisdiction was therefore safeguarded and Bossuet pointed out that this article had called forth hardly any protests from the adversaries of Gallicanism. It was not so with the fourth Article, which implied a negation of papal infallibility. Resting chiefly on history, the whole Gallican argument reduced to the position that the Doctors of the Church — St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, St. Basil, St. Thomas, and the rest — had not known pontifical infallibility; that pronouncements emanating from the Holy See had been submitted to examination by councils; that popes — Liberius, Honorius, Zosimus, and others — had promulgated erroneous dogmatic decisions. Only the line of popes, the Apostolic See, was infallible; but each pope, taken individually, was liable to error.

This is not the place to discuss the force of this line of argument, or set forth the replies which it elicited; such an enquiry will more appropriately form part of the article devoted to the primacy of the Roman See. Without involving ourselves in technical developments, however, we may call attention to the weakness, of the Scriptural scaffolding upon which Gallicanism supported its fabric. Not only was it opposed by the luminous clearness of Christ's words — “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church”; “I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not . . . confirm thy brethren” — but it finds nothing in Scripture which could warrant the doctrine of the supremacy of council or the distinction between the line of popes and the individuals — the Sedes and the Sedens. Supposing there were any doubt of Christ's having promised infallibility to Peter, it is perfectly certain that He did not promise it to the council, or to the See of Rome, neither of which is named in the Gospel.

The pretension implied in Gallicanism — that only the schools and the churches of France possessed the truth as to the pope's authority, that they had been better able than any others to defend themselves against the encroachments of Rome — was insulting to the sovereign pontiff and invidious to the other churches. It does not belong to one part of the Church to decide what council is oecumenical, and what is not. By what right was this honour refused in France to the Councils of Florence (1439) and the Lateran (1513), and accorded to that of Constance? Why, above all, should we attribute to the decision of this council, which was only a temporary expedient to escape from a deadlock, the force of a general principle, a dogmatic decree? And moreover, at the time when these decisions were taken, the council presented neither the character, nor the conditions, nor the authority of a general synod; it is not clear that among the majority of the members there was present any intention of formulating a dogmatic definition, nor is it proved that the approbation given by Martin V to some of the decrees extended to these. Another characteristic which is apt to diminish one's respect for Gallican ideas is their appearance of having been too much influenced, originally and evolutionally, by interested motives. Suggested by theologians who were under bonds to the emperors, accepted as an expedient to restore the unity of the Church, they had never been more loudly proclaimed than in the course of the conflicts which arose between popes and kings, and then always for the advantage of the latter. In truth they savoured too much of a courtly bias. “The Gallican Liberties”, Joseph de Maistre has said, “are but a fatal compact signed by the Church of France, in virtue of which she submitted to the outrages of the Parliament on condition of being allowed to pass them on to the sovereign pontiff”. The history of the assembly of 1682 is not such as to give the lie to this severe judgment. It was a Gallican — no other than Baillet — who wrote: “The bishops who served Philip the Fair were upright in heart and seemed to be actuated by a genuine, if somewhat too vehement, zeal for the rights of the Crown; whereas among those whose advice Louis XIV followed there were some who, under pretext of the public welfare, only sought to avenge themselves, by oblique and devious methods, on those whom they regarded as the censors of their conduct and their sentiments.”

Even apart from every other consideration, the practical consequences to which Gallicanism led, and the way in which the State turned it to account should suffice to wean Catholics from it forever. It was Gallicanism which allowed the Jansenists condemned by popes to elude their sentences on the plea that these had not received the assent of the whole episcopate. It was in the name of Gallicanism that the kings of France impeded the publication of the pope's instructions, and forbade the bishops to hold provincial councils or to write against Jansenism — or at any rate, to publish charges without endorsement of the chancellor. Bossuet himself, prevented from publishing a charge against Richard Simon, was forced to complain that they wished “to put all the bishops under the yoke in the essential matter of their ministry, which is the Faith”. Alleging the Liberties of the Gallican Church, the French Parliaments admitted appels comme d'abus against bishops who were guilty of condemning Jansenism, or of admitting into their Breviaries the Office of St. Gregory, sanctioned by Rome; and on the same general principle they caused pastoral letters to be burned by the common executioner, or condemned to imprisonment or exile priests whose only crime was that of refusing the sacraments and Christian burial to Jansenists in revolt against the most solemn pronouncements of the Holy See. Thanks to these “Liberties”, the jurisdiction and the discipline of the Church were almost entirely in the hands of the civil power, and Fenelon gave a fair idea of them when he wrote in one of his letters: “In practice the king is more our head than the pope, in France — Liberties against the pope, servitude in relation to the king — The king's authority over the Church devolves upon the lay judges — The laity dominate the bishops”. And Fenelon had not seen the Constituent Assembly of 1790 assume, from Gallican principles, authority to demolish completely the Constitution of the Church of France. For there is not one article of that melancholy Constitution that did not find its inspiration in the writings of Gallican jurists and theologians. We may be excused the task of here entering into any lengthy proof of this; indeed the responsibility which Gallicanism has to bear in the sight of history and of Catholic doctrine is already only too heavy.

A. DEGERT

Gideon

Gideon or Gedeon (Hebrew “hewer”), also called JEROBAAL (Judges, vi, 32; vii, 1; etc.), and JERUBESHETH (II Kings, xi, 21, in the Hebrew text), was one of the Greater Judges of Israel. He belonged to the tribe of Manasses, and to the family of Abiezer (Judges, vi, 34). Gideon's father was Joas, and lived in Ephra (Judges, vi,11). The following is in substance the account of Gideon's judgeship as related in Judges, vi-viii: Israel, having forsaken Yahweh's worship, had been for seven years exceedingly humbled by the incursions of the Madianites and of other Eastern tribes. At length, they turned to God who sent them a deliverer in the person of Gideon. In a first theophany, granted him by day while he was threshing wheat, Gideon received the difficult mission of freeing his people; whereupon he built an altar to the Lord (Judges, vi, 24). In a second theophany during the following night, he was directed to destroy the village-altar to Baal, and to erect one to Yahweh. This he did with the result that the people clamoured for his death to avenge his insult to their false god. Joas, however, saved his son's life by the witty taunt, which secured for the latter the name of Jerobaal: “Let Baal revenge himself!” (vi, 25-32). Thus divinely commissioned, Gideon naturally took the lead against Madian, and Amalec, and other Eastern tribes who had crossed the Jordan, and encamped in the valley of Jezrael. Comforted by the famous signs of the fleece (vi, 36-40), and accompanied by warriors from Manasses, Aser, Zabulon, and Nephthali, he took up his position not far from the enemy. But it was God's intervention to show that it was His power which delivered Israel, and hence He reduced Gideon's army from 32,000 to 300 (vii, 1-8). According to a divine direction, the Hebrew commander paid a night visit to the enemy's camp and overheard the telling of a dream which prompted him to act at once, certain of victory (vii, 9-15). He then supplied his men with trumpets and with torches enclosed in jars, which, after his example, they broke, crying out: “The sword of Yahweh and Gideon.” Panic-stricken at the sudden attack, Israel's enemies turned their arms against one another, and broke up in flight towards the fords of the Jordan (vii, 16-23). But, summoned by Gideon, the Ephraimites cut off the Madianites at the fords, and captured and slew two of their princes, Oreb and Zeb, whose heads they sent to the Hebrew leader, rebuking him at the same time for not having called earlier upon their assistance. Gideon appeased them by an Eastern proverb, and pursued the enemy beyond the Jordan river (vii, 24; viii, 3). Passing by Soccoth and Phanuel, he met with their refusal of provisions for his fainting soldiers, and threatened both places with vengeance on his return (viii, 4-9). At length, he overtook and defeated the enemies of Israel, captured their kings, Zebee and Salmana, returned in triumph, punishing the men of Soccoth and Phanuel on his way, and finally put to death Zebee and Salmana (viii, 10-21). Grateful for this glorious deliverance, Gideon's countrymen offered him the dignity of an hereditary king, which he declined with these noble words: “I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you, but Yahweh shall rule over you” (viii, 22-23). He nevertheless asked and obtained from his soldiers the golden rings and other ornaments which they had taken from the enemy; and out of this spoil he made what seems to have soon become an object of idolatrous worship in Israel. Gideon's peaceful judgeship lasted forty years. He had seventy sons, and “died in a good old age, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father in Ephra” (viii, 24-32). His victory is alluded to in Isaias, x, 26, and in Ps. lxxxii, 12 (Heb., lxxxiii, 11), where the four kings mentioned in Judges, vii, viii, are distinctly named- a fact which shows that, at the time when this psalm was composed, the narrative of Gideon's exploits was commonly known in its present form. The various literary features exhibited by the text of Judges, vi-viii, have been minutely examined and differently appreciated by recent scholars. Several commentators look upon these features- such for instance as the two names, Gideon and Jerobaal; the two theophanies bearing on Gideon's call; the apparently twofold narrative of Gideon's pursuit of the routed enemies, etc.- as proving conclusively the composite origin of the sacred record of Gideon's judgeship. Others, on the contrary, see their way to reconcile all such features of the text with the literary unity of Judges, vi-viii. However this may be, one thing remains perfectly sure, to wit, that whatever may be the documents which have been utilized in framing the narrative of Gideon's exploits, they agree substantially in their description of the words and deeds of this Greater Judge of Israel.

Catholic commentaries on the book of Judges by CLAIR (Paris, 1880); VON HUMMELAUER (Paris, 1888); LAGRANGE (Paris, 1903); Non-Catholic by MOORE (New York, 1895); BUDDE (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1897); NOWACK (Göttingen, 1900).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Shrine of Guadalupe

Guadalupe is strictly the name of a picture, but was extended to the church containing the picture and to the town that grew up around. The word is Spanish Arabic, but in Mexico it may represent certain Aztec sounds. The place styled Guadalupe Hidalgo since 1822, as in our 1848 treaty is three miles north east of Mexico City. Pilgrimages have been made to this shrine almost uninterruptedly since 1531-32. In the latter year there was a shrine at the foot of Tepeyac Hill which served for ninety years, and still, in part, forms the parochial sacristy. In 1622 a rich shrine was erected; a newer one, much richer, in 1709. Other structures of the eighteenth century connected with it are a parish church, a convent and church for Capuchin nuns, a well chapel, and a hill chapel. About 1750 the shrine got the title of collegiate, a canonry and choir service being established. It was aggregated to St. John Lateran in 1754; and finally, in 1904 it was created a basilica. The presiding ecclesiastic is called abbot. The greatest recent change in the shrine itself has been its complete interior renovation in gorgeous Byzantine, presenting a striking illustration of Guadalupan history.

The picture really constitutes Guadalupe. It makes the shrine: it occasions the devotion. It is taken as representing the Immaculate Conception, being the lone figure of the woman with the sun, moon, and star accompaniments of the great apocalyptic sign, and in addition a supporting angel under the crescent. Its tradition is, as the new Breviary lessons declare, “long-standing anding and constant”. Oral and written, Indian and Spanish, the account is unwavering. To a neophyte, fifty five years old, named Juan Diego, who was hurrying down Tepeyac hill to hear Mass in Mexico City, on Saturday, 9 December, 1531, the Blessed Virgin appeared and sent him to Bishop Zumárraga to have a temple built where she stood. She was at the same place that evening and Sunday evening to get the bishop's answer. He had not immediately believed the messenger; having cross-questioned him and had him watched, he finally bade him ask a sign of the lady who said she was the mother of the true God. The neophyte agreed so readily to ask any sign desired, that the bishop was impressed and left the sign to the apparition. Juan was occupied all Monday with Bernardino, an uncle, who seemed dying of fever. Indian specifics failed; so at daybreak on Tuesday, 12 December, the grieved nephew was running to the St. James's convent for a priest. To avoid the apparition and untimely message to the bishop, he slipped round where the well chapel now stands. But the Blessed Virgin crossed down to meet him and said: “What road is this thou takest son?” A tender dialogue ensued. Reassuring Juan about his uncle whom at that instant she cured, appearing to him also and calling herself Holy Mary of Guadalupe she bade him go again to the bishop. Without hesitating he joyously asked the sign. She told him to go up to the rocks and gather roses. He knew it was neither the time nor the place for roses, but he went and found them. Gathering many into the lap of his tilma a long cloak or wrapper used by Mexican Indians he came back. The Holy Mother, rearranging the roses, bade him keep them untouched and unseen till he reached the bishop. Having got to the presence of Zumárraga, Juan offered the sign. As he unfolded his cloak the roses fell out, and he was startled to see the bishop and his attendants kneeling before him: the life size figure of the Virgin Mother, just as he had described her, was glowing on the poor tilma. A great mural decoration in the renovated basilica commemorates the scene. The picture was venerated, guarded in the bishop's chapel, and soon after carried processionally to the preliminary shrine.

The coarsely woven stuff which bears the picture is as thin and open as poor sacking. It is made of vegetable fibre, probably maguey. It consists of two strips, about seventy inches long by eighteen wide, held together by weak stitching. The seam is visible up the middle of the figure, turning aside from the face. Painters have not understood the laying on of the colours. They have deposed that the “canvas” was not only unfit but unprepared; and they have marvelled at apparent oil, water, distemper, etc. colouring in the same figure. They are left in equal admiration by the flower like tints and the abundant gold. They and other artists find the proportions perfect for a maiden of fifteen. The figure and the attitude are of one advancing. There is flight and rest in the eager supporting angel. The chief colours are deep gold in the rays and stars, blue green in the mantle, and rose in the flowered tunic. Sworn evidence was given at various commissions of inquiry corroborating the traditional account of the miraculous origin and influence of the picture. Some wills connected with Juan Diego and his contemporaries were accepted as documentary evidence. Vouchers were given for the existence of Bishop Zumárraga's letter to his Franciscan brethren in Spain concerning the apparitions. His successor, Montufar, instituted a canonical inquiry, in 1556, on a sermon in which the pastors and people were abused for crowing to the new shrine. In 1568 the renowned historian Bernal Díaz, a companion of Cortez, refers incidentally to Guadalupe and its daily miracles. The lay viceroy, Enríquez, while not opposing the devotion, wrote in 1575 to Philip II asking him to prevent the third archbishop from erecting a parish and monastery at the shrine; inaugural pilgrimages were usually made to it by viceroys and other chief magistrates. Processes, national and ecclesiastical, were laboriously formulated and attested for presentation at Rome, in 1663, 1666, 1723, 1750.

The clergy, secular and regular, has been remarkably faithful to the devotion towards Our Lady of Guadalupe, the bishops especially fostering it, even to the extent of making a protestation of faith in the miracle a matter of occasional obligation. The present pontiff is the nineteenth pope to favour the shrine and its tradition. Benedict XIV and Leo XIII were its two strongest supporters. The former pope decreed that Our Lady of Guadalupe should be the national patron, and made 12 December a holiday of obligation with an octave, and ordered a special Mass and Office; the latter approved a complete historical second Nocturne, ordered the picture to be crowned in his name, and composed a poetical inscription for it. Pius X has recently permitted Mexican priests to say the Mass of Holy Mary of Guadalupe on the twelfth day of every month and granted indulgences which may be gained in any part of the world for prayer before a copy of the picture. A miraculous Roman copy for which Pius IX ordered a chapel is annually celebrated among the “Prodigia” of 9 July.

G. LEE

Habor

[Heb. habhor; Sept. 'ABwr: IV Kings (II), xvii, 6, 'ABiwr: IV Kings, xviii, 11; XaBwr: I Chronicles 5:26].

A river of Mesopotamia in Asiatic Turkey, an important eastern affluent of the Euphrates. It still bears the name of Habur. It rises in Mt. Masius (the present Karaja Dagh), some fifty miles north of Resaina (Ras el-'Ain, “the head of the spring”), flows south/southwest, imparting great fertility to its banks in its winding way through the midst of the desert, and falls into the Euphrates at Karkisiya (the ancient Carchemish) after a course, to a great extent navigable, of about two hundred miles. The most important tributary of the Habor is the Jeruyer, or ancient Mygdonius, which flows into it after passing Nisibis and Thubida. In IV Kings, xvii, 6; xviii, 11, the Habor is called “the river of Gozan” (the modern Kaushan), on account of the district of that name which it waters and which is now covered with mounds, the actual remains of Assyrian towns. The river Habor is distinctly named in the cuneiform inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser I (about 1120-1110 B.C.), and, of Asshurnasir-pal (885-860 B.C.), and it seems from the expressions used by the last-named monarch that the river then emptied itself into the Euphrates through several mouths. In I Chronicles v, 26, it is stated that Phul, also called Thelgathphalnasar (Tiglathpileser III), carried away the exiles of the Transjordanic tribes of Israel into the district of the Habor. It is in the same land that according to IV Kings, xvii, 3-6; xviii, 9-11, Salmanasar IV—and perhaps Sargon, his immediate successor—settled the captives—of Northern Israel.

The Habor of IV Kings and I Chronicles must not be identified with the Chobar (Heb. Kebhar) which is repeatedly mentioned by the prophet Ezechiel (i, 1, 3; iii, 15, 23, etc.), and which was a large navigable canal, east of the Tigris, near Nippur. The Greek historian Procopius (6th cent. after Christ) says that the Chaboras (the classical name of the Habor) formed the limit of the Roman Empire. When the Spanish rabbi Benjamin of Tudela visited (A.D. 1163) the mouth of the Habor, he found near by some two hundred Jews who may have in part been the descendants of the ancient captives of the Assyrian kings. At the present day, the plain of the Habor is a favourite camping ground for wandering Bedouins.

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Henry VIII

King of England, born 28 June, 1491; died 28 January, 1547. He was the second son and third child of his father, Henry VII. His elder brother Arthur died in April, 1502, and consequently Henry became heir to the throne when he was not yet quite eleven years old. It has been asserted that Henry's interest in theological questions was due to the bias of his early education, since he had at first been destined by his father for the Church. But a child of eleven can hardly have formed lifelong intellectual tastes, and it is certain that secular titles, such as those of Earl Marshal and Viceroy of Ireland, were heaped upon him when he was five. On the other hand there can be no question as to the boy's great precocity and as to the liberal scope of the studies which he was made to pursue from his earliest years. After Arthur's death a project was at once formed of marrying him to his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon, who, being born in December, 1485, was more than five years his senior. The negotiations for a papal dispensation took some little time, and the Spanish Queen Isabella, the mother of Catherine, then nearing her end, grew very impatient. Hence a hastily drafted Brief containing the required dispensation was privately sent to Spain in 1504, to be followed some months later by a Bull to the same effect which was of a more public character. The existence of these two instruments afterwards caused complications. Owing, however, to some political scheming of Henry VII, who was trying to outwit his rival Ferdinand, Prince Henry, on attaining the age of fourteen, was made to record a formal protest against the proposed marriage with Catherine, as a matter arranged without his consent. Still, when his father died in 1509, Henry carried out the marriage nine weeks after his accession, he being then eighteen, and showing from the first a thorough determination to be his own master. Great popularity was won for the new reign by the attainder and execution of Empson and Dudley, the instruments of the late king's extortion. Besides this, it is unanimously attested by contemporaries that the young sovereign possessed every gift of mind and person which could arouse the enthusiasm of his people. His skill in manly sports was almost equalled by his intelligence and his devotion to letters. Of the complicated foreign policy which marked the beginning of his reign no detail can be given here. Thanks partly to Henry's personality, but still more to the ability of Wolsey, who soon took the first place in the council chamber, England for the first time became a European power. In 1512 Henry joined Pope Julius II, Ferdinand of Spain, and the Venetians in forming the “Holy League” against the King of France. Julius was feverishly bent on chasing the “barbarians” (i.e. the French and other foreigners) out of Italy, and Henry cooperated by collecting ships and soldiers to attack the French king in his own dominions. No very conspicuous success attended his arms, but there was a victory at Guinegate outside Therouanne, and the Scotch, who, as the allies of France, had threatened invasion, were disastrously defeated at Flodden in 1513. During all this time Henry remained on excellent terms with the Holy See. In April, 1510, Julius sent him the golden rose, and in 1514 Leo X bestowed the honorific cap and sword, which were presented with much solemnity at St. Paul's.

The League having been broken up by the selfish policy of Ferdinand, Henry VIII now made peace with France and for some years held the balance of power on the Continent, though not without parting with a good deal of money. Wolsey was made a cardinal in 1515 and exercised more influence than ever, but it was somewhat against his advice that Henry, in 1519, secretly became a candidate for the succession to the empire, though pretending at the same time to support the candidature of Francis, his ally. When, however, Charles V was successful, the French king could not afford to quarrel with Henry, and a somewhat hollow and insincere renewal of their friendship took place in June, 1520, at the famous “Field of the Cloth of Gold”, when the most elaborate courtesies were exchanged between the two monarchs. The prospect of this rapprochement had so alarmed the Emperor Charles that, a month before it took place, he visited Henry in England. In point of fact a continuous game of intrigue was being played by all three monarchs, which lasted until the period when Henry's final breach with Rome led him to turn his principal attention to domestic concerns. Meanwhile the strength of Henry's position at home had been much developed by Wolsey's judicious diplomacy, and, despite the costliness of some of England's demonstrations against France, before the French king became the emperor's prisoner at Pavia, the odium of the demand for money fell upon the minister, while Henry retained all his popularity. Indeed, whatever disaffection might be felt, the people had no leader to make rebellion possible. The old nobility, partly as a result of the Wars of the Roses, and partly owing to the repressive policy dictated by the dynastic fears of Henry VII, had been reduced to impotence. In 1521 the most prominent noble in England, the Duke of Buckingham, was condemned to death for high treason by a subservient House of Peers, simply because the king suspected him of aiming at the succession and had determined that he must die. At the same period Henry's prestige in the eyes of the clergy, and not the clergy only, was strengthened by his famous book, the “Assertio Septem Sacramentorum”. This book was written against Luther and in vindication of the Church's dogmmatic teaching regarding the sacraments and the Sacrifice of the Mass, while the supremacy of the papacy is also insisted upon in unequivocal terms. There is no reason to doubt that the substance of the book was really Henry's. Pope Leo X was highly pleased with it and conferred upon the king the title of Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith), which is maintained to this day as part of the royal style of the English Crown. All this success and adulation were calculated to develop the natural masterfulness of Henry's character. He had long shown to discerning eyes, like those of Sir Thomas More, that he would contradiction in nothing. Without being guilty of notable profligacy in comparison with the other monarchs of his time, it is doubtful if Henry's married life had ever been pure, even from the first, and we know that in 1519 he had, by Elizabeth Blount, a son whom, at the age of six, he made the Duke of Richmond. He had also carried on an intrigue with Mary Boleyn which led to some complications at a later date.

Such was Henry when, probably about the beginning of the year 1527, he formed a violent passion for Mary's younger sister, Anne. It is possible that the idea of the divorce had suggested itself to the king much earlier than this (see Brown, “Venetian Calendars”, II, 479), and it is highly probable that it was motivated by the desire of male issue, of which he had been disappointed by the death in infancy of all Catherine's children save Mary. Anne Boleyn was restrained by no moral scruples, but she saw her opportunity in Henry's infatuation and determined that she would only yield as his acknowledged queen. Anyway, it soon became the one absorbing object of the king's desires to secure a divorce from Catherine, and in the pursuit of this he condescended to the most unworthy means. He had it put about that the Bishop of Tarbes, when negotiating an alliance in behalf of the French king, had raised a doubt as to the Princess Mary's legitimacy. He also prompted Wolsey, as legate, to hold with Archbishop Warham a private and collusive inquiry, summoning Henry to prove before them that his marriage was valid. The only result was to give Catherine an inkling of what was in the king's mind, and to elicit from her a solemn declaration that the marriage had never been consummated. From this it followed that there had never been any impediment of “affinity” to bar her union with Henry, but only the much more easily dispensed impediment known as publicae honestatis. The best canonists of the time also held that a papal dispensation which formally removed the impediment of affinity also involved by implication that of publicae honestatis, or “public decency”. The collective suit was thereupon dropped, and Henry now set his hopes upon a direct appeal to the Holy See, acting in this independently of Wolsey, to whom he at first communicated nothing of his design so far as it related to Anne. William Knight, the king' secretary, was sent to Pope Clement VII (q.v.) to sue for the declaration of nullity of his union with Catherine, on the ground that the dispensing Bull of Julius II was obreptitious - i.e. obtained by false pretences. Henry also petitioned, in the event of his becoming free, a dispensation to contract a new marriage with any woman even in the first degree of affinity, whether the affinity was contracted by lawful or unlawful connexion. This clearly had reference to Anne Boleyn, and the fictitious nature of Henry's conscientious scruples about his marriage is betrayed by the fact that he himself was now applying for a dispensation of precisely the same nature as that which he scrupled about, a dispensation which he later on maintained the pope had no power to grant.

As the pope was at that time the prisoner of Charles V, Knight had some difficulty in obtaining access to him. In the end the king's envoy had to return without accomplishing much, though the (conditional) dispensation for a new marriage was readily accorded. Henry had now no choice but to put his great matter into the hands of Wolsey, and Wolsey, although the whole divorce policy ran counter to his better judgment, strained every nerve to secure a decision in his master's favour. An account of the mission of Gardiner and Foxe and of the failure of the divorce proceedings before the papal commissioners, Wolsey and Campeggio, mainly on account of the production of the Brief, has been given in some detail in the article CLEMENT VII, to which the reader is referred. The revocation of the cause to Rome in July, 1529, owing, no doubt, in part to Queen Catherine's most reasonable protests against her helplessness in England and the compulsion to which she was subjected, had many important results. First among these we must count the disgrace and fall of Wolsey, hitherto the only real check upon Henry's wilfulness. The incredible meanness of the praemunire, and consequent confiscation, which the cardinal was pronounced to have incurred for obtaining the cardinalate and legateship from Rome - though of course this had been done with the king's full knowledge and consent - would alone suffice to stamp Henry as one of the basest of mankind. But, secondly, we may trace to this same crisis the rise of both Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell, the two great architects of Henry's new policy. It was Cranmer who, in the autumn of 1529, made the momentous suggestion that the king should consult the universities of Europe upon the question of the nullity of his marriage, a suggestion which at once brought its author into favour.

The project was carried out as soon as possible with a lavish expenditure of bribes, and the use of other means of pressure. The result was naturally highly favourable to the king's wishes, though the universities which lay within the dominions of Charles V were not consulted. The answers were submitted to Parliament, where the king still kept the pretense of having no personal interest in the matter. He professed to be suffering from scruples of conscience, now rendered more acute by such a weight of learned opinion. With the same astuteness he persuaded the leading nobility of the kingdom to write to the pope praying him to give sentence in Henry's favour for fear that worse might follow. All this drew the king into closer relations with Cranmer, who was made ambassador to the emperor, and who, a year or two afterwards, despite the fact that he had just married Osiander's niece (his second wife), was summoned home to become Archbishop of Canterbury. The necessary Bulls and the pallium were obtained from Rome under threat that the law (referred to again below) for the abolition of annates and first-fruits would be made permanent. The vacillating Clement - who probably hoped that by making every other kind of concession he might be able to maintain the position he had assumed upon the more vital question of the divorce - conceded Bulls and pallium. But to benefit by them it was necessary that Cranmer should take certain prescribed oaths of obedience to the Holy See. He took the oaths, but committed to writing a solemn protest that he considered the oaths in no way binding in conscience, a procedure which even so prejudiced a historian as Mr. H.A.Fisher cannot refrain from describing as a “signal dishonesty”. “If”, asks Dr. Lingard, “it be simony to purchase spiritual office by money, what is it to purchase the same by perjury?” The father of the new Church of England, and future compiler of its liturgy, was not entering upon his functions under very propitious auspices.

But the Church which was soon to be brought into being probably owes even more to Thomas Cromwell than to its first archbishop. It is Cromwell who seems to have suggested to Henry as a deliberate policy that he should abolish the imperium in imperio, throw off the papal supremacy, and make himself the supreme head of his own religion. This was in fact the course which from the latter part of 1529 Henry undeviatingly followed, though he did not at first go to lengths from which there was no retreat. The first blow was struck at the clergy by involving them in Wolsey's praemunire. Some anti-clerical disaffection there had always been, partly, no doubt, the remnants of Lollardy, as was instanced in the case of Richard Hunne, 1515. This, of late years, had been a good deal aggravated by the importation into England of Tyndale's annotated New Testament and other books of heretical tendency, which, though prohibited and burnt by authority, still made their way among the people. Henry and his ministers had, therefore, some popular support upon which they could fall back, if necessary, in their campaign to reduce the clergy to abject submission. At the beginning of 1531 the Convocation of Canterbury were informed that they could purchase a pardon for the praemunire they had incurred by presenting the king with the enormous sum of 100,000 pounds. Further, they were bidden to recognize the king as “Protector and Supreme Head of the Church of England”. Convocation struggled desperately against the demand, and in the end succeeded in inserting the qualification “so far as is allowed by the law of Christ”. But this was only a brief respite. A year later Parliament under pressure passed an edict forbidding the payment to the Holy See of Annates (q.v.) or first-fruits, but the operation of it was for the present suspended at the sovereign's pleasure, and the king was meanwhile solicited to come to an amicable understanding with “His Holiness” on the subject of the divorce. The measure amounted to a decently veiled threat to withdraw this source of income from the Holy See altogether if the divorce was refused. Still the pope held out, and so did the queen. Only a little timme before, a deputation of lords and bishops - of course by the king's order - had visited Catherine and had rudely urged her to withdraw the appeal in virtue of which the king, contrary to his dignity, had been cited to appear personally at Rome; but though deprived of all counsel, she stood firm. In the May of 1532 further pressure was brought to bear upon Convocation, and resulted in the so-called “Submission of the Clergy”, by which they practically renounced all right of legislation except in dependence upon the king.

An honest man like Sir Thomas More could no longer pretend to work with the Government, and he resigned the chancellorship, which he had held since the fall of Wolsey. The situation was too strained to last, and the end came through the death of Archbishop Warham in August, 1532. In the appointment of Cranmer as his successor, the king knew that he had secured a subservient tool who desired nothing better than to see the papal authority overthrown. Anne Boleyn was then enceinte, and the king, relying, no doubt, on what Cranmer when consecrated would be ready to do for him, went through a form of marriage with her on 25 January, 1533. On 15 April Cranmer received consecration. On 23 May, Parliament having meanwhile forbidden all appeals to Rome, Cranmer pronounced Henry's former marriage invalid. On 28 May he declared the marriage with Anne valid. On 1 June Anne was crowned, and on 7 September she gave birth to a daughter, the future Queen Elizabeth. Clement, who had previously sent to Henry more than one monition upon his desertion of Catherine, issued a Bull of excommunication on 11 July, declaring, also, his divorce and remarriage null. In England Catherine was deprived of her title of Queen, and Mary her daughter was treated as a bastard. Much sympathy was aroused among the populace, to meet which severe measures were taken against the more conspicuous of the disaffected, particularly the “Nun of Kent”, who claimed to have had revelations of God's displeasure at the recent course of events.

In the course of the next year the breach with Rome was completed. Parliament did all that was required of it. Annates, Peter's Pence, and other payments to Rome were finally abolished. An Act of Succession entailed the crown on the children of Anne Boleyn, and an oath was drawn up to be exacted of every person of lawful age. It was the refusal to take this oath, the preamble of which declared Henry's marriage with Catherine null from the beginning, which sent More and Fisher to the Tower, and eventually to the block. A certain number of Carthusian monks, Brigittines, and Observant Franciscans imitated their firmness and shared their fate. All these have been beatified in modern times by Pope Leo XIII. There were, however, but a handful who were thus true to their convictions. Declarations were obtained from the clergy in both provinces “that the Bishop of Rome hath no greater jurisdiction conferred upon him by God in this kingdom of England than any other foreign bishop”, while Parliament, in November, declared the king “Supreme Head of the Church of England”, and shortly afterwards Cromwell, a layman, was appointed vicar-general to rule the English Church in the king's name. Though the people were cowed, these measures were not carried out without much disaffection, and, to stamp out any overt expression of this, Cromwell and his master now embarked upon a veritable reign of terror. The martyrs already referred to were most of them brought to the scaffold in the course of 1535, but fourteen Dutch Anabaptists also suffered death by burning in the same year. There followed a visitation of the monasteries, unscrupulous instruments like Layton, Legh, and Price being appointed for the purpose. They played, of course, into the king's hand and compiled comperta abounding in charges of disgraceful immorality, which Abbot Gasquet has shown, to the satisfaction of such sober authorities as Dr. Gairdner and Dr. Jessopp, to be at least grossly exaggerated. In pursuance of the same policy Parliament, in February, 1536, acting under great pressure, voted to the king the property of all religious houses with less than 200 pounds a year of annual income, recommending that the inmates should be transferred to the larger houses where “religion happily was right well observed”. The dissolution, when carried out, produced much popular resentment, especially in Lincolnshire and the northern counties. Eventually, in the autumn of 1536, the people banded together in a very formidable insurrection known as the Pilgrimage of Grace. The insurgents rallied under the device of the Five Wounds, and they were only induced to disperse by the deceitful promises of Henry's representative, the Duke of Norfolk. The suppression of the larger monasteries rapidly followed, and with these were swept away numberless shrines, statues, and objects of pious veneration, on the pretext that these were purely superstitious. It is easy to see that the lust of plunder was the motive which prompted this wholesale confiscation.

Meanwhile, Henry, though taking advantage of the spirit of religious innovation now rife among the people whenever it suited his purpose, remained still attached t the sacramental system in which he had been brought up. In 1539 the Statute of the Six Articles enforced, under the severest penalties, such doctrines as transubstantiation, Communion under one kind, auricular confession, and the celibacy of the clergy. Under this act offenders were sent to the stake for their Protestantism just as ruthlessly as the aged Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, was attainted by Parliament and eventually beheaded, simply because Henry was irritated by the denunciations of her son Cardinal Pole. Neither was the king less cruel towards those who were nearest to him. Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, his second and fifth wives, perished on the scaffold, but their whilom lord only paraded his indifference regarding the fate to which he had condemned them. On 30 July, 1540, of six victims who were dragged to Smithfield, three were Reformers burnt for heretical doctrine, and the other three Catholics, hanged and quartered for denying the king's supremacy. Of all the numerous miserable beings whom Henry sent to execution, Cromwell, perhaps, is the only one who fully deserved his fate. Looking at the last fifteen years of Henry's life, it is hard to find one single feature which does not evoke repulsion, and the attempts made by some writers to whitewash his misdeeds only give proof of the extraordinary prejudice with which they approach the subject. Henry's cruelties continued to the last, and so likewise did his inconsistencies. One of the last measures of confiscation of his reign was an act of suppression of chantries, but Henry by his last will and testament established what were practically chantries to have Masses said for his own soul.

HERBERT THURSTON

Heresy

I. Connotation and Definition
II. Distinctions
III. Degrees of heresy
IV. Gravity of the sin of heresy
V. Origin, spread, and persistence of heresy
VI. Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers on heresy
VII. Vindication of their teaching
VIII. Church legislation on heresy: ancient, medieval, present-day legislation
IX. Its principles
X. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over heretics
XI. Reception of converts
XII. Role of heresy in history
XIII. Intolerance and cruelty

I. CONNOTATION AND DEFINITION

The term heresy connotes, etymologically, both a choice and the thing chosen, the meaning being, however, narrowed to the selection of religious or political doctrines, adhesion to parties in Church or State. Josephus applies the name (airesis) to the three religious sects prevalent in Judea since the Machabean period: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes (Bel. Jud., II, viii, 1; Ant., XIII, v, 9). St. Paul is described to the Roman governor Felix as the leader of the heresy (aireseos) of the Nazarenes (Acts, xxiv, 5); the Jews in Rome say to the same Apostle: “Concerning this sect [airesoeos], we know that it is everywhere contradicted” (Acts, xxviii, 22). St. Justin (Dial., xviii, 108) uses airesis in the same sense. St. Peter (II, ii, 1) applies the term to Christian sects: “There shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition [aireseis apoleias]”. In later Greek, philosophers' schools, as well as religious sects, are “heresies”.

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. “The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are,therefore,two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness—free choice—is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”.

Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions. Considering that the human intellect can assent only to truth, real or apparent, studied pertinacity, as distinct from wanton opposition, supposes a firm subjective conviction which may be sufficient to inform the conscience and create “good faith”. Such firm convictions result either from circumstances over which the heretic has no control or from intellectual delinquencies in themselves more or less voluntary and imputable. A man born and nurtured in heretical surroundings may live and die without ever having a doubt as to the truth of his creed. On the other hand a born Catholic may allow himself to drift into whirls of anti-Catholic thought from which no doctrinal authority can rescue him, and where his mind becomes incrusted with convictions, or considerations sufficiently powerful to overlay his Catholic conscience. It is not for man, but for Him who searcheth the reins and heart, to sit in judgment on the guilt which attaches to an heretical conscience.

II. DISTINCTIONS

Heresy differs from apostasy (q. v.). The apostate a fide abandons wholly the faith of Christ either by embracing Judaism, Islamism, Paganism, or simply by falling into naturalism and complete neglect of religion; the heretic always retains faith in Christ. Heresy also differs from schism. Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. Heresy is opposed to faith; schism to charity; so that, although all heretics are schismatics because loss of faith involves separation from the Church, not all schismatics are necessarily heretics, since a man may, from anger, pride, ambition, or the like, sever himself from the communion of the Church and yet believe all the Church proposes for our belief (II-II, Q. xxix, a. 1). Such a one, however, would be more properly called rebellious than heretical.

III. DEGREES OF HERESY

Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens ; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy (see CENSURES, THEOLOGICAL).

IV. GRAVITY OF THE SIN OF HERESY

Heresy is a sin because of its nature it is destructive of the virtue of Christian faith. Its malice is to be measured therefore by the excellence of the good gift of which it deprives the soul. Now faith is the most precious possession of man, the root of his supernatural life, the pledge of his eternal salvation. Privation of faith is therefore the greatest evil, and deliberate rejection of faith is the greatest sin. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 3) arrives at the same conclusion thus: “All sin is an aversion from God. A sin, therefore, is the greater the more it separates man from God. But infidelity does this more than any other sin, for the infidel (unbeliever) is without the true knowledge of God: his false knowledge does not bring him help, for what he opines is not God: manifestly, then, the sin of unbelief (infidelitas ) is the greatest sin in the whole range of perversity.” And he adds: “Although the Gentiles err in more things than the Jews, and although the Jews are farther removed from true faith than heretics, yet the unbelief of the Jews is a more grievous sin than that of the Gentiles, because they corrupt the Gospel itself after having adopted and professed the same. . . . It is a more serious sin not to perform what one has promised than not to perform what one has not promised.” It cannot be pleaded in attenuation of the guilt of heresy that heretics do not deny the faith which to them appears necessary to salvation, but only such articles as they consider not to belong to the original deposit. In answer it suffices to remark that two of the most evident truths of the depositum fidei are the unity of the Church and the institution of a teaching authority to maintain that unity. That unity exists in the Catholic Church, and is preserved by the function of her teaching body: these are two facts which anyone can verify for himself. In the constitution of the Church there is no room for private judgment sorting essentials from non-essentials: any such selection disturbs the unity, and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church; it strikes at the very source of faith. The guilt of heresy is measured not so much by its subject-matter as by its formal principle, which is the same in all heresies: revolt against a Divinely constituted authority.

V. ORIGIN, SPREAD, AND PERSISTENCE OF HERESY

(a) Origin of Heresy

The origin, the spread, and the persistence of heresy are due to different causes and influenced by many external circumstances. The undoing of faith infused and fostered by God Himself is possible on account of the human element in it, namely man's free will. The will determines the act of faith freely because its moral dispositions move it to obey God, whilst the non-cogency of the motives of credibility allows it to withhold its consent and leaves room for doubt and even denial. The non-cogency of the motives of credibility may arise from three causes: the obscurity of the Divine testimony (inevidentia attestantis ); the obscurity of the contents of Revelation; the opposition between the obligations imposed on us by faith and the evil inclinations of our corrupt nature. To find out how a man's free will is led to withdraw from the faith once professed, the best way is observation of historical cases. Pius X, scrutinizing the causes of Modernism, says: “The proximate cause is, without any doubt, an error of the mind. The remoter causes are two: curiosity and pride. Curiosity, unless wisely held in bounds, is of itself sufficient to account for all errors. . . . But far more effective in obscuring the mind and leading it into error is pride, which has, as it were, its home in Modernist doctrines. Through pride the Modernists overestimate themselves. . . . We are not like other men . . . they reject all submission to authority . . . they pose as reformers. If from moral causes we pass to the intellectual, the first and most powerful is ignorance . . . . They extol modern philosophy . . . . completely ignoring the philosophy of the Schools and thus depriving themselves of the means of clearing away the confusion of their ideas and of meeting sophisms. Their system, replete with so many errors, had its origin in the wedding of false philosophy with faith” (Encycl. “Pascendi”, 8 September, 1907).

So far the pope. If now we turn to the Modernist leaders for an account of their defections, we find none attributing it to pride or arrogance, but they are almost unanimous in allowing that curiosity—the desire to know how the old faith stands in relation to the new science—has been the motive power behind them. In the last instance, they appeal to the sacred voice of their individual conscience which forbids them outwardly to profess what inwardly they honestly hold to be untrue. Loisy, to whose case the Decree “Lamentabili” applies, tells his readers that he was brought to his present position “by his studies chiefly devoted to the history of the Bible, of Christian origins and of comparative religion”. Tyrrell says in self-defence: “It is the irresistible facts concerning the origin and composition of the Old and New Testaments; concerning the origin of the Christian Church, of its hierarchy, its institutions, its dogmas; concerning the gradual development of the papacy; concerning the history of religion in general—that create a difficulty against which the synthesis of scholastic theology must be and is already shattered to pieces.” “I am able to put my finger on the exact point or moment in my experience from which my 'immanentism' took its rise. In his 'Rules for the discernment of Spirits' . . . Ignatius of Loyola says . . . etc.” It is psychologically interesting to note the turning-point or rather the breaking-point of faith in the autobiographies of seceders from the Church. A study of the personal narratives in “Roads to Rome” and “Roads from Rome” leaves one with the impression that the heart of man is a sanctuary impenetrable to all but to God and, in a certain measure, to its owner. It is, therefore, advisable to leave individuals to themselves and to study the spread of heresy, or the origin of heretical societies.

(b) Spread of Heresy

The growth of heresy, like the growth of plants, depends on surrounding influences, even more than on its vital force. Philosophies, religious ideals and aspirations, social and economic conditions, are brought into contact with revealed truth, and from the impact result both new affirmations and new negations of the traditional doctrine. The first requisite for success is a forceful man, not necessarily of great intellect and learning, but of strong will and daring action. Such were the men who in all ages have given their names to new sects. The second requisite is accommodation of the new doctrine to the contemporary mentality, to social and political conditions. The last, but by no means the least, is the support of secular rulers. A strong man in touch with his time, and supported by material force, may deform the existing religion and build up a new heretical sect. Modernism fails to combine into a body separate from the Church because it lacks an acknowledged leader, because it appeals to only a small minority of contemporary minds, namely, to a small number who are dissatisfied with the Church as she now is, and because no secular power lends it support. For the same reason, and proportionately, a thousand small sects have failed, whose names still encumber the pages of church history, but whose tenets interest only a few students, and whose adherents are nowhere. Such were, in the Apostolic Age, the Judeo-Christians, Judeo-Gnostics, Nicolaites, Docetae, Cerinthians, Ebionites, Nazarenes, followed, in the next two centuries, by a variety of Syrian and Alexandrian Gnostics, by Ophites, Marcionites, Encratites, Montanists, Manichaeans, and others. All the early Eastern sects fed on the fanciful speculations so dear to the Eastern mind, but, lacking the support of temporal power, they disappeared under the anathemas of the guardians of the depositum fidei.

Arianism (q. v.) is the first heresy that gained a strong footing in the Church and seriously endangered its very nature and existence. Arius appeared on the scene when theologians were endeavouring to harmonize the apparently contradictory doctrines of the unity of God and the Divinity of Christ. Instead of unravelling the knot, he simply cut it by bluntly asserting that Christ was not God like the Father, but a creature made in time. The simplicity of the solution, the ostentatious zeal of Arius for the defence of the “one God”, his mode of life, his learning and dialectic ability won many to his side. “In particular he was supported by the famous Eusebius of Nicomedia who had great influence on the Emperor Constantine. He had friends among the other bishops of Asia and even among the bishops, priests, and nuns of the Alexandrian province. He gained the favour of Constantia, the emperor's sister, and he disseminated his doctrine among the people by means of his notorious book which he called thaleia or 'Entertainment' and by songs adapted for sailors, millers, and travellers.” (Addis and Arnold, “A Catholic Dictionary”, 7th ed., 1905, 54.) The Council of Nicaea anathematized the heresiarch, but its anathemas, like all the efforts of the Catholic bishops, were nullified by interference of the civil power. Constantine and his sister protected Arius and the Arians, and the next emperor, Constantius, assured the triumph of the heresy: the Catholics were reduced to silence by dire persecution. At once an internecine conflict began within the Arian pale, for heresy, lacking the internal cohesive element of authority, can only be held together by coercion either from friend or foe. Sects sprang up rapidly: they are known as Eunomians, Anomoeans, Exucontians, Semi-Arians, Acacians. The Emperor Valens (364-378) lent his powerful support to the Arians, and the peace of the Church was only secured when the orthodox Emperor Theodosius reversed the policy of his predecessors and sided with Rome. Within the boundaries of the Roman empire the faith of Nicaea, enforced again by the General Council of Constantinople (381), prevailed, but Arianism held its own for over two hundred years longer wherever the Arian Goths held sway: in Thrace, Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul. The conversion of King Recared of Spain, who began to reign in 586, marked the end of Arianism in his dominions, and the triumph of the Catholic Franks sealed the doom of Arianism everywhere.

Pelagianism, not being backed by political power, was without much difficulty removed from the Church. Eutychianism, Nestorianism, and other Christological heresies which followed one upon another as the link, of a chain, flourished only so long and so far as the temporal power of Byzantine and Persian rulers gave them countenance. Internal dissension, stagnation, and decay became their fate when left to themselves. Passing over the great schism that rent East from West, and the many smaller heresies which sprang up in the Middle Ages without leaving a deep impression on the Church, we arrive at the modern sects which date from Luther and go by the collective name of Protestantism (q. v.). The three elements of success possessed by Arianism reappear in Lutheranism and cause these two great religious upheavals to move on almost parallel lines. Luther was eminently a man of his people: the rough-hewn, but, withal sterling, qualities of the Saxon peasant lived forth under his religious habit and doctor's gown; his winning voice, his piety, his learning raised him above his fellows yet did not estrange him from the people: his conviviality, the crudities in his conversation and preaching, his many human weaknesses only increased his popularity. When the Dominican John Tetzel began to preach in Germany the indulgences proclaimed by Pope Leo X for those who contributed to the completion of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, opposition arose on the part of the people and of both civil and ecclesiastical authorities. Luther set the match to the fuel of widespread discontent. He at once gained a number of adherents powerful both in Church and State; the Bishop of Würzburg recommended him to the protection of the Elector Frederick of Saxony. In all probability Luther started on his crusade with the laudable intention of reforming undoubted abuses. But his unexpected success, his impetuous temper, perhaps some ambition, soon carried him beyond all bounds set by the Church. By 1521, that is within four years from his attack on abuse of indulgences, he had propagated a new doctrine; the Bible was the only source of faith; human nature was wholly corrupted by original sin, man was not free, God was responsible for all human actions good and bad; faith alone saved; the Christian priesthood was not confined to the hierarchy but included all the faithful. The masses of the people were not slow in drawing from these doctrines the practical conclusion that sin was sin no longer, was, in fact, equal to a good work.

With his appeal to the lower instincts of human nature went an equally strong appeal to the spirit of nationality and greed. He endeavored to set the German emperor against the Roman pope and generally the Teuton against the Latin; he invited the secular princes to confiscate the property of the Church. His voice was heard only too well. For the next 130 years the history of the German people is a record of religious strife, moral degradation, artistic retrogression, industrial breakdown; of civil wars, pillage, devastation, and general ruin. The Peace of 1648 established the principle: Cujus regio illius et religio ; the lord of the land shall be also lord of religion. And accordingly territorial limits became religious limits within which the inhabitant had to profess and practise the faith imposed on him by the ruler. It is worthy of remark that the geographical frontier fixed by the politicians of 1648 is still the dividing line between Catholicism and Protestantism in Germany. The English Reformation, more than any other, was the work of crafty politicians. The soil had been prepared for it by the Lollards or Wycliffites, who at the beginning of the sixteenth century were still numerous in the towns. No English Luther arose, but the unholy work was thoroughly done by kings and parliaments, by means of a series of penal laws unequalled in severity.

(c) Persistence of Heresy

We have seen how heresy originates and how it spreads; we must now answer the question why it persists, or why so many persevere in heresy. Once heresy is in possession, it tightens its grip by the thousand subtle and often unconscious influences which mould a man's life. A child is born in heretical surroundings: before it is able to think for itself its mind has been filled and fashioned by home, school, and church teachings, the authority of which it never doubted. When, at a riper age, doubts arise, the truth of Catholicism is seldom apprehended as it is. Innate prejudices, educational bias, historical distortions stand in the way and frequently make approach impossible. The state of conscience technically termed bona fides, good faith, is thus produced. It implies inculpable belief in error, a mistake morally unavoidable and therefore always excusable, sometimes even laudable. In the absence of good faith worldly interests often bar the way from heresy to truth. When a government, for instance, reserves its favours and functions for adherents of the state religion, the army of civil servants becomes a more powerful body of missionaries than the ordained ministers. Prussia, France, and Russia are cases in point.

VI. CHRIST, THE APOSTLES, AND THE FATHERS ON HERESY

Heresy, in the sense of falling away from the Faith, became possible only after the Faith had been promulgated by Christ. Its advent is clearly foretold, Matt., xxiv, 11, 23-26: “ . . . many false prophets shall rise. and shall seduce many. . . . Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall rise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not. “Christ also indicated the marks by which to know the false prophets: “Who is not with me is against me” (Luke, xi, 23); “and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matt., xviii, 17); “he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark, xvi, 16). The Apostles acted upon their Master's directions. All the weight of their own Divine faith and mission is brought to bear upon innovators. “If any one”,says St.Paul, “preach to you a gospel, besides that you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal., i, 9). To St. John the heretic is a seducer, an antichrist, a man who dissolves Christ (I John, iv, 3; II John, 7); “receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you” (II John, 10). St. Peter, true to his office and to his impetuous nature, assails them as with a two-edged sword: “ . . . lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction . . . These are fountains without water, and clouds tossed with whirlwinds, to whom the mist of darkness is reserved” (II Pet., ii, 1, 17). St. Jude speaks in a similar strain throughout his whole epistle. St. Paul admonishes the disturbers of the unity of faith at Corinth that “the weapons of our warfare . . . are mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels, and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God . . . and having in readiness to revenge all disobedience” (II Cor., x, 4, 5, 6).

What Paul did at Corinth he enjoins to be done by every bishop in his own church. Thus Timothy is instructed to “war in them a good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith. Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (I Tim., i, 18-20). He exhorts the ancients of the Church at Ephesus to “take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, . . . I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock . . . Therefore watch, . . .” (Acts, xx. 28, 29, :31). “Beware of dogs”, he writes to the Philippians (iii, 2), the dogs being the same false teachers as the “ravening wolves”. The Fathers show no more leniency to perverters of the faith. A Protestant writer thus sketches their teaching (Schaff-Herzog, s. v. Heresy): “Polycarp regarded Marcion as the first-born of the Devil. Ignatius sees in heretics poisonous plants, or animals in human form. Justin and Tertullian condemn their errors as inspirations of the Evil One; Theophilus compares them to barren and rocky islands on which ships are wrecked; and Origen says, that as pirates place lights on cliffs to allure and destroy vessels in quest of refuge, so the Prince of this world lights the fires of false knowledge in order to destroy men. [Jerome calls the congregations of the heretics synagogues of Satan (Ep. 123), and says their communion is to be avoided like that of vipers and scorpions (Ep. 130).]” These primitive views on heresy have been faithfully transmitted and acted on by the Church in subsequent ages. There is no break in the tradition from St. Peter to Pius X.

VII. VINDICATION OF THEIR TEACHING

The first law of life, be it the life of plant or animal, of man or of a society of men, is self-preservation. Neglect of self-preservation leads to ruin and destruction. But the life of a religious society, the tissue that binds its members into one body and animates them with one soul, is the symbol of faith, the creed or confession adhered to as a condition sine qua non of membership. To undo the creed is to undo the Church. The integrity of the rule of faith is more essential to the cohesion of a religious society than the strict practice of its moral precepts. For faith supplies the means of mending moral delinquencies as one of its ordinary functions, whereas the loss of faith, cutting at the root of spiritual life, is usually fatal to the soul. In fact the long list of heresiarchs contains the name of only one who came to resipiscence: Berengarius. The jealousy with which the Church guards and defends her deposit of faith is therefore identical with the instinctive duty of self-preservation and the desire to live. This instinct is by no means peculiar to the Catholic Church; being natural it is universal. All sects, denominations, confessions, schools of thought, and associations of any kind have a more or less comprehensive set of tenets on the acceptance of which membership depends. In the Catholic Church this natural law has received the sanction of Divine promulgation, as appears from the teaching of Christ and the Apostles quoted above. Freedom of thought extending to the essential beliefs of a Church is in itself a contradiction; for, by accepting membership, the members accept the essential beliefs and renounce their freedom of thought so far as these are concerned.

But what authority is to lay down the law as to what is or is not essential? It is certainly not the authority of individuals. By entering a society, whichever it be, the individual gives up part of his individuality to be merged into the community. And that part is precisely his private judgment on the essentials: if he resumes his liberty he ipso facto separates himself from his church. The decision, therefore, rests with the constitutional authority of the society—in the Church with the hierarchy acting as teacher and guardian of the faith. Nor can it be said that this principle unduly curtails the play of human reason. That it does curtail its play is a fact, but a fact grounded in natural and Divine law, as shown above. That it does not curtail reason unduly is evidenced by this other fact: that the deposit of faith (1) is itself an inexhaustible object of intellectual effort of the noblest kind, lifting human reason above its natural sphere, enlarging and deepening its outlook, soliciting its finest faculties; (2) that, side by side with the deposit, but logically connected with it, there is a multitude of doubtful points of which discussion is free within the wide bounds of charity—”in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus charitas.” The substitution of private judgment for the teaching magisterium has been the dissolvent of all sects who have adopted it. Only those sects exhibit a certain consistency in which private judgment is a dead letter and the teaching is carried on according to confessions and catechisms by a trained clergy.

VIII. CHURCH LEGISLATION ON HERESY

Heresy, being a deadly poison generated within the organism of the Church, must be ejected if she is to live and perform her task of continuing Christ's work of salvation. Her Founder, who foretold the disease, also provided the remedy: He endowed her teaching with infallibility (see CHURCH). The office of teaching belongs to the hierarchy, the ecclesia docens, which, under certain conditions, judges without appeal in matters of faith and morals (see COUNCILS). Infallible decisions can also be given by the pope teaching ex cathedra (see INFALLIBILITY). Each pastor in his parish, each bishop in his diocese, is in duty bound to keep the faith of his flock untainted; to the supreme pastor of all the Churches is given the office of feeding the whole Christian flock. The power, then, of expelling heresy is an essential factor in the constitution of the Church. Like other powers and rights, the power of rejecting heresy adapts itself in practice to circumstances of time and place, and, especially, of social and political conditions. At the beginning it worked without special organization. The ancient discipline charged the bishops with the duty of searching out the heresies in their diocese and checking the progress of error by any means at their command. When erroneous doctrines gathered volume and threatened disruption of the Church, the bishops assembled in councils, provincial, metropolitan, national, or ecumenical. There the combined weight of their authority was brought to bear upon the false doctrines. The first council was a meeting of the Apostles at Jerusalem in order to put an end to the judaizing tendencies among the first Christians. It is the type of all succeeding councils: bishops in union with the head of the Church, and guided by the Holy Ghost, sit as judges in matters of faith and morals. The spirit which animates the dealings of the Church with heresy and heretics is one of extreme severity. St. Paul writes to Titus: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment” (Tit., iii, 10-11). This early piece of legislation reproduces the still earlier teaching of Christ: “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matt., xviii, 17); it also inspires all subsequent anti-heretical legislation. The sentence on the obstinate heretic is invariably excommunication. He is separated from the company of the faithful, delivered up “to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Cor., v, 5).

When Constantine had taken upon himself the office of lay bishop, episcopus externus, and put the secular arm at the service of the Church, the laws against heretics became more and more rigorous. Under the purely ecclesiastical discipline no temporal punishment could be inflicted on the obstinate heretic, except the damage which might arise to his personal dignity through being deprived of all intercourse with his former brethren. But under the Christian emperors rigorous measures were enforced against the goods and persons of heretics. From the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. “In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons; all intercourse was forbidden to be held with them; they were deprived of all offices of profit and dignity in the civil administration, while all burdensome offices, both of the camp and of the curia, were imposed upon them; they were disqualified from disposing of their own estates by will, or of accepting estates bequeathed to them by others; they were denied the right of giving or receiving donations, of contracting, buying, and selling; pecuniary fines were imposed upon them; they were often proscribed and banished, and in many cases scourged before being sent into exile. In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome. Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime; this law was passed in 382 against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichaeans. Heretical teachers were forbidden to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately; to hold public disputations; to ordain bishops, presbyters, or any other clergy; to hold religious meetings; to build conventicles or to avail themselves of money bequeathed to them for that purpose. Slaves were allowed to inform against their heretical masters and to purchase their freedom by coming over to the Church. The children of heretical parents were denied their patrimony and inheritance unless they returned to the Catholic Church. The books of heretics were ordered to be burned.” (Vide “Codex Theodosianus”, lib. XVI, tit. 5, “De Haereticis”.)

This legislation remained in force and with even greater severity in the kingdom formed by the victorious barbarian invaders on the ruins of the Roman Empire in the West. The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake. Paul III (1542) established, and Sixtus V organized, the Roman Congregation of the Inquisition, or Holy Office, a regular court of justice for dealing with heresy and heretics (see ROMAN CONGREGATIONS). The Congregation of the Index, instituted by St. Pius V, has for its province the care of faith and morals in literature; it proceeds against printed matter very much as the Holy Office proceeds against persons (see INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS). The present pope, Pius X (1909), has decreed the establishment in every diocese of a board of censors and of a vigilance committee whose functions are to find out and report on writings and persons tainted with the heresy of Modernism (Encycl. “Pascendi”, 8 Sept., 1907). The present-day legislation against heresy has lost nothing of its ancient severity; but the penalties on heretics are now only of the spiritual order; all the punishments which require the intervention of the secular arm have fallen into abeyance. Even in countries where the cleavage between the spiritual and secular powers does not amount to hostility or complete severance, the death penalty, confiscation of goods, imprisonment, etc., are no longer inflicted on heretics. The spiritual penalties are of two kinds: latae and ferendae sententiae. The former are incurred by the mere fact of heresy, no judicial sentence being required; the latter are inflicted after trial by an ecclesiastical court, or by a bishop acting ex informata conscientia, that is, on his own certain knowledge, and dispensing with the usual procedure

The penalties (see CENSURES, ECCLESIASTICAL) latae sententiae are: (1) Excommunication specially reserved to the Roman pontiff, which is incurred by all apostates from the Catholic Faith, by each and all heretics, by whatever name they are known and to whatever sect they belong, and by all who believe in them (credentes ), receive, favour, or in any way defend them (Const. “Apostolicae Sedis”, 1869). Heretic here means formal heretic, but also includes the positive doubter, that is, the man who posits his doubt as defensible by reason, but not the negative doubter, who simply abstains from formulating a judgment. The believers (credentes ) in heretics are they who, without examining particular doctrines, give a general assent to the teachings of the sect; the favourers (fautores ) are they who by commission or omission lend support to heresy and thus help or allow it to spread; the receivers and defenders are they who shelter heretics from the rigours of the law. (2) “Excommunication specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff incurred by each and all who knowingly read, without authorization from the Apostolic See, books of apostates and heretics in which heresy is defended; likewise readers of books of any author prohibited by name in letters Apostolic, and all who retain possession of, or print, or in any way defend such books” (Apost. Sedis, 1869). The book here meant is a volume of a certain size and unity; newspapers and manuscripts are not books, but serial publications intended to form a book when completed fall under this censure. To read knowingly (scienter ) implies on the reader's part the knowledge that the book is the work of a heretic, that it defends heresy, and that it is forbidden. “Books . . . prohibited by name in letters Apostolic” are books condemned by Bulls, Briefs, or Encyclicals emanating directly from the pope; books prohibited by decrees of Roman Congregations, although the prohibition is approved by the pope, are not included. The “printers” of heretical books are the editor who gives the order and the publisher who executes it, and perhaps the proof-reader, but not the workman who performs the mechanical part of printing.

Additional penalties to be decreed by judicial sentences: Apostates and heretics are irregular, that is, debarred from receiving clerical orders or exercising lawfully the duties and rights annexed to them; they are infamous, that is, publicly noted as guilty and dishonoured. This note of infamy clings to the children and grandchildren of unrepented heretics. Heretical clerics and all who receive, defend, or favour them are ipso facto deprived of their benefices, offices, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church. Baptism received without necessity by an adult at the hands of a declared heretic renders the recipient irregular. Heresy constitutes an impedient impediment to marriage with a Catholic (mixta religio ) from which the pope dispenses or gives the bishops power to dispense (see IMPEDIMENTS). Communicatio in sacris, i. e. active participation in non-Catholic religious functions, is on the whole unlawful, but it is not so intrinsically evil that, under given circumstances, it may not be excused. Thus friends and relatives may for good reasons accompany a funeral, be present at a marriage or a baptism, without causing scandal or lending support, to the non-Catholic rites, provided no active part be taken in them: their motive is friendship, or maybe courtesy, but it nowise implies approval of the rites. Non-Catholics are admitted to all Catholic services but not to the sacraments.

IX. PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH LEGISLATION

The guiding principles in the Church's treatment of heretics are the following: Distinguishing between formal and material heretics, she applies to the former the canon, “Most firmly hold and in no way doubt that every heretic or schismatic is to have part with the Devil and his angels in the flames of eternal fire, unless before the end of his life he be incorporated with, and restored to the Catholic Church.” No one is forced to enter the Church, but having once entered it through baptism, he is bound to keep the promises he freely made. To restrain and bring back her rebellious sons the Church uses both her own spiritual power and the secular power at her command. Towards material heretics her conduct is ruled by the saying of St. Augustine: “Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal (animositas ), especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected” (P. L., XXXIII, ep. xliii, 160). Pius IX, in a letter to the bishops of Italy (10 Aug., 1863), restates this Catholic doctrine: “It is known to Us and to You that they who are in invincible ignorance concerning our religion but observe the natural law . . . and are ready to obey God and lead an honest and righteous life, can, with the help of Divine light and grace, attain to eternal life . . . for God . . . will not allow any one to be eternally punished who is not wilfully guilty” (Denzinger, “Enchir.”, n. 1529). X.

X. ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION OVER HERETICS

The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church. Their material severance, however, precludes them from the use of ecclesiastical rights, except the right of being judged according to ecclesiastical law if, by any chance, they are brought before an ecclesiastical court. They are not bound by ecclesiastical laws enacted for the spiritual well-being of its members, e. g. by the Six Commandments of the Church.

XI. RECEPTION OF CONVERTS

Converts to the Faith, before being received, should be well instructed in Catholic doctrine. The right to reconcile heretics belongs to the bishops, but is usually delegated to all priests having charge of souls. In England a special licence is required for each reconciliation, except in case of children under fourteen or of dying persons, and this licence is only granted when the priest can give a written assurance that the candidate is sufficiently instructed and otherwise prepared, and that there is some reasonable guarantee of his perseverance. The order of proceeding in a reconciliation is: first, abjuration of heresy or profession of faith; second, conditional baptism (this is given only when the heretical baptism is doubtful); third, sacramental confession and conditional absolution.

XII. ROLE OF HERESY IN HISTORY

The role of heresy in history is that of evil generally. Its roots are in corrupted human nature. It has come over the Church as predicted by her Divine Founder; it has rent asunder the bonds of charity in families, provinces, states, and nations; the sword has been drawn and pyres erected both for its defence and its repression; misery and ruin have followed in its track. The prevalence of heresy, however, does not disprove the Divinity of the Church, any more than the existence of evil disproves the existence of an all-good God. Heresy, like other evils, is permitted as a test of faith and a trial of strength in the Church militant; probably also as a punishment for other sins. The disruption and disintegration of heretical sects also furnishes a solid argument for the necessity of a strong teaching authority. The endless controversies with heretics have been indirectly the cause of most important doctrinal developments and definitions formulated in councils to the edification of the body of Christ. Thus the spurious gospels of the Gnostics prepared the way for the canon of Scripture; Patripassian, Sabellian, Arian, and Macedonian heresies drew out a clearer concept of the Trinity; the Nestorian and Eutychian errors led to definite dogmas on the nature and Person of Christ. And so down to Modernism, which has called forth a solemn assertion of the claims of the supernatural in history.

XIII. INTOLERANCE AND CRUELTY

The Church's legislation on heresy and heretics is often reproached with cruelty and intolerance. Intolerant it is: in fact its raison d'être is intolerance of doctrines subversive of the faith. But such intolerance is essential to all that is, or moves, or lives, for tolerance of destructive elements within the organism amounts to suicide. Heretical sects are subject to the same law: they live or die in the measure they apply or neglect it. The charge of cruelty is also easy to meet. All repressive measures cause suffering or inconvenience of some sort: it is their nature. But they are not therefore cruel. The father who chastises his guilty son is just and may be tender-hearted. Cruelty only comes in where the punishment exceeds the requirements of the case. Opponents say: Precisely; the rigours of the Inquisition violated all humane feelings. We answer: they offend the feelings of later ages in which there is less regard for the purity of faith; but they did not antagonize the feelings of their own time, when heresy was looked on as more malignant than treason. In proof of which it suffices to remark that the inquisitors only renounced on the guilt of the accused and then handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according to the laws framed by emperors and kings. Medieval people found no fault with the system, in fact heretics had been burned by the populace centuries before the Inquisition became a regular institution. And whenever heretics gained the upper hand, they were never slow in applying the same laws: so the Huguenots in France, the Hussites in Bohemia, the Calvinists in Geneva, the Elizabethan statesmen and the Puritans in England. Toleration came in only when faith went out; lenient measures were resorted to only where the power to apply more severe measures was wanting. The embers of the Kulturkampf in Germany still smoulder; the separation and confiscation laws and the ostracism of Catholics in France are the scandal of the day. Christ said: “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt., x, 34). The history of heresy verifies this prediction and shows, moreover, that the greater number of the victims of the sword is on the side of the faithful adherents of the one Church founded by Christ (see INQUISITION).

J. WILHELM

St. Heribert

Archbishop of Cologne; born at Worms, c. 970; died at Cologne, 16 March, 1021. His father was Duke Hugo of Worms. After receiving his education at the cathedral school of Worms, he spent some time as guest at the monastery of Gorze, after which he became provost at the cathedral of Worms. In 994 he was ordained priest; in the same year King Otto III appointed him chancellor for Italy and four yeaers later also for Germany, a position which he held until the death of Otto III on 23 January, 1002. As chancellor he was the most influential adviser of Otto III, whom he accompanied to Rome in 906 and again in 997. He was still in Italy when, in 999, he was elected Archbishop of Cologne. At Benevento he received ecclesiastical investiture and the pallium from Pope Sylvester II on 9 July, 999, and on the following Christmas Day he was consecrated at Cologne. In 1002 he was present at the death-bed of the youthful emperor at Paterno. While returning to Germany with the emperor's remains and the imperial insignia, he was held captive for some time by the future King Henry II, whose candidacy he first opposed. As soon as Henry II was elected king, on 7 June, 1002, Heribert acknowledged him as such, accompanied him to Rome in 1004, mediated between him and the House of Luxemburg, and served him faithfully in many other wys; but he never won his entire confidence until the year 1021, when the king saw his mistake and humbly begged pardon on the archbishop. Heribert founded and richly endowed the Benedictine monastery and church of Deutz, where he lies buried. He was already honoured as a saint during his lifetime. Between 1073 and 1075 he was canonized by Pope Gregory VII. His feast is celebrated on 16 March.

MICHAEL OTT

Homoousion

(Gr. homoousion - from homos, same, and ousia, essence; Lat. consubstantialem, of one essence or substance), the word used by the Council of Nicaea (325) to express the Divinity of Christ. Arius had taught that the Son, being, in the language of Philo, the Intermediator between God and the world, was not eternal, and therefore not of the Divine substance, but a creature brought forth by the free will of God. (See >ARIANISM) Homoousion was indeed used by philosophical writers to signify “of the same or similar substance”; but as the unity of the Divine nature wasn't questioned, the word carried the fuller meaning: “of one and the same substance”. However, not only is homos ambiguous; the word ousia itself was often taken as equivalent to hypostasis (person), as apparently is the case in the anathema attached to the Nicene Symbol. And therefore the affirmation of the identity of nature might be taken in the heretical sense of the Sabellians, who denied the distinction of person. It was only after many years of controversy that the two words acquired their distinct meanings, and the orthodox were able to describe the Trinity as one in ousia and three in hypostasis or persona. Previously to the Council of Nicaea, Tertullian had already used the Latin equivalent of Homoousion, conceding to Praxeas the Sabellian that the Father and the Son were unius substantiae, of one substance, but adding duarum personarum, of two persons (Adv. Prax., xiii). And Dionysius of Alexandria used the actual word in a letter to Dionysius of Rome (Athan., “De dec. Syn. Nic.”, xxv, 26) and again in his letter to Paul of Samosata. On the other hand, Origen, who is, however, inconsistent in his vocabulary, expressed the anti-Sabellian sense of Dionysius of Alexandria by calling the Son “Heteroousion”. The question was brought into discussion by the Council of Antioch (264-272); and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heteroousion, “of other or different ousia”. Athanasius and Basil give as the reason for this rejection of Homoousion the fact that the Sabellian Paul of Samosata took it to mean “of the same of similar substance”. But Hilary says that Paul himself admitted it in the Sabellian sense “of the same substance or person”, and thus compelled the council to allow him the prescriptive right to the expression. Now, if we may take Hilary's explanation, it is obvious that when, half a century afterwards, Arius denied the Son to be of the Divine ousia or substance, the situation was exactly reversed. Homoousion directly contradicted the heretic. In the conflicts which ensued, the extreme Arians persisted in the Heteroousion Symbol. But the Semi-Arians were more moderate, and consequently more plausible, in their Homoiousion (of like substance). When one considers how the four creeds formulated at Antioch (341) by the Semi-Arians approached the Nicene Creed as nearly as possible without the actual word Homoousion, there may be a temptation to think that the question was one of words only; and the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359) may seem to have been well advised in their conciliatory formula “that the Son was like the Father in all things, according to the Holy Writ”. But this very formula was forced from the Fathers by the Emperor Constantius; and the force and fraud which the Semi-Arians used throughout the greater part of the fourth century, are proof sufficient that the dispute was not merely verbal. The dogma of the Trinity was at stake, and Homoousion proved itself to be in the words of Epiphanius “the bond of faith”, or, according to the expression of Marius Victorinus, “the rampart and wall of orthodoxy.” (See ARIANISM; TRINITY.)

JAMES BRIDGE

St. Honorius

Archbishop of Canterbury, fifth in succession from St. Augustine, elected 627; consecrated at Lincoln by St. Paulinus of York; 628l d. 30 Sept., 653 (the last date alone is certain the others are those usually accepted); commemorated, by decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (1883) in the Supplement to the Breviary for England on 30 Sept. Little is known about the history of the this saint before his elevation, and not much more of his long episcopate. From Bede we gather that he was a Roman monk, a disciple of St. Gregory, and probably a Benedictine. he either accompanied St. Augustine in 596 or was one of the second band of missionaries sent in 601. As a member of that apostolic company, he must have led that life of fervent piety, which, we are told, had so much effect in converting the inhabitants of Kent. When Honorius's predecessor, Justus, died, Paulinus, fresh from the conversion of Northumbria, was the only English bishop left to consecrate him. From two letter of Pope Honorius I, preserved in Bede, it appears that Honorius and his consecrator, in applying to Rome from their pallia, asked that, in order to avoid the delays and uncertainties then involved in a journey to Italy, whenever the occupant of one of the metropolitan sees should die, the survivor should have power to consecrate the successor, a request which the pope granted. The chief act of Honorius's episcopate was the mission of St. Felix, whom he consecrated and sent to convert the East Angles, an expedition which was crowned with complete success. He administered his own diocese with great zeal and energy. The pope's letter to him shows that his life was spent in the vigorous exercise of the duties of his office and in the faithful observance of the rule of his master, St. Gregory. On the overthrow of the flourishing Kingdom and Church of Northumbria by Cadwalla of Wales and Penda of Mercia in 633, he received Paulinus and appointed him to the vacant See of Rochester. On the death of Paulinus in 644, Honorius consecrated Ithamar, a native of Kent, as his successor. And some years later, he consecrated a deacon of Mercia, Thomas, to succeed Felix in East Anglia, and in or about 652 Beretgils or Boniface, a native of Kent, to succeed Thomas. Next year the archbishop himself died and was buried with his predecessors in the church of Saints Peter and Paul, founded by Saint Augustine.

JOSEPH KEATING

Hope

Hope, in its widest acceptation, is described as the desire of something together with the expectation of obtaining it. The Scholastics say that it is a movement of the appetite towards a future good, which though hard to attain is possible of attainment. Consideration of this state of soul is limited in this article to its aspect as a factor in the supernatural order. Looked at in this way it is defined to be a Divine virtue by which we confidently expect, with God's help, to reach eternal felicity as well as to have at our disposal the means of securing it. It is said to be Divine not merely because its immediate object is God, but also because of the special manner of its origin. Hope, such as we are here contemplating, is an infused virtue; ie., it is not, like good habits in general, the outcome of repeated acts or the product of our own industry. Like supernatural faith and charity it is directly implanted in the soul by Almighty God. Both in itself and in the scope of its operation it outstrips the limits of the created order, and is to be had if at all only through the direct largess of the Creator. The capacity which it confers is not only the strengthening of an existing power, but rather the elevation, the transforming of a faculty for the performance of functions essentially outside its natural sphere of activity. All of this is intelligible only on the basis, which we take for granted, that there is such a thing as the supernatural order, and that the only realizable ultimate destiny of man in the present providence of God lies in that order.

Hope is termed a theological virtue because its immediate object is God, as is true of the other two essentially infused virtues, faith and charity. St. Thomas acutely says that the theological virtues are so called “because they have God for their object, both in so far as by them we are properly directed to Him, and because they are infused into our souls by God alone, as also, finally, because we come to know of them only by Divine revelation in the Sacred Scriptures”. Theologians enlarge upon this idea by saying that Almighty God is both the material and the formal object of hope. He is the material object because He is that which is chiefly, though not solely, aimed at when we elicit acts of this virtue- ie., whatever else is looked for is only desired in so far as it bears a relation to Him. Hence according to the generally followed teaching, not only supernatural helps, particularly such as are necessary for our salvation, but also things in the temporal order, inasmuch as they can be means to reach the supreme end of human life, may be the material objects of supernatural hope. It is worthwhile noting here that in a strict construction of the term we cannot properly hope for eternal life for someone other than ourselves. The reason is that it is of the nature of hope to desire and expect something apprehended precisely as the good or happiness of the one who hopes (bonum proprium). In a qualified sense, however, that is so far as love may have united us with others, we may hope for others as well as for ourselves.

By the formal object of hope we understand the motive or motives which lead us to entertain a confident expectation of a happy issue to our efforts in the matter of eternal salvation notwithstanding the difficulties which beset our path. Theologians are not of one mind in determining what is to be assigned as the sufficient reason of supernatural hope. Mazzella (De Virtutibus Infusis, disp. v, art. 2), whose judgment has the merit of simplicity as well as that of adequate analysis, finds the foundation of our hope in two things. It is based, according to him, on our apprehension of God as our supreme supernatural good Whose communication in the beatific vision is to make us happy for all eternity, and also on those Divine attributes such as omnipotence, mercy and fidelity, which unite to exhibit God as our unfailing helper. These considerations, he thinks, motive our wills or furnish the answer to the question why we hope. Of course it is taken for granted that the yearning for God, not simply because of His own infinite perfections but explicitly because He is to be our reward, is a righteous temper of soul, otherwise the spiritual attitude of hope in which such a longing is included would not be a virtue at all. Luther and Calvin were at one in insisting that only the product of the perfect love of God, ie. the love of God for His own sake, was to be regarded as morally good. Consequently they rejected as sinful whatever was done only through consideration of eternal reward or, in other words, through that love of God which the Scholastics call “amor concupiscentiae”. The Council of Trent (Sess. vi, can. 31) stigmatized these errors as heresy: “If anyone says that a justified person sins when such a one does what is right through hope of eternal reward, let him be anathema”. In spite of this unequivocal pronouncement of the council, Baius, the celebrated Louvain theologian, substantially reiterated the false doctrine of the Reformers on this point. His teaching on the matter was formulated in the thirty-eighth proposition extracted from his works, and was condemned by St. Pius V. According to him there is no true act of virtue except what is elicited by charity, and as all love is either of God or His creatures, all love which is not the love of God for His own sake, ie. for His own infinite perfections, is depraved cupidity and a sin. Of course in such a theory there could not properly speaking be any place for the virtue of hope as we understand it. It is easy also to see how it fits in with the initial Protestant position of identifying faith and confidence and thus making hope rather an act of the intellect than of the will. For if we may not hope, in the Catholic sense, for blessedness, the only substitute available seems to be belief in the Divine mercy and promises.

It is a truth constantly acted upon in Catholic life and no less explicitly taught, that hope is necessary to salvation. It is necessary first of all as an indispenssible means (necessitate medii) of attaining salvation, so that no one can enter upon eternal bliss without it. Hence even infants, though they cannot have elicited the act, must have had the habit of hope infused in Baptism. Faith is said to be “the substance of things hoped for” (Hebrews, ii, 1), and without it “it is impossible to please God “ (ibid ., xi, 6). Obviously, therefore, hope is required for salvation with the same absolute necessity as faith. Moreover, hope is necessary because it is prescribed by law, the natural law which, in the hypothesis that we are destined for a supernatural end, obliges us to use the means suited to that end. Further, it is prescribed by the positive Divine law, as, for instance, in the first Epistle of St. Peter, i, 13: “Trust perfectly in the grace which is offered you in the revelation of Jesus Christ”.

There is both a negative and a positive precept of hope. The negative precept is in force ever and always. Hence there can never be a contingency in which one may lawfully despair or presume. The positive precept enjoining the exercise of the virtue of hope demands fulfilment sometimes, because one has to discharge certain Christian duties which involve an act of this supernatural confidence, such as prayer, penance, and the like. Its obligation is then said, in the language of the schools, to be per accidens. On the other hand, there are times when it is binding without any such spur, because of its own intrinsic importance, or per se. How often this is so in the lifetime of a Christian, is not susceptible of exact determination, but that it is so is quite clear from the tenor of a proposition condemned by Alexander VII: “Man is at no time during his life bound to elicit an act of faith, hope and charity as a consequence of Divine precepts cepts appertaining to these virtues”. It is, however, perhaps not superfluous us to note that the explicit act of hope is not exacted. The average good Christian, who is solicitous about living up to his beliefs, implicitly satisfies the duty imposed by the precept of hope.

The doctrine herein set forth as to the necessity of Christian hope was impugned in the seventeenth century by the curious mixture of fanatical mysticism and false spirituality called Quietism. This singular array of errors was given to the world by a Spanish priest named Miguel Molinos. He taught that to arrive at the state of perfection it was essential to lay aside all self-love to such an extent that one became indifferent as to one's own progress, salvation, or damnation. The condition of soul to be aimed at was one of absolute quiet brought about by the absence of every sort of desire or anything that could be construed as such. Hence, to quote the words of the seventh of the condemned propositions taken from Molinos's Spiritual Guide, “the soul must not occupy itself with any thought whether of reward or punishment, heaven or hell, death or eternity”. As a result one ought not to entertain any hope as to one's salvation; for that, as a manifestation of selfwill, implies imperfection. For the same reason petitions to Almighty God about anything whatever are quite out of place. No resistance, except of a purely negative sort, should be offered to temptations, and an entirely passive attitude should be fostered in every respect. In the year 1687 Innocent XII condemned sixty-eight propositions embodying this extraordinary doctrine as heretical, blasphemous scandalous, etc. He likewise consigned the author to perpetual confinement in a monastery, where, having previously abjured his errors, he died in the year 1696. About the same time a species of pseudomysticism, largely identical with that of Molinos, but omitting the objectionable conclusions, was defended by Madame Guyon. It even found an advocate in Fénelon who engaged in a controversy with Bossuet on the subject. Ultimately twenty-three propositions drawn from Fénelon's Explanation of the maxims of the Saints on the interior life were proscribed by Innocent XII. The gist of the teaching, so far as we are concerned, was that there is in this life a state of perfection with which it is impossible to reconcile any love of God except that which is absolutely disinterested, which therefore does not contemplate possession of God as our reward.

It would follow that the act of hope is incompatible with such a state, since it postulates precisely a desire for God, not only because He is good in Himself, but also and formally because He is our adequate and final good. Hope is less perfect than charity, but that admission does not involve a moral deformity of any kind, still less is it true that we can or ought to pass our lives in a quasi uninterrupted act of pure love of God. As a matter of fact, there is no such state anywhere identifiable, and if there were it would not be inconsistent with Christian hope.

The question as to the necessity of hope is followed with some natural sequence by the inquiry as to its certitude. Manifestly, if hope be absolutely required as a means to salvation, there is an antecedent presumption that its use must in some sense be accompanied by certainty. It is clear that, as certitude is properly speaking a predicate of the intellect, it is only in a derived sense, or as St. Thomas says participative, that we can speak of hope, which is largely a matter of the will, as being certain. In other words, hope, whose office is to elevate and strengthen our wills, is s said to share the certitude of faith, whose abiding place is our intellects. For our purpose it is of importance to recall what it is that, being apprehended by our intellect, is said to do service as the foundation of Christian hope. This has already been determined to be the concept of God as our helper gathered from reflecting on His goodness, mercy, omnipotence, and fidelity to His promises. In a subordinate sense our hope is built upon our own merits, as the eternal reward is not forthcoming except to those who shall have employed their free will to co-operate with the aids afforded by God's bounty.

Now there is a threefold certitude discernible.

1. A thing is said to be certain conditionally when, another thing being given, the first infallibly follows. Supernatural hope is evidently certain ain in this way, because, granted that a man does all that is required to save his soul, he is sure to attain to eternal life. This is guaranteed by the infinite power and goodness and fidelity of God
2. There is a certainty proper to virtues in general in so far as they are principles of action. Thus for instance a really temperate man may be counted on to be uniformly sober. Hope being a virtue may claim this moral certainty inasmuch as it constantly and after an established method encourages us to look for eternal blessedness to be had by the Divine munificence and as the crown of our own merits accumulated through grace.
3. Finally, a thing is certain absolutely, ie., not conditionally upon the verification of some other thing, but quite independently of any such event. In this case no room for doubt is left. Is hope certain in this meaning of the word? So far as the secondary material object of hope is concerned, ie. those graces which are at least remotely adequate for salvation, we can be entirely confident that these are most certainly provided. As to the primary material object of hope namely, the face-to-face vision of God, the Catholic doctrine, as set forth in the sixth session of the Council of Trent, is that our hope is unqualifiedly certain if we consider only the Divine attributes, which are its support, and which cannot fail. If, however, we limit our attention to the sum total of salutary operation which we contribute and upon which we also lean as upon the reason of our expectation, then, prescinding from the case of an individual revelation, hope is to be pronounced uncertain. This is plainly for the reason that we cannot in advance insure ourselves against the weakness or the malice of our free wills.

This doctrine is in direct antagonism to the initial Protestant contention that we can and must be altogether certain of our salvation. The only thing required for this end, according to the teaching of the Reformers, was the special faith or confidence in the promises which alone, without good works, justified a man. Hence, even though there were no good works distinguishable in a person's earthly career, such a one might and ought, notwithstanding, cherish a firm hope, provided only that he did not cease to believe.

Assuming that the seat of hope is our will, we may ask whether, having been once infused, it can ever be lost. The answer is that it can be destroyed, both by the perpetration of the sin of despair, which is its formal opposite, and by the subtraction of the habit of faith, which assigns the motives for it. It is not so clear that the sin of presumption expels the supernatural virtue of hope, although of course it cannot coexist with the act. We need not be detained with the inquiry whether a man could continue to hope if his eternal damnation had been revealed to him. Theologians are agreed in regarding such a revelation as practically, if not absolutely, impossible. ble. If, by an all but clearly absurd hypothesis, we suppose Almighty God to have revealed to anyone in advance that he was surely to be lost, such a person obviously could no longer hope. Do the souls in Purgatory hope? It is the commonly held opinion that, as they have not yet been admitted to the intuitive vision of God, and as there is nothing otherwise in their condition which is at variance with the concept of this virtue, they have the habit and elicit the act of hope. As to the damned, the concordant judgment is that, as they have been deprived of every other supernatural gift, so also knowing well the perpetuity of their reprobation, they can no longer hope. With reference to the blessed in heaven, St. Thomas holds that, possessing what they have striven for, they can no longer be said to have the theological virtue of hope. The words of St. Paul (Rom., viii, 24) are to the point: “For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen, is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for?” They can still desire the glory which is to be proper to their risen bodies and also by reason of the bonds of charity, they can wish for the salvation of others, but this is not, properly speaking, hope. The human Soul of Christ furnishes an example. Because of the hypostatic union It was already enjoying the beatific vision. At the same time, because of the passible nature with which He had clothed Himself, He was in the state of pilgrimage (in statu viatoris), and hence He could look forward with longing to His assumption of the qualities of the glorified body. This however was not hope, because hope has as its main object union with God in heaven.

WILHELM AND SCANNEL Manual of Dogmatic Theology (London, 1909); MAZZELLA, De Virtutibus Infusis (Rome, 1884), SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); ST. THOMAS AQUINAS Summa Theologica (Turin, 1885); BALLERINI, Opus Theologicum Morale (Prato, 1901).

JOSEPH F. DELANY

St. Ignatius Loyola

Youngest son of Don Beltrán Yañez de Oñez y Loyola and Marina Saenz de Lieona y Balda (the name López de Recalde, though accepted by the Bollandist Father Pien, is a copyist's blunder), b. in 1491 at the castle of Loyola above Azpeitia in Guipuscoa; d. at Rome, 31 July, 1556. The family arms are: per pale, or, seven bends gules (?vert) for Oñez; argent, pot and chain sable between two grey wolves rampant, for Loyola. The saint was baptized Inigo, after St. Enecus (Innicus), Abbot of Oña: the name Ignatius was assumed in later years, while he was residing in Rome. For the saint's genealogy, see Pérez (op.cit. below, 131); Michel (op.cit. below, II, 383); Polanco (Chronicon, I, 51646). For the date of birth cfr. Astráin, I,3 S.

I. CONVERSION (1491-1521)

At an early age he was made a cleric. We do not know when, or why he was released from clerical obligations. He was brought up in the household of Juan Velásquez de Cuellar, contador mayor to Ferdinand and Isabella, and in his suite probably attended the court from time to time, though not in the royal service. This was perhaps the time of his greatest dissipation and laxity. He was affected and extravagant about his hair and dress, consumed with the desire of winning glory, and would seem to heve been sometimes involved in those darker intrigues, for which handsome young courtiers too often think themselves licensed. How far he went on the downward course is still unproved. The balance of evidence tends to show that his own subsequent humble confessions of having been a great sinner should not be treated as pious exaggerations. But we have no details, not even definite charges. In 1517 a change for the better seems to have taken place; Velásquez died and Ignatius took service in the army. The turning-point of his life came in 1521. While the French were besieging the citadel of Pampeluna, a cannon ball, passing between Ignatius' legs, tore open the left calf. and broke the right shin (Whit-Tuesday, 20 May, 1521). With his fall the garrison lost heart and surrendered, but he was well treated by the French and carried on a litter to Loyola, where his leg had to be rebroken and reset, and afterwards a protruding end of the bone was sawn off, and the limb, having been shortened by clumsy setting, was stretched out by weights. All these pains were undergone voluntarily, without uttering a cry or submitting to be bound. But the pain and weakness which followed were so great that the patient began to fail and sink. On the eve of Sts. Peter and Paul, however, a turn for the better took place, and he threw off his fever.

So far Ignatius had shown none but the ordinary virtues of the Spanish officer. His dangers and sufferings has doubtless done much to purge his soul, but there was no idea yet of remodelling his life on any higher ideals. Then, in order to divert the weary hours of convalescence, he asked for the romances of chivalry, his favourite reading, but there were none in the castle, and instead they brought him the lives of Christ and of the saints, and he read them in the same quasi-competitive spirit with which he read the achievements of knights and warriors. “Suppose I were to rival this saint in fasting, that one in endurance, that other in pilgrimages.” He would then wander off into thoughts of chivalry, and service to fair ladies, especially to one of high rank, whose name is unknown. Then all of a sudden, he became conscious that the after-effect of these dreams was to make him dry and dissatisfied, while the ideas of falling into rank among the saints braced and strengthened him, and left him full of joy and peace. Next it dawned on him that the former ideas were of the world, the latter God-sent; finally, worldly thoughts began to lose their hold, while heavenly ones grew clearer and dearer. One night as he lay awake, pondering these new lights, “he saw clearly”, so says his autobiography, “the image of Our Lady with the Holy Child Jesus”, at whose sight for a notable time he felt a reassuring sweetness, which eventually left him with such a loathing of his past sins, and especially for those of the flesh, that every unclean imagination seemed blotted out from his soul, and never again was there the least consent to any carnal thought. His conversion was now complete. Everyone noticed that he would speak of nothing but spiritual things, and his elder brother begged him not to take any rash or extreme resolution, which might compromise the honour of their family.

II. SPIRITUAL FORMATION (1522-24)

When Ignatius left Loyola he had no definite plans for the future, except that he wished to rival all the saints had done in the way of penance. His first care was to make a general confession at the famous sanctuary of Montserrat, where, after three days of self-examination, and carefully noting his sins, he confessed, gave to thepoor the rich clothes in which he had come, and put on garment of sack-cloth reaching to his feet. His sword and dagger he suspended at Our Lady's altar, and passed the night watching before them. Next morning, the feast of the Annunciation, 1522, after Communion, he left the sanctuary, not knowing whither he went. But he soon fell in with a kind woman, Iñes Pascual, who showed him a cavern near the neighbouring town of Manresa, where he might retire for prayer, austerities, and contemplation, while he lived on alms. But here, instead of obtaining greater peace, he was consumed with the most troublesome scruples. Had he confessed this sin? Had he omitted that circumstance? At one time he was violently tempted to end his miseries by suicide, on which he resolved neither to eat nor to drink (unless his life was in danger), until God granted him the peace which he desired, and so he continued until his confessor stopped him at the end of the week. At last, however, he triumphed over all obstacles, and then abounded in wonderful graces and visions. It was at this time, too, that he began to make notes of his spiritual experiences, notes which grew into the little book of “The Spiritual Exercises”. God also afflicted him with severe sicknesses, when he was looked after by friends in the public hospital; for many felt drawn towards him, and he requited their many kind offices by teaching them how to pray and instructing them in spiritual matters. Having recovered health, and acquired sufficient experience to guide him in his new life, he commenced his long-meditated migration to the Holy Land. From the first he had looked forward to it as leading to a life of heroic penance; now he also regarded it as a school in which he might learn how to realize clearly and to conform himself perfectly to Christ's life. The voyage was fully as painful as he had conceived. Poverty, sickness, exposure, fatigue,starvation, dangers of shipwreck and capture, prisons, blows, contradictions, these were his daily lot; and on his arrival the Franciscans, who had charge of the holy places, commanded him to return under pain of sin. Ignatius demanded what right they had thus to interfere with a pilgrim like himself, and the friars explained that, to prevent many troubles which had occurred in finding ransoms for Christian prisoners, the pope had given them the power and they offered to show him their Bulls. Inatius at once submitted, though it meant altering his whole plan of life, refused to look at the proferred Bulls, and was back at Barcelona about march, 1524.

III. STUDIES AND COMPANIONS (1521-39)

Ignatius left Jerusalem in thje dark as to his future and “asking hiself as he went, quid agendum” (Autobiography, 50). Eventually he resolved to study, in order to be of greater help to others. To studies he therefore gave eleven years, more than a third of his remaining life. Later he studied among school-boys at Barcelona, and early in 1526 he knew enough to proceed to his philosophy at the University of Alcalá. But here he met with many troubles to be described later, and at the end of 1527 he entered the University of Salamanca, whence, his trials continuing, he betook himself to Paris (June, 1528), and there with great method repeated his course of arts, taking his M.A. on 14 March, 1535. Meanwhile theology had been begun, and he had taken the licentiate in 1534; the doctorate he never took, as his health compelled him to leave Paris in March, 1535. Though Ignatius, despite his pains, acquired no great erudition, he gained many practical advantages from his course of education. To say nothing of knowledge sufficient to find such information as he needed afterwards to hold his own in the company of the learned, and to control others more erudite than himself, he also became thoroughly versed in the science of education, and learned by experience how the life of prayer and penance might be combined with that of teaching and study, an invaluable acquirement to the future founder of the Society of Jesus. The labours of Ignatius for others involved him in trials without number. At Barcelona, he was beaten senseless, and his companion killed, at the instigation of some worldlings vexed at being refused entrance into a convent which he had reformed. At Alcalá, a meddlesome inquisitor, Figueroa, harassed him constantly, and once automatically imprisoned him for two months. This drove him to Salamanca, where, worse still, he was thrown into the common prison, fettered by the foot to his companion Calisto, which indignity only drew from Ignatius the characteristic words, “There are not so many handcuffs and chains in Salamanca, but that I desire even more for the love of God.”

In Paris his trials were very varied - from poverty, plague, works of charity, and college discipline, on which account he was once sentenced to a public flogging by Dr. Govea, the rector of Collège Ste-Barbe, but on his explaining his conduct, the rector as publicly begged his pardon. There was but one delation to the inquisitors, and, on Ignatius requesting a prompt settlement, the Inquisitor Ori told him proceedings were therewith quashed. We notice a certain progression in Ignatius' dealing with accusations against him. The first time he allowed them to cease without any pronouncement being given in his favour. The second time he demurred at Figueroa wanting to end in this fashiom. The third time, after sentence had been passed, he appealed to he Archbishop of Toledo against some of its clauses. Finally he does not await sentence, but goes at once to the judge to urge an inquiry, and eventually he made it his practice to demand sentence, whenever reflection was cast upon his orthodoxy. (Records of Ignatius' legal proceedings at Azpeitia, in 1515; at Alclla in 1526, 1527; at Venice, 1537; at Rome in 1538, will be found in “Scripta de S. Ignatio”, pp. 580-620.) Ignatius had now for the third time gathered companions around him. His first followers in Spain had persevered for a time, even amid the severe trials of imprisonment, but instead of following Ignatius to Paris, as they had agreed to do, they gave him up. In Paris too the first to follow did not persevere long, but of the third band not one deserted him. They were (St.) Peter Faber (q.v.), a Genevan Savoyard; (St.) Francis Xavier (q.v.), of Navarre; James Laynez, Alonso Salmerón, and Nicolás Bobadilla, Spaniards; Simón Rodríguez, a Portuguese. Three others joined soon after - Claude Le Jay, a Genevan Savoyard; Jean Codure and Paschase Broët, French. Progress is to be noted in the way Ignatius trained his companions. The first were exercised in the same severe exterior mortifications, begging, fasting, going barefoot, etc., which the saint was himself practising. But though this discipline had prospered in a quiet country place like Manresa, it had attracted an objectionable amount of criticism at the University of Alcalá. At Paris dress and habits were adapted to the life in great towns; fasting, etc., was reduced; studies and spiritual exercises were multiplied, and alms funded.

The only bond between Ignatius' followers so far was devotion to himself, and his great ideal of leading in the Holy Land a life as like as possible to Christ's. On 15 August, 1534, they took the vows of poverty and chastity at Montmartre (probably near the modern Chapelle de St-Denys, Rue Antoinette), and a third vow to go to the Holy Land after two years, when their studies were finished. Six months later Ignatius was compelled by bad health to return to his native country, and on recovery made his way slowly to Bologna, where, unable through ill health to study, he devoted himself to active works of charity till his companions came from Paris to Venice (6 January, 1537) on the way to the Holy Land. Finding further progress barred by the war with the Turks, they now agreed to await for a year the opportunity of fulfilling their vow, after which they would put themselves at the pope's disposal. Faber and some others, going to Rome in Lent, got leave for all to be ordained. They were eventually made priests on St. John Baptist's day. But Ignatius took eighteen months to prepare for his first Mass.

IV. FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY

By the winter of 1537, the year of waiting being over, it was time to offer their services to the pope. The others being sent in pairs to neighboring university towns, Ignatius with Faber and Laynez started for Rome. At La Storta, a few miles before reaching the city, Ignatius had a noteworthy vision. He seemed to see the Eternal Father associating him with His Son, who spoke the words: Ego vobis Romae propitius ero. Many have thought this promise simply referred to the subsequent success of the order there. Ignatius' own interpretation was characteristic: “I do not know whether we shall be crucified in Rome; but Jesus will be propitious.” Just before or just after this, Ignatius had suggested for the title of their brotherhood “The Company of Jesus”. Company was taken in its military sense, and in those days a company was generally known by its captain's name. In the Latin Bull od foundation, however, they were called “Societas Jesu”. We first hear of the term Jesuit in 1544, applied as a term of reproach by adversaries. It had been used in the fifteenth century to describe in scorn someone who cantingly interlarded his speech with repetitions of the Holy Name. In 1522 it was still regarded as a mark of scorn, but before very long the friends of the society saw that they could take it in a good sense, and, though never used by Ignatius, it was readily adopted (Pollen, “The Month”, June, 1909). Paul III having received the fathers favourably, all were summoned to Rome to work under the pope's eyes. At this critical moment an active campaign of slander was opened by one Fra Matteo Mainardi (who eventually died in open heresy), and a certain Michael who had been refused admission to the order. It was not till 18 November, 1538, that Ignatius obtained from the governor of Rome an honourable ssentence, still extent, in his favour. The thoughts of the fathers were naturally occupied with a formula of their intended mode of life to submit to the pope; and in March, 1539, they began to meet in the evenings to settle the matter.

Hitherto without superior, rule or tradition, they had prospered most remarkably. Why not continue as they had begun? The obvious answer was that without some sort of union, some houses for training postulants, they were practically doomed to die out with the existing members, for the pope already desired to send them about as missioners from place to place. This point was soon agreed to, but when the question arose whether they should, by adding a vow of obedience to their existing vows, form themselves into a compact religious order, or remain, as they were, a congregation of secular priests, opinions differed much and seriously. Not only had they done so well without strict rules, but (to mention only one obstacle, which was in fact not overcome afterwards without great difficulty), there was the danger, if they decided for an order, that the pope might force them to adopt some ancient rule, which would mean the end of all their new ideas. The debate on this point continued for several weeks, but the conclusion in favour of a life under obedience was eventually reached unanimously. After this, progress was faster, and by 24 June some sixteen resolutions had been decided on, covering the main points of the proposed institute. Thence Ignatius drew up in five sections the first “Formula Instituti”, which was submitted to the pope, who gave a viva voce approbation 3 September, 1539, but Cardinal Guidiccioni, the head of the commission appointed to report on the “Formula”, was of the view that a new order should not be admitted, and with that the chances of approbation seemed to be at an end. Ignatius and his companions, undismayed, agreed to offer up 4000 Masses to obtain the object desired, and after some time the cardinal unexpectedly changed his mind, approved the “Formula” and the Bull “Regimini militantis Ecclesiae” (27 September, 1540), which embodies and sanctions it, was issued, but the members were not to exceed sixty (this clause was abrogated after two years). In April, 1541,Ignatius was, in spite of his reluctance, elected the first general, and on 22 April he and his companions made their profession in St. Paul Outside the Walls. The society was now fully constituted.

V. THE BOOK OF THE SPIRITUAL EXERCISES

This work originated in Ignatius' experiences, while he was at Loyola in 1521, and the chief meditations were probably reduced to their present shapes during his life at Manresa in 1522, at the end of which period he had begun to teach them to others. In the process of 1527 at Salamanca, they are spoken of for the first time as the “Book of Exercises”. The earliest extant text is of the year 1541. At the request of St. Francis Boria. the book was examined by papal censors and a solemn approbation given by Paul III in the Brief “Pastoralis Officii” of 1548. “The Spiritual Exercises” aew written very concisely, in the form of a handbook for the priest who is to explain them, and it is practically impossible to describe them without making them, just as it might be impossible to explain Nelson's “Sailing Orders” to a man who knew nothing of ships or the sea. The idea of the work is to help the exercitant to find out what the will of God is in regard to his future, and to give him energy and courage to follow that will. The exercitant (under ideal circumstances) is guided through four weeks of meditations: the first week on sin and its consequences, the second on Christ's life on earth, the third on his passion, the fourth on His risen life; and a certain number of instructions (called “rules”, “additions”, “notes”) are added to teach him how to pray, how to avoid scruples, how to elect a vocation in life without being swayed by the love of self or of the world. In their fullness they should, according to Ignatius' idea, ordinarily be made once or twice only; but in part (from three to four days) thet may be most profitably made annually, and are now commonly called “retreats”, from the seclusion or retreat from the world in which the exercitant lives. More popular selections are preached to the people in church and are called “missions”. The stores of spiritual wisdom contained in the “Book of Exercises” are truly astonishing, and their author is believed to have been inspired while drawing them up. (See also next section.) Sommervogel enumerates 292 writers among the Jesuits alone, who have commented on the whole book, to say nothing of commentators on parts (e.g. the meditations), who are far more numerous still. But the best testimony to the work is the frequency with which the exercises are made. In England (for which alone statistics are before the writer) the educated people who make retreats number annually about 22,000, while the number who attend popular expositions of the Exercises in “missions” is approximately 27,000, out of a total Catholic population of 2,000,000.

VI. THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE SOCIETY

Ignatius was commissioned in 1541 to draw them up, but he did noy begin to do so until 1547, having occupied the mean space with introducing customs tentatively, which were destined in time to become laws. In 1547 Father Polaneo became his secretary, and with his intelligent aid the first draft of the constitutions was made between 1547 and 1550, and simultaneously pontifical approbation was asked for a new edition of the “Formula”. Julius III conceded this by the Bull “Exposcit debitum”, 21 July, 1550. At the same time a large number of the older fathers assembled to peruse the first draft of the constitutions, and though none of them made any serious objections, Ignatius' next recension (1552) shows a fair amount of changes. This revised version was then published and put into force throughout the society, a few explanations being added here and there to meet difficulties as they arose. These final touches were being added by the saint up till the time of his death, after which the first general congregation of the society ordered them to be printed, and they have never been touched since.The true way of appreciating the constitutions of the society is to study them as they are carried into practice by the Jesuits themselves, and for this, reference may be mmade to the articles on the SOCIETY OF JESUS. A few points, however, in which Ignatius' institute differed from the older orders may be mentioned here. They are:

1. the vow not to accept ecclesiastical dignities;
2. increased probations. The novitiate is prolonged from one year to two, with a third year, which usually falls after the priesthood. Candidates are moreover at first admitted to simple vows only, solemn vows coming much later on;
3. the Society does not keep choir;
4. it does not have a distinctive religious habit;
5. it does not accept the direction of convents;
6. it is not governed by a regular triennial chapter;
7. it is also said to have been the first order to undertake officially and by virtue of its constitutions active works such as the following:

• foreign missions, at the pope's bidding;
• the education of youth of all classes;
• the instruction of the ignorant and the poor;
• ministering to the sick, to prisoners, etc.

The above points give no conception of the originality with which Ignatius has handled all parts of his subject, even those common to all orders. It is obvious that he must have acquired some knowledge of other religious constitutions, especially during the years of inquiry (1541-1547), when he was on terms of intimacy with religious of every class. But witnesses, who attended him, tell us that he wrote without any books before him except the Missal. Though his constitutions of course embody technical terms to be found in other rules, and also a few stock phrases like “the old man's staff”, and “the corpse carried to any place”, the thought is entirely original, and would seem to have been God-guided throughout. By a happy accident we still possess his journal of prayers for forty days, during which he was deliberating the single point of poverty in churches. It shows that in making up his mind he was marvelously aided by heavenly lights, intelligence, and visions. If, as we may surely infer, the whole work was equally assisted by grace, its heavenly inspiration will not be doubtful. The same conclusion is probable true of “The Spiritual Exercises”.

VII. LATER LIFE AND DEATH

The later years of Ignatius were spent in partial retirement, the correspondence inevitable in governing the Society leaving no time for those works of active ministry which in themselves he much preferred. His health too began to fail. In 1551, when he had gathered the elder fathers to revise the constitutions, he laid his resignation of the generalate in their hands, but they refused to accept it then or later, when the saint renewed his prayer. In 1554 Father Nadal was given the powers of vicar-general, but it was often necessary to send himm abroad as commissary, and in the end Ignatius continued, with Polanco's aid, to direct everything. With most of his first companions he had to part soon. Rodríguez started on 5 March, 1540, for Lisbon, where he eventually founded the Portuguese province, of which he was made provincial on 10 October, 1546. St. Francis Xavier (q.v.) followed Rodríguez immmediately, and became provincial of India in 1549. In September, 1541, Salmeron and Broet started for their perilous mission to Ireland, which they reached (via Scotland) next Lent. But Ireland, the prey to Henry VIII's barbarous violence, could not give the zealous missionaries a free field for the exercise of the ministries proper to their institute. All Lent they passed in Ulster, flying from persecutors, and doing in secret such good as they might. With difficulty they reached Scotland, and regained Rome, Dec., 1542. The beginnings of the Society in Germany are connected with St. Peter Faber (q.v.), Blessed Peter Canisius (q.v.), Le Jay, and Bobadilla in 1542. In 1546 Laynez and Salmeron were nominated papal theologians for the Council of Trent, where Canisius, Le Jay, and Covillon also found places. In 1553 came the picturesque, but not very successful mission of Nuñez Barretto as Patriarch of Abyssinia. For all these missions Ignatius wrote minute instructions, many of which are stll extant. He encouraged and exhorted his envoys in their work by his letters, while the reports they wrote back to him form our chief source of information on the missionary triumphs achieved. Though living alone in Rome, it was he who in effect lad, directed, and animated his subjects all the world over.

The two most painful crosses of this period were probably the suits with Isabel Roser and Simón Rodríguez. The former lady had been one of Ignatius' first and most esteemed patronesses during his beginnings in Spain. She came to Rome later on and persuaded Ignatius to receive a vow of obedience to him, and she was afterwards joined by two or three other ladies. But the saint found that the demands they made on his time were more than he could possibly allow themm. “They caused me more trouble”, he is reported to have said, “than the whole of the Society”, and he obtained from the pope a relaxation of the vow he had accepted. A suit with Roser followed, which she lost, and Ignatius forbade his sons hereafter to become ex officio directors to convents of nuns (Scripta de S. Igntio, pp. 652-5). Painful though this mmust have been to a man so loyal as Ignatius, the difference with Rodríguez , one of his first companions, must have been more bitter still. Rodríguez had founded the Province of Portugal, and brought it in a short time to a high state of efficiency. But his methods were not precisely those of Ignatius, and, when new men of Ignatius' own training came under him, differences soon made themselves felt. A struggle ensued in which Rodríguez unfortunately took sides against Ignatius' envoys. The results for the newly formed province were disastrous. Well-nigh half of its members had to be expelled before peace was established; but Ignatius did not hesitate. Rodriguez having been recalled to Rome, the new provincial being empowered ti dismiss him if he refused, he demanded a formal trial, which Ignatius, foreseeing the results, endeavoured to ward off. But on Simón's insistence a full court of inquiry was granted, whose proceedings are now printed and it unanimously condemned Rodriguez to penance and banishment from the province (Scripta etc., pp. 666-707). Of all his external works, those nearest his heart, to judge by his correspondence, were the building and foundation of the Roman College (1551), and of the German College (1552). For their sake he begged, worked, and borrowed with splendid insistence until his death. The success of the first was ensured by the generosity of St. Francis Borgia, before he entered the Society. The latter was still in a struggling condition when Ignatius died, but his great ideas have proved the true and best foundation of both.

In the summer of 1556 the saint was attacked by Roman fever. His doctors did not foresee any serious consequences, but the saint did. On 30 July, 1556, he asked for the last sacraments and the papal blessing, but he was told that no immediate danger threatened. Next morning at daybreak, the infirmarian found him lying in peaceful prayer, so peaceful that he did not at once perceive that the saint was actually dying. When his condition was realized, the last blessing was given, but the end came before the holy oils could be fetched. Perhaps he had prayed that his death, like his life, might pass without any demonstration. He was beatified by Paul V on 27 July, 1609, and canonized by Gregory XV on 22 May, 1622. His body lies under the altar designed by Pozzi in the Gesù. Though he died in the sixteenth year from the foundation of the Society, that body already numbered about 1000 religious (of whom, however, only 35 were yet professed) with 100 religious houses, arranged in 10 provinces. (Sacchini, op.cit. infra., lib.1, cc,i, nn. 1-20.) For his place in history see COUNTER-REFORMATION. It is immpossible to sketch in brief Ignatius' grand and complex character: ardent yet restrained, fearless, resolute, simple, prudent, strong, and loving. The Protestant and Jansenistic conception of him as a restless, bustling pragmatist bears no correspondence at all with the peacefulness and perseverance which characterized the real man. That he was a strong disciplinarian is true. In a young and rapidly growing body that was inevitable; and the age loved strong virtues. But if he believed in discipline as an educative force, he despised any other motives for action except the love of God and man. It was by studying Ignatius as a ruler that Xavier learnt the principle, “the company of Jesus ought to be called the company of love and conformity of souls”. (Ep., 12 Jan., 1519).

J. H. POLLEN

The Incarnation

I. The Fact of the Incarnation
(1) The Divine Person of Jesus Christ
A. Old Testament Proofs
B. New Testament Proofs
C. Witness of Tradition
(2) The Human Nature of Jesus Christ
(3) The Hypostatic Union
A. The Witness of the Scriptures
B. Witness of Tradition
II. The Nature of the Incarnation
(1) Nestorianism
(2) Monophysitism
(3) Monothelitism
(4) Catholicism
III. Effects of the Incarnation
(1) On Christ Himself
A. On the Body of Christ
B. On the Human Soul of Christ
C. On the God-Man
(2) The Adoration of the Humanity of Christ
(3) Other Effects of the Incarnation

The Incarnation is the mystery and the dogma of the Word made Flesh. ln this technical sense the word incarnation was adopted, during the twelfth century, from the Norman-French, which in turn had taken the word over from the Latin incarnatio. The Latin Fathers, from the fourth century, make common use of the word; so Saints Jerome, Ambrose, Hilary, etc. The Latin incarnatio (in: caro, flesh) corresponds to the Greek sarkosis, or ensarkosis, which words depend on John (i, 14) kai ho Logos sarx egeneto, “And the Word was made flesh”. These two terms were in use by the Greek Fathers from the time of St. Irenaeus—i. e. according to Harnack, A. D. 181-189 (cf. lren., “Adv. Haer.” III, l9, n. i.; Migne, VII, 939). The verb sarkousthai, to be made flesh, occurs in the creed of the Council of Nicaea (cf. Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, n. 86). In the language of Holy Writ, flesh means, by synecdoche, human nature or man (cf. Luke, iii, 6; Rom., iii, 20). Suarez deems the choice of the word incarnation to have been very apt. Man is called flesh to emphasize the weaker part of his nature. When the Word is said to have been incarnate, to have been made Flesh, the Divine goodness is better expressed whereby God “emptied Himself . . . and was found in outward bearing (schemati) like a man” (Phil. ii, 7); He took upon Himself not only the nature of man, a nature capable of suffering and sickness and death, He became like a man in all save only sin (cf. Suarez, “De Incarnatione”, Praef. n. 5). The Fathers now and then use the word henanthropesis, the act of becoming man, to which correspond the terms inhumanatio, used by some Latin Fathers, and “Menschwerdung”, current in German. The mystery of the Incarnation is expressed in Scripture by other terms: epilepsis, the act of taking on a nature (Heb., ii. 16): epiphaneia, appearance (II Tim., i, 10); phanerosis hen sarki, manifestation in the flesh (I Tim., iii, 16); somatos katartismos, the fitting of a body, what some Latin Fathers call incorporatio (Heb., x. 5); kenosis, the act of emptying one's self (Phil., ii, 7). In this article, we shall treat of the fact, nature and effects of the Incarnation.

I. THE FACT OF THE INCARNATION

The Incarnation implies three facts: (1) The Divine Person of Jesus Christ; (2) The Human Nature of Jesus Christ; (3) The Hypostatic Union of the Human with the Divine Nature in the Divine Person of Jesus Christ.

(1) THE DIVINE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST

We presuppose the historicity, of Jesus Christ,—i. e. that He was a real person of history (cf. JESUS CHRIST); the Messiahship of Jesus; the historical worth and authenticity of the Gospels and Acts; the Divine ambassadorship of Jesus Christ established thereby; the establishment of an infallible and never failing teaching body to have and to keep the deposit of revealed truth entrusted to it by the Divine ambassador, Jesus Christ; the handing down of all this deposit by tradition and of part thereof by Holy Writ; the canon and inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures—all these questions will be found treated in their proper places. Moreover, we assume that the Divine nature and Divine personality are one and inseparable (see TRINITY). The aim of this article is to prove that the historical person, Jesus Christ, is really and truly God, —i. e. has the nature of God, and is a Divine person. The Divinity of Jesus Christ is established by the Old Testament, by the New Testament and by tradition.

A. Old Testament Proofs

The Old Testament proofs of the Divinity of Jesus presuppose its testimony to Him as the Christ, the Messias (see MESSIAS). Assuming then, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messias promised in the Old Testament, from the terms of the promise it is certain that the One promised is God, is a Divine Person in the strictest sense of the word, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of the Father, One in nature with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Our argument is cumulative. The texts from the Old Testament have weight by themselves; taken together with their fulfilment in the New Testament, and with the testimony of Jesus and His apostles and His Church, they make up a cumulative argument in favour of the Divinity of Jesus Christ that is overwhelming in its force. The Old Testament proofs we draw from the Psalms, the Sapiential Books and the Prophets.

(a) TESTIMONY OF THE PSALMS

Psalm 2:7. “The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.” Here Jahweh, i. e., God of Israel, speaks to the promised Messias. So St. Paul interprets the text (Heb., i, 5) while proving the Divinity of Jesus from the Psalms. The objection is raised that St. Paul is here not interpreting but only accommodating Scripture. He applies the very same words of Ps. ii, 7 to the priesthood (Heb., v, 5) and to the resurrection (Acts, xiii, 33) of Jesus; but only in a figurative sense did the Father beget the Messias in the priesthood and resurrection of Jesus; hence only in a figurative sense did He beget Jesus as His Son. We answer that St. Paul speaks figuratively and accommodates Scripture in the matter of the priesthood and resurrection but not in the matter of the eternal generation of Jesus. The entire context of this chapter shows there is a question of real sonship and real Divinity of Jesus. In the same verse, St. Paul applies to Christ the words of Jahweh to David, the type of Christ: “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”. (II Kings, vii, 14.) In the following verse, Christ is spoken of as the first-born of the Father, and as the object of the adoration of the angels; but only God is adored: “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. . . Thy God, O God, hath anointed thee “ (Ps. xliv, 7, 8). St. Paul refers these words to Christ as to the Son of God (Heb., i, 9). We follow the Massoretic reading, “Thy God, O God”. The Septuagint and New Testament reading, ho theos, ho theos sou, “O God, Thy God”, is capable of the same interpretation. Hence, the Christ is here called God twice; and his throne, or reign, is said to have been from eternity. Ps. cix, 1: “The Lord said to my Lord (Heb., Jahweh said to my Adonai): Sit thou at my right hand”. Christ cites this text to prove that He is Adonai (a Hebrew term used only for Deity), seated at the right hand of Jahweh, who is invariably the great God of Israel (Matt., xxii, 44). In the same psalm, Jahweh says to Christ: “Before the day-star, I begat thee”. Hence Christ is the begotten of 6od; was begotten before the world was, and sits at the right hand of the heavenly Father. Other Messianic psalms might be cited to show the clear testimony of these inspired poems to the Divinity of the promised Messias.

(b) TESTIMONY OF THE SAPIENTIAL BOOKS

So clearly do these Sapiential Books describe uncreated Wisdom as a Divine Person distinct from the First Person, that rationalists have resort to a subterfuge and claim that the doctrine of uncreated Wisdom was taken over by the authors of these books from the Neo-Platonic philosophy of the Alexandrian school. It is to be noted that in the pre-sapiential books of the Old Testament, the uncreated Logos, or hrema, is the active and creative principle of Jahweh (see Ps. xxxii, 4; xxxii, 6; cxviii, 89; cii, 20; Is., xl, 8; lv, 11). Later the logos became sophia, the uncreated Word became uncreated Wisdom. To Wisdom were attributed all the works of creation and Divine Providence (see Job, xxviii, 12: Prov., viii and ix; Ecclus., i,1; xxiv, 5 to 12; Wis., vi, 21; ix, 9). In Wis., ix, 1, 2, we have a remarkable instance of the attribution of God's activity to both the Logos and Wisdom. This identification of the pre-Mosaic Logos with the Sapiential Wisdom and the Johannine Logos (see LOGOS) is proof that the rationalistic subterfuge is not effective. The Sapiential Wisdom and the Johannine Logos are not an Alexandrian development of the PIatonic idea, but are a Hebraistic development of the pre-Mosaic uncreated and creating Logos or Word.

Now for the Sapiential proofs: In Ecclus., xxiv, 7, Wisdom is described as uncreated, the “first born of the Most High before all creatures”, “from the beginning and before the World was I made” (ibid., 14). So universal was the identification of Wisdom with the Christ, that even the Arians concurred with the Fathers therein; and strove to prove by the word ektise, made or created, of verse 14, that incarnate Wisdom was created. The Fathers did not make answer that the word Wisdom was not to be understood of the Christ, but explained that the word ektise had here to be interpreted in keeping with other passages of Holy Writ and not according to its usual meaning,—that of the Septuagint version of Gen., i, 1. We do not know the original Hebrew or Aramaic word; it may have been the same word that occurs in Prov. viii, 22: “The Lord possessed me (Heb., gat me by generation; see Gen., iv, 1) in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything from the beginning, I was set up from eternity.” Wisdom speaking of itself in the Book of Ecclesiasticus cannot contradict what Wisdom says of itself in Proverbs and elsewhere. Hence the Fathers were quite right in explaining ektise not to mean made or created in any strict sense of the terms (see St. Athanasius, “Sermo ii contra Arianos”, n. 44; Migne, P. G., XXVI, 239). The Book of Wisdom, also, speaks clearly of Wisdom as “the worker of all things . . . a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God . . . the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness.” (Wis., vii, 21-26.) St. Paul paraphrases this beautiful passage and refers it to Jesus Christ (Heb., i, 3). It is clear, then, from the text-study of the books themselves, from the interpretation of these books by St. Paul, and especially, from the admitted interpretation of the Fathers and the liturgical uses of the Church, that the personified wisdom of the Sapiential Books is the uncreated Wisdom, the incarnate Logos of St. John, the Word hypostatically united with human nature, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father. The Sapiential Books prove that Jesus was really and truly God.

(c) TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

The prophets clearly state that the Messias is God. Isaias says: “God Himself will come and will save you” (xxxv, 4); “Make ready the way of Jahweh” (xl, 3); “Lo Adonai Jahweh will come with strength” (xl, 10). That Jahweh here is Jesus Christ is clear from the use of the passage by St. Mark (i 3). The great prophet of Israel gives the Christ a special and a new Divine name “His name will be called Emmanuel” (Is., vii, 14). This new Divine name St. Matthew refers to as fulfilled in Jesus, and interprets to mean the Divinity of Jesus. “They shall call his name Emmanuel, @hich, being interpreted, is God with us.” (Matt., i, 23.) Also in ix, 6, Isaias calls the Messias God: “A child is born to us . . . his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Strong One, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.” Catholics explain that the very same child is called God the Strong One (ix, 6) and Emmanuel (vii, 14); the conception of the child is prophesied in the latter verse, the birth of the very same child is prophesied in the former verse. The name Emmanuel (God with us) explains the name that we translate “God the Strong One.” It is uncritical and prejudiced on the part of the rationalists to go outside of lsaias and to seek in Ezechiel (xxxii, 21) the meaning “mightiest among heroes” for a word that everywhere else in Isaias is the name of “God the Strong One” (see Is., x, 21). Theodotion translates literally theos ischyros; the Septuagint has “messenger”. Our interpretation is that commonly received by Catholics and by Protestants of the stamp of Delitzsch (“Messianic Prophecies”, p. 145). Isaias also calls the Messias the “sprout of Jahweh” (iv, 2), i. e. that which has sprung from Jahweh as the same in nature with Him. The Messias is “God our King” (Is., 1ii, 7), “the Saviour sent by our God” (Is., 1ii, 10, where the word for Saviour is the abstract form of the word for Jesus); “Jahweh the God of Israel” (Is., lii, 12): “He that hath made thee, Jahweh of the hosts His name” (Is., liv, 5)”.

The other prophets are as clear as Isaias, though not so detailed, in their foretelling of the Godship of the Messias. To Jeremias, He is “Jahweh our Just One” (xxiii, 6; also xxxiii, 16). Micheas speaks of the twofold coming of the Child, His birth in time at Bethlehem and His procession in eternity from the Father (v, 2). The Messianic value of this text is proved by its interpretation in Matthew (ii, 6). Zacharias makes Jahweh to speak of the Messias as “my Companion”; but a companion is on an equal footing with Jahweh (xiii, 7). Malachias says: “Behold I send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face, and presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the testament, whom you desire, shall come to his temple” (iii, 1). The messenger spoken of here is certainly St. John the Baptist. The words of Malachias are interpreted of the Precursor by Our Lord Himself (Matt., xi, 10). But the Baptist prepared the way before the face of Jesus Christ. Hence the Christ was the spokesman of the words of Malachias. But the words of Malachias are uttered by Jahweh the great God of Israel. Hence the Christ or Messias and Jahweh are one and the same Divine Person. The argument is rendered even more forcible by the fact that not only is the speaker, Jahweh the God of hosts, here one and the same with the Messias before Whose face the Baptist went: but the prophecy of the Lord's coming to the Temple applies to the Messias a name that is ever reserved for Jahweh alone. That name occurs seven times (Ex., xxiii, 17; xxxiv, 23; Is., i, 24; iii, 1; x, 16 and 33; xix, 4) outside of Malachias, and is clear in its reference to the God of Israel. The last of the prophets of Israel gives clear testimony that the Messias is the very God of Israel Himself. This argument from the prophets in favour of the Divinity of the Messias is most convincing if received in the light of Christian revelation, in which light we present it. The cumulative force of the argument is well worked out in “Christ in Type and Prophecy”, by Maas.

B. New Testament Proofs

We shall give the witness of the Four Evangelists and of St. Paul. The argument from the New Testament has a cumulative weight that is overwhelming in its effectiveness, once the inspiration of the New Testament and the Divine ambassadorship of Jesus are proved (see INSPIRATION; CHRISTIANITY). The process of the Catholic apologetic and dogmatic upbuilding is logical and never-failing. The Catholic theologian first establishes the teaching body to which Christ gave His deposit of revealed truth, to have and to keep and to hand down that deposit without error or failure. This teaching body gives us the Bible; and gives us the dogma of the Divinity of Christ in the unwritten and the written Word of God, i. e. in tradition and Scripture. When contrasted with the Protestant position upon “the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible”—no, not even anything to tell us what is the Bible and what is not the Bible—the Catholic position upon the Christ-established, never-failing, never-erring teaching body is impregnable. The weakness of the Protestant position is evidenced in the matter of this very question of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the one and only rule of faith of Unitarians, who deny the Divinity of Jesus; of Modernistic Protestants, who make out His Divinity to be an evolution of His inner consciousness; of all other Protestants, be their thoughts of Christ whatsoever they may. The strength of the Catholic position will be clear to any one who has followed the trend of Modernism outside the Church and the suppression thereof within the pale.

WITNESS OF THE EVANGELISTS

We here assume the Gospels to be authentic, historical documents given to us by the Church as the inspired Word of God. We waive the question of the dependence of Matthew upon the Logia, the origin of Mark from “Q”, the literary or other dependence of Luke upon Mark; all these questions are treated in their proper places and do not belong here in the process of Catholic apologetic and dogmatic theology. We here argue from the Four Gospels as from the inspired Word of God. The witness of the Gospels to the Divinity of Christ is varied in kind.

Jesus is the Divine Messias

The Evangelists, as we have seen, refer to the prophecies of the Divinity of the Messias as fulfilled in Jesus (see Matt., i, 23; ii, 6: Mark, i, 2: Luke, vii, 27).

Jesus is the Son of God

According to the testimony of the Evangelists, Jesus Himself bore witness to His Divine Sonship. As Divine Ambassador He can not have borne false witness. Firstly, He asked the disciples, at Caesarea Philippi, “Whom do men say that the Son of man is?” (Matt., xvi, 13). This name Son of man was commonly used by the Saviour in regard to Himself; it bore testimony to His human nature and oneness with us. The disciples made answer that others said He was one of the prophets. Christ pressed them. “But whom do you say that I am? “(ibid., 15). Peter, as spokesman, replied: “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God” (ibid., 16). Jesus was satisfied with this answer; it set Him above all the prophets who were the adopted sons of God; it made Him the natural Son of God. The adopted Divine sonship of all the prophets Peter had no need of special revelation to know. This natural Divine Sonship was made known to the leader of the Apostles only by a special revelation. “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven” (ibid., 17). Jesus clearly assumes this important title in the specially revealed and altogether new sense. He admits that He is the Son of God in the real sense of the word.

Secondly, we find that He allowed others to give Him this title and to show by the act of real adoration that they meant real Sonship. The possessed fell down and adored Him, and the unclean spirits cried out: “Thou art the Son of God” (Mark, iii, 12). After the stilling of the storm at sea, His disciples adored Him and said: “Indeed thou art the Son of God “(Matt., xiv, 33). Nor did He suggest that they erred in that they gave Him the homage due to God alone. The centurion on Calvary (Matt., xxvii, 54; Mark, xv, 39), the Evangelist St. Mark (i, 1), the hypothetical testimony of Satan (Matt., iv, 3) and of the enemies of Christ (Matt., xxvii, 40) all go to show that Jesus was called and esteemed the Son of God. Jesus Himself clearly assumed the title. He constantly spoke of God as “My Father” (Matt., vii, 21; x, 32; xi, 27; xv, 13; xvi, 17, etc.).

Thirdly, the witness of Jesus to His Divine Sonship is clear enough in the Synoptics, as we see from the foregoing argument and shall see by the exegesis of other texts; but is perhaps even more evident in John. Jesus indirectly but clearly assumes the title when He says: “Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God? . . . the Father is in me and I in the Father.” (John, x, 36, 38.) An even clearer witness is given in the narrative of the cure of the blind man in Jerusalem. Jesus said: “Dost thou believe in the Son of God?” He answered, and said: “Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him? And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he adored him.” (John, ix, 35-38.) Here as elsewhere, the act of adoration is allowed, and the implicit assent is in this wise given to the assertion of the Divine Sonship of Jesus.

Fourthly, likewise to His enemies, Jesus made undoubted profession of His Divine Sonship in the real and not the figurative sense of the word; and the Jews understood Him to say that He was really God. His way of speaking had been somewhat esoteric. He spoke often in parables. He willed then, as He wills now, that faith be “the evidence of things that appear not” (Heb., xi, 1). The Jews tried to catch Him, to make Him speak openly. They met Him in the portico of Solomon and said: “How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly” (John, x, 24). The answer of Jesus is typical. He puts them off for a while; and in the end tells them the tremendous truth: “I and the Father are one” (John, x, 30). They take up stones to kill Him. He asks why. He makes them admit that they have understood Him aright. They answer: “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man makest thyself God” (ibid., 33). These same enemies had clear statement of the claim of Jesus on the last night that He spent on earth. Twice He appeared before the Sanhedrim, the highest authority of the enslaved Jewish nation. The first times the high priest, Caiphas, stood up and demanded: “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God “ (Matt., xxvi, 63). Jesus had before held His peace. Now His mission calls for a reply. “Thou hast said it” (ibid., 64). The answer was likely—in Semitic fashion—a repetition of the question with a tone of affirmation rather than of interrogation. St. Matthew reports that answer in a way that might leave some doubt in our minds, had we not St. Mark's report of the very same answer. According to St. Mark, Jesus replies simply and clearly: “I am” (Mark, xiv, 62). The context of St. Matthew clears up the difficulty as to the meaning of the reply of Jesus. The Jews understood Him to make Himself the equal of God. They probably laughed and jeered at His claim. He went on: 'Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matt., xxvi, 64). Caiphas rent his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy. All joined in condemning Him to death for the blasphemy whereof they accused Him. They clearly understood Him to make claim to be the real Son of God; and He allowed them so to understand Him, and to put Him to death for this understanding and rejection of His claim. It were to blind one's self to evident truth to deny the force of this testimony in favour of the thesis that Jesus made claim to be the real Son of God. The second appearance of Jesus before the Sanhedrim was like to the first; a second time He was asked to say clearly: “ Art thou then the Son of God? “ He made reply: “You say that I am.” They understood Him to lay claim to Divinity. “ What need we any further testimony? for we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth” (Luke, xxii, 70, 71). This twofold witness is especially important, in that it is made before the great Sanhedrim, and in that it is the cause of the sentence of death. Before Pilate, the Jews put forward a mere pretext at first. “We have found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cwsar, and saying that he is Christ the king” (Luke, xxiii, 2). What was the result? Pilate found no cause of death in Him! The Jews seek another pretext. “He stirreth up the people . . . from Galilee to this place” (ibid., 5). This pretext fails. Pilate refers the case of sedition to Herod. Herod finds the charge of sedition not worth his serious consideration. Over and again the Jews come to the front with a new subterfuge. Over and again Pilate finds no cause in Him. At last the Jews give their real cause against Jesus. In that they said He made Himself a king and stirred up sedition and refused tribute to Caesar, they strove to make it out that he violated Roman law. Their real cause of complaint was not that Jesus violated Roman law; but that they branded Him as a violator of the Jewish law. How? “We have a law; and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God (John, xix, 7). The charge was most serious; it caused even the Roman governor “to fear the more.” What law is here referred to? There can be no doubt. It is the dread law of Leviticus: “He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a native or a stranger. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord dying let him die “ (Lev., xxiv, 17). By virtue of this law, the Jews were often on the very point of stoning Jesus; by virtue of this law, they often took Him to task for blasphemy whensoever He made Himself the Son of God; by virtue of this same law, they now call for His death. It is simply out of the question that these Jews had any intention of accusing Jesus of the assumption of that adopted sonship of God which every Jew had by blood and every prophet had had by special free gift of God's grace.

Fifthly, we may only give a summary of the other uses of thee title Son of God in regard to Jesus. The angel Gabriel proclaims to Mary that her son will “be called the Son of the most High” (Luke, i, 32); “the Son of God” (Luke, i, 35); St. John speaks of Him as “the only begotten of the Father” (John, i, 14); at the Baptism of Jesus and at His Transfiguration, a voice from heaven cries: “This is my beloved son” (Matt., iii, 17; Mark, i, 11; Luke, iii, 22; Matt., xvii., 3); St. John gives it as his very set purpose, in his Gospel, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John, xx, 31).

Sixthly, in the testimony of John, Jesus identifies Himself absolutely with the Divine Father. According to John, Jesus says: “he that seeth me seeth the Father” (ibid., xiv, 9). St. Athanasius links this clear testimony to the other witness of John “I and the Father are one” (ibid., x, 30); and thereby establishes the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. St. John Chrysostom interprets the text in the same sense. A last proof from John is in the words that bring his first Epistle to a close: “We know that the Son of God is come: and He hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and life eternal” (I John, v, 20). No one denies that “the Son of God” who is come is Jesus Christ. This Son of God is the “true Son” of “the true God”; in fact, this true son of the True God, i. e. Jesus, is the true God and is life eternal. Such is the exegesis of this text given by all the Fathers that have interpreted it (see Corluy, “Spicilegium Dogmatico-Biblicum”, ed. Gandavi, 1884, II, 48). All the Fathers that have either interpreted or cited this text, refer outos to Jesus, and interpret “Jesus is the true God and life eternal.” The objection is raised that the phrase “true God” (ho alethisnos theos) always refers, in John, to the Father. Yes, the phrase is consecrated to the Father, and is here used precisely on that account, to show that the Father who is, in this very verse, first called “the true God”, is one with the Son Who is second called “the true God” in the very same verse. This interpretation is carried out by the grammatical analysis of the phrase; the pronoun this (outos) refers of necessity to the noun near by, i. e. His true Son Jesus Christ. Moreover, the Father is never called “life eternal” by John; whereas the term is often given by him to the Son (John, xi, 25; xiv, 6: I John, i, 2; v, 11-12). These citations prove beyond a doubt that the Evangelists bear witness to the real and natural Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ.

Outside the Catholic Church, it is today the mode to try to explain away all these uses of the phrase Son of God, as if, forsooth, they meant not the Divine Sonship of Jesus, but presumably His sonship by adoption—a sonship due either to His belonging to the Jewish race or derived from His Messiahship. Against both explanations stand our arguments; against the latter explanation stands the fact that nowhere in the Old Testament is the term Son of God given as a name peculiar to the Messias. The advanced Protestants of this twentieth century are not satisfied with this latter and wornout attempt to explain away the assumed title Son of God. To them it means only that Jesus was a Jew (a fact that is now denied by Paul Haupt). We now have to face the strange anomaly of ministers of Christianity who deny that Jesus was Christ. Formerly it was considered bold in the Unitarian to call himself a Christian and to deny the Divinity of Jesus; now “ministers of the Gospel” are found to deny that Jesus is the Christ, the Messias (see articles in the Hibbert Journal for 1909, by Reverend Mr. Roberts, also the articles collected under the title “ Jesus or Christ? “Boston, 19m). Within the pale of the Church, too, there were not wanting some who followed the trend of Modernism to such an extent as to admit that in certain passages, the term “Son of God” in its application to Jesus, presumably meant only adopted sonship of God. Against these writers was issued the condemnation of the proposition: “In all the texts of the Gospels, the name Son of God is merely the equivalent of the name Messias, and does not in any wise mean that Christ is the true and natural Son of God” (see decree “Lamentabili”, S. Off., 3-4 July, 1907, proposition xxxii). This decree does not affirm even implicitly that every use of the name “Son of God” in the Gospels means true and natural Sonship of God. Catholic theologians generally defend the proposition whenever, in the Gospels, the name “Son of God” is used in the singular number, absolutely and without any additional explanation, as a proper name of Jesus, it invariably means true and natural Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ (see Billot, “De Verbo Incarnato,” 1904, p. 529). Corluy, a very careful student of the original texts and of the versions of the Bible, declared that, whenever the title Son of God is given to Jesus in the New Testament, this title has the inspired meaning of natural Divine Sonship; Jesus is by this title said to have the same nature and substance as the Heavenly Father (see “Spicilegium”, II, p. 42).

Jesus is God

St. John affirms in plain words that Jesus is God. The set purpose of the aged disciple was to teach the Divinity of Jesus in the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse that he has left us; he was aroused to action against the first heretics that bruised the Church. “They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us” (I John, ii, 19). They did not confess Jesus Christ with that confession which they had obligation to make (I John, iv, 3). John's Gospel gives us the clearest confession of the Divinity of Jesus. We may translate from the original text: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was in relation to God and the Word was God” (John i, 1). The words ho theos (with the article) mean, in Johannine Greek, the Father. The expression pros ton theon reminds one forcibly of Aristotle's to pros ti einai. This Aristotelian way of expressing relation found its like in the Platonic, Neo-Platonic, and Alexandrian philosophy; and it was the influence of this Alexandrian philosophy in Ephesus and elsewhere that John set himself to combat. It was, then, quite natural that John adopted some of the phraseology of his enemies, and by the expression ho logos en pros ton theon gave forth the mystery of the relation of Father with Son: “the Word stood in relation to the Father”, i. e., even in the beginning. At any rate the clause theos en ho logos means “the Word was God”. This meaning is driven home, in the irresistibIe logic of St. John, by the following verse: “All things were made by him.” The Word, then, is the Creator of all things and is true God. Who is the Word! It was made flesh and dwelt with us in the flesh (verse 14); and of this Word John the Baptist bore witness (verse 15). But certainly it was Jesus, according to John the Evangelist, Who dwelt with us in the flesh and to Whom the Baptist bore witness. Of Jesus the Baptist says: “This is he, of whom I said: After me there cometh a man, who is preferred before me: because he was before me” (verse 30). This testimony and other passages of St. John's Gospel are so clear that the modern rationalist takes refuge from their forcefulness in the assertion that the entire Gospel is a mystic contemplation and no fact-narrative at all (see JOHN, GOSPEL OF SAINT). Catholics may not hold this opinion denying the historicity of John. The Holy Office, in the Decree “Lamentabili”, condemned the following proposition: “The narrations of John are not properly speaking history but a mystic contemplation of the Gospel: the discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations on the mystery of salvation and are destitute of historical truth.” (See prop. xvi.)

(b) WITNESS OF ST. PAUL

It is not the set purpose of St. Paul, outside of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The great Apostle takes this fundamental principle of Christianity for granted. Yet so clear is the witness of Paul to this fact of Christ's Divinity, that the Rationalists and rationalistic Lutherans of Germany have strived to get away from the forcefulness of the witness of the Apostle by rejecting his form of Christianity as not conformable to the Christianity of Jesus. Hence they cry: “Los von Paulus, zurück zu Christus”; that is, “Away from Paul, back to Christ” (see Jülicher, Paulus und Christus”, ed. Mohr, 1909). We assume the historicity of the Epistles of Paul; to a Catholic, the Christianity of St. Paul is one and the same with the Christianity of Christ. (See PAUL, SAINT). To the Romans, Paul writes: “God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin” (viii, 3). His Own Son (ton heautou) the Father sends, not a Son by adoption. The angels are by adoption the children of God; they participate in the Father's nature by the free gifts He has bestowed upon them. Not so the Own Son of the Father. As we have seen, He is more the offspring of the Father than are the angels. How more? In this that He is adored as the Father is adored; the angels are not adored. Such is Paul's argument in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Therefore, in St. Paul's theology, the Father's Own Son, Whom the angels adore, Who was begotten in the today of eternity, Who was sent by the Father, clearly existed before His appearance in the Flesh, and is, in point of fact, the great “I am who am”,—the Jahweh Who spoke to Moses on Horeb. This identification of the Christ with Jahweh would seem to be indicated, when St. Paul speaks of Christ as ho on epi panton theos, “who is over all things, God blessed for ever” (Rom., ix, 5). This interpretation and punctuation are sanctioned by all the Fathers that have used the text; all refer to Christ the words “He who is God over all”. Petavius (De Trin., 11, 9, n. 2) cites fifteen, among whom are Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, and Hilary. The Peshitta has the same translation as we have given. Alford, Trench, Westcott and Hort, and most Protestants are at one with us in this interpretation.

This identification of the Christ with Jahweh is clearer in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Christ is said to have been Jahweh of the Exodus. “And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ)” (x, 4). It was Christ Whom some of the Israelites “tempted, and (they) perished by the serpents” (x, 10); it was Christ against Whom “some of them murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer” (x, 11). St. Paul takes over the Septuagint translation of Jahweh ho kyrios, and makes this title distinctive of Jesus. The Colossians are threatened with the deception of philosophy (ii, 8). St. Paul reminds them that they should think according to Christ; “for in him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead (pleroma tes theotetos) corporeally” (ii, 9); nor should they go so low as give to angels, that they see not, the adoration that is due only to Christ (ii, 18, 19). “For in Him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations or principalities or powers; all things were created by Him and for Him” (eis auton). He is the cause and the end of all things, even of the angels whom the Colossians are so misguided as to prefer to Him (i, 16). The cultured Macedonians of Philippi are taught that in “the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father” (ii, 10, 11). This is the very same genuflexion and confession that the Romans are bidden to make to the Lord and the Jews to Jahweh (see Rom., xiv, 6; Is., xiv, 24). The testimony of St. Paul could be given at much greater length. These texts are only the chief among many others that bear Paul's witness to the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

C. Witness of Tradition

The two main sources wherefrom we draw our information as to tradition, or the unwritten Word of God, are the Fathers of the Church and the general councils.

(a) THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH

The Fathers are practically unanimous in explicitly teaching the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The testimony of many has been given in our exegesis of the dogmatic texts that prove the Christ to be God. It would take over-much space to cite the Fathers adequately. We shall confine ourselves to those of the Apostolic and apologetic ages. By joining these testimonies to those of the Evangelists and St. Paul, we can see clearly that the Holy Office was right in condemning these propositions of Modernism: “The Divinity of Christ is not proven by the Gospels but is a dogma that the Christian conscience has evolved from the notion of a Messiah. It may be taken for granted that the Christ Whom history shows us is much inferior to the Christ Who is the object of Faith” (see prop. xxvii and xxix of Decree “Lamentabili”).

The Fathers Themselves

St. Clement of Rome (A. D. 93-95, according to Harnack), in his first epistle to the Corinthians, xvi, 2, speaks of “The Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the Might of God” (Funk, “ Patres Apostolici”, Tübingen ed., 1901, p. 118), and describes, by quoting Is., 1ii, 1-12, the humiliation that was foretold and came to pass in the self-immolation of Jesus. As the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are very scant, and not at all apologetic but rather devotional and exhortive, we should not look in them for that clear and plain defence of the Divinity of Christ which is evidenced in the writings of the apologists and later Fathers.

The witness of St. Ignatius of Antioch (A. D. 110-117, according to Harnack) is almost that of the apologetic age, in whose spirit he seems to have written to the Ephesians. It may well be that at Ephesus the very same heresies were now doing havoc which about ten years before or, according to Harnack's chronology, at the very same time, St. John had written his Gospel to undo. If this be so, we understand the bold confession of the Divinity of Jesus Christ which this grand confessor of the Faith brings into his greetings, at the beginning of his letter to the Ephesians. “Ignatius . . . . to the Church . . . which is at Ephesus . . . . in the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ Our God (tou theou hemon).” He says: “The Physician in One, of the Flesh and of the Spirit, begotten and not begotten, who was God in Flesh (en sarki genomenos theos) . . . Jesus Christ Our Lord” (c. vii; Funk, I, 218). “For Our God Jesus Christ was borne in the womb by Mary” (c. xviii, 2; Funk, I, 226). To the Romans he writes: “For Our God Jesus Christ, abiding in the Father, is manifest even the more” (c. iii, 3; Funk, 1, 256).

The witness of the Letter of Barnabas: “Lo, again, Jesus is not the Son of man but the Son of God, made manifest in form in the Flesh. And since men were going to say that the Christ was the Son of David, David himself, fearing and understanding the malice of the wicked, made prophecy: The Lord said to my Lord . . . . . Lo, how David calls Him the Lord and not son” (c. xiii; Funk, I, 77).

In the apologetic age, Saint Justin Martyr (Harnack. A. D. 150) wrote: “Since the Word is the first-born of God, He is also God” (Apol. I, n. 63; P. G., VI, 423). It is evident from the context that Justin means Jesus Christ by the Word; he had just said that Jesus was the Word before He became Man, and used to appear in the form of fire or of some other incorporeal image. St. Irenaeus proves that Jesus Christ is rightly called the one and only God and Lord, in that all things are said to have been made by Him (see “Adv. Haer.”, III, viii, n. 3; P. G., VII, 868; bk. IV, 10, 14, 36). Deutero-Clement (Harnack, A. D. 166; Sanday, A. D. 150) insists: “Brethren, we should think of Jesus Christ as of God Himself, as of the Judge of the living and the dead” (see Funk, I, 184). St. Clement of Alexandria (Sanday, A. D. 190) speaks of Christ as “true God without any controversy, the equal of the Lord of the whole universe, since He is the Son and the Word is in God” (Cohortatio ad Gentes, c. x; P. G., VIII, 227).

Pagan Writers

To the witness of these Fathers of the Apostolic and apologetic age, we add a few witnesses from the contemporary pagan writers. Pliny (A. D. 107) wrote to Trajan that the Christians were wont before the light of day to meet and to sing praises “to Christ as to God” (Epist., x, 97). The Emperor Hadrian (A. D. 117) wrote to Servianus that many Egyptians had become Christians, and that converts to Christianity were “forced to adore Christ”, since He was their God (see Saturninus, c. vii). Lucian scoffs at the Christians because they had been persuaded by Christ “to throw over the gods of the Greeks and to adore Him fastened to a cross” (De Morte Peregrini, 13). Here also may be mentioned the well-known graffito that caricatures the worship of the Crucified as God. This important contribution to archaeology was found, in 1857, on a wall of the Paedagogium, an inner part of the Domus Gelotiana of the Palatine, and is now in the Kircher Museum, Rome. After the murder of Caligula (A. D. 41) this inner part of the Domus Gelotiana became a training-school for court pages, called the Paedagogium (see Lanciani, “Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome”, ed. Boston, 1897, p. 186). This fact and the language of the graffito lead one to surmise that the page who mocked at the religion of one of his fellows has so become an important witness to the Christian adoration of Jesus as God in the first or, at the very latest, the second century. The graffito represents the Christ on a cross and mockingly gives Him an ass's head; a page is rudely scratched kneeling and with hands outstretched in the attitude of prayer; the inscription is “Alexamenos worships his God” (Alexamenos sebetai ton theon). In the second century, too, Celsus arraigns the Christians precisely on this account that they think God was made man (see Origen, “Contra Celsum”, IV, 14; P. G., XI, 1043). Aristides wrote to the Emperor Antonius Pius (A. D. 138-161) what seems to have been an apology for the Faith of Christ: “He Himself is called the Son of God; and they teach of Him that He as God came down from heaven and took and put on Flesh of a Hebrew virgin” (see “Theol. Quartalschrift”, Tübingen, 1892, p. 535).

(b) WITNESS OF THE COUNCILS

The first general council of the Church was called to define the Divinity of Jesus Christ and to condemn Arius and his error (see ARIUS). Previous to this time, heretics had denied this great and fundamental dogma of the Faith; but the Fathers had been equal to the task of refuting the error and of stemming the tide of heresy. Now the tide of heresy was so strong as to have need of the authority of the universal Church to withstand it. In his “Thalia”, Arius taught that the Word was not eternal (en pote ote ouk en) nor generated of the Father, but made out of nothing (ex ouk onton hehonen ho logos); and though it was before the world was, yet it was a thing made, a created thing (poiema or ktisis). Against this bold heresy, the Council of Nicaea (325) defined the dogma of the Divinity: of Christ in the clearest terms: “We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, generated of the Father (hennethenta ek tou patros monogene), that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten not made, the same in nature with the Father (homoousion to patri) by Whom all things were made” (see Denzinger, 54).

(2) THE HUMAN NATURE OF JESUS CHRIST

The Gnostics taught that matter was of its very nature evil, somewhat as the present-day Christian scientists teach that it is an “error of mortal mind”; hence Christ as God could not have had a material body, and His body was only apparent. These heretics, called doketae included Basilides, Marcion, the Manichaeans, and others. Valentinus and others admitted that Jesus had a body, but a something heavenly and ethereal; hence Jesus was not born of Mary, but His airy body passed through her virgin body. The Apollinarists admitted that Jesus had an ordinary body, but denied Him a human soul; the Divine nature took the place of the rational mind. Against all these various forms of the heresy that denies Christ is true Man stand countless and clearest testimonies of the written and unwritten Word of God. The title that is characteristic of Jesus in the New Testament is Son of Man; it occurs some eighty times in the Gospels; it was His Own accustomed title for Himself. The phrase is Aramaic, and would seem to be an idiomatic way of saying “man”. The life and death and resurrection of Christ would all be a lie were He not a man, and our Faith would be vain. (I Cor., xv, 14). “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim., ii, 5). Why, Christ even enumerates the parts of His Body. “See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have” (Luke, xxiv, 39). St. Augustine says, in this matter: “If the Body of Christ was a fancy, then Christ erred; and if Christ erred, then He is not the Truth. But Christ is the Truth; hence His Body was not a fancy' (QQ. lxxxiii, q. 14; P. L., XL, 14). In regard to the human soul of Christ, the Scripture is equally clear. Only a human soul could have been sad and troubled. Christ says: “My soul is sorrowful even unto death” (Matt., xxvi, 38). “Now is my soul troubled” (John, xii, 27). His obedience to the heavenly Father and to Mary and Joseph supposes a human soul (John, iv, 34; v, 30; vi, 38; Luke, xxii, 42). Finally Jesus was really born of Mary (Matt., i, 16), made of a woman (Gal., iv, 4), after the angel had promised that He should be conceived of Mary (Luke, i, 31); this woman is called the mother of Jesus (Matt., i, 18; ii, 11; Luke, i, 43; John, ii, 3); Christ is said to be really the seed of Abraham (Gal., iii, 16), the son of David (Matt., i, 1), made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom., i, 3), and the fruit of the loins of David (Acts, ii, 30). So clear is the testimony of Scripture to the perfect human nature of Jesus Christ, that the Fathers held it as a general principle that whatsoever the Word had not assumed was not healed, i. e., did not receive the effects of the Incarnation.

(3) THE HYPOSTATIC UNION OF THE DIVINE NATURE AND THE HUMAN NATURE OF JESUS IN THE DIVINE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST

Here we consider this union as a fact; the nature of the union will be later taken up. Now it is our purpose to prove that the Divine nature was really and truly united with the human nature of Jesus, i. e., that one and the same Person, Jesus Christ, was God and man. We speak here of no moral union, no union in a figurative sense of the word; but a union that is physical, a union of two substances or natures so as to make One Person, a union which means that God is Man and Man is God in the Person of Jesus Christ.

A. The Witness of Holy Writ

St. John says: “The Word was made flesh” (i, 14), that is, He Who was God in the Beginning (i, 2), and by Whom all things were created (i. 3), became Man. According to the testimony of St. Paul, the very same Person, Jesus Christ, “being in the form of God [en morphe Theou hyparxon] . . . emptied himself, taking the form of a servant [morphen doulou labon]” (Phil., ii, 6, 7). It is always one and the same Person, Jesus Christ, Who is said to be God and Man, or is given predicates that denote Divine and human nature. The author of life (God) is said to have been killed by the Jews (Acts, iii, 15); but He could not have been killed were He not Man.

B. Witness of Tradition

The early forms of the creed all make profession of faith, not in one Jesus Who is the Son of God and in another Jesus Who is Man and was crucified, but “in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, Who became Man for us and was crucified”. The forms vary, but the substance of each creed invariably attributes to one and the same Jesus Christ the predicates of the Godhead and of man (see Denzinger, “Enchiridion”). Franzelin (thesis xvii) calls special attention to the fact that, long before the heresy of Nestorius, according to Epiphanius (Ancorat., II, 123, in P. G., XLII, 234), it was the custom of the Oriental Church to propose to catechumens a creed that was very much more detailed than that proposed to the faithful; and in this creed the catechumens said: “We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father . . . that is, of the substance of the Father . . . in Him Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made Flesh, that is, was perfectly begotten of Mary ever Virgin by the Holy Spirit; Who became Man, that is, took perfect human nature, soul and body and mind and all whatsoever is human save only sin, without the seed of man; not in another man, but unto himself did He form Flesh into one holy unity [eis mian hagian henoteta]; not as He breathed and spoke and wrought in the prophets, but He became Man perfectly; for the Word was made Flesh, not in that It underwent a change nor in that It exchanged Its Divinity for humanity, but in that It united Its Flesh unto Its one holy totality and Divinity [eis mian . . . heautou hagian teleioteta te kai theoteta].' “The one holy totality”, Franzelin considers, means personality, a person being an individual and complete subject of rational acts. This creed of the catechumens gives even the Divinity of the totality, i. e. the fact that the individual Person of Jesus is a Divine and not a human Person. Of this intricate question we shall speak later on.

The witness of tradition to the fact of the union of the two natures in the one Person of Jesus is clear not only from the symbols or creeds in use before the condemnation of Nestorius, but also from the words of the ante-Nicaean Fathers. We have already given the classic quotations from St. Ignatius the Martyr, St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin the Martyr, in all of which are attributed to the one Person, Jesus Christ, the actions or attributes of God and of Man. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (about 176), says: “Since the same (Christ) was at the same time God and perfect Man, He made His two natures evident to us; His Divine nature by the miracles which He wrought during the three years after His baptism; His human nature by those thirtv years that He first lived, during which the lowliness of the Flesh covered over and hid away all signs of the Divinity, though He was at one and the same time true and everlasting God” (Frag. vii in P. G., V, 1221). St. Irenaeus, toward the close of the second century, argues: “If one person suffered and another Person remained incapable of suffering; if one person was born and another Person came down upon him that was born and thereafter left him, not one person but two are proven . . . whereas the Apostle knew one only Who was born and Who suffered” (“Adv. Haer.”, III, xvi, n, 9, in P. G., VII, 928). Tertullian bears firm witness: “Was not God really crucified? Did He not realiy die as He really was crucified?” (“De Carne Christi”, c. v, in P. L., II, 760).

II. THE NATURE OF THE INCARNATION

We have treated the fact of the Incarnation, that is, the fact of the Divine nature of Jesus, the fact of the human nature of Jesus, the fact of the union of these two natures in Jesus. We now take up the crucial question of the nature of this fact, the manner of this tremendous miracle, the way of uniting the Divine with the human nature in one and the same Person. Arius had denied the fact of this union. No other heresy rent and tore the body of the Church to any very great extent in the matter of this fact after the condemnation of Arius in the Council of Nicaea (325). Soon a new heresy arose in the explanation of the fact of the union of the two natures in Christ. Nicaea had, indeed, defined the fact of the union; it had not explicitly defined the nature of that fact; it had not said whether that union was moral or physical. The council had implicitly defined the union of the two natures in one hypostasis, a union called physical in opposition to the mere juxtaposition or joining of the two natures called a moral union. Nicaea had professed a belief in “One Lord Jesus Christ . . . true God of true God . . . Who took Flesh, became Man and suffered”. This belief was in one Person Who was at the same time God and Man, that is, had at the same time Divine and human nature. Such teaching was an implicit definition of all that was later on denied by Nestorius. We shall find the great Athanasius, for fifty years the determined foe of the heresiarch, interpreting Nicaea's decree in just this sense; and Athanasius must have known the sense meant by Nicaea, in which he was the antagonist of the heretic Arius.

(1) NESTORIANISM

In spite of the efforts of Athanasius, Nestorius, who had been elected Patriarch of Constantinople (428), found a loophole to avoid the definition of Nicaea. Nestorius (q. v.) called the union of the two natures a mysterious and an inseparable joining (symapheian), but would admit no unity (enosin) in the strict sense of the word to be the result of this joining (see “ Serm.”, ii, n. 4; xii, n. 2, in P. L., XLVIII). The union of the two natures is not physical (physike) but moral, a mere juxtaposition in state of being (schetike); the Word indwells in Jesus like as God indwells in the just (loc. cit.); the indwelling of the Word in Jesus is, however, more excellent than the indwelling of God in the just man by grace, for that the indwelling of the Word purposes the Redemption of all mankind and the most perfect manifestation of the Divine activity (Serm. vii, n. 24); as a consequence, Mary is the Mother of Christ (Christotokos), not the Mother of God (Theotokos). As is usual in these Oriental heresies, the metaphysical refinement of Nestorius was faulty, and led him into a practical denial of the mystery that he had set himself to explain. During the discussion that Nestorius aroused, he strove to explain that his indwelling (enoikesis) theory was quite enough to keep him within the demands of Nicaea; he insisted that “the Man Jesus should be co-adored with the Divine union and almighty God [ton te theia symapheia to pantokratori theo symproskynoumenon anthropon] “(Serm., vii, n. 35); he forcibly denied that Christ was two persons, but proclaimed Him as one person (prosopon) made up of two substances. The oneness of the Person was however only moral, and not at all physical. Despite whatsoever Nestorius said as a pretext to save himself from the brand of heresy, he continually and explicitly denied the hypostatic union (enosin kath hypostasin, kata physin, kat ousian), that union of physical entities and of substances which the Church defends in Jesus; he affirmed a juxtaposition in authority, dignity, energy, relation, and state of being (synapheia kat authentian, axian, energeian, anaphoran, schesin); and he maintained that the Fathers of Nicaea had nowhere said that God was born of the Virgin Mary (Sermo, v, nn. 5 and 6).

Nestorius in this distortion of the sense of Nicaea clearly went against the tradition of the Church. Before he had denied the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus, that union had been taught by the greatest Fathers of their time. St. Hippolytus (about 230) taught: “the Flesh [sarx] apart from the Logos had no hypostasis [oude . . . hypostanai edynato, was unable to act as principle of rational activity], for that its hypostasis was in the Word” (“Contra Noet.”, n. 15, in P. G., X, 823). St. Epiphanius (about 365): “The Logos united body, mind, and soul into one totality and spiritual hypostasis” (“Haer.”, xx, n. 4, in P. G., XLI, 277). “The Logos made the Flesh to subsist in the hypostasis of the Logos [eis heauton hypostesanta ten sarka]” (“Haer.”, cxxvii, n. 29, in P. G., XLII, 684). St. Athanasius (about 350): “They err who say that it is one person who is the Son that suffered, and another person who did not suffer ... ; the Flesh became God's own by nature [kata physin], not that it became consubstantial with the Divinity of the Logos as if coeternal therewith, but that it became God's own Flesh by its very nature [kata physin].” In this entire discourse (“Contra Apollinarium”, I, 12, in P. G., XXVI, 1113), St. Athanasius directly attacks the specious pretexts of the Arians and the arguments that Nestorius later took up,and defends the union of two physical natures in Christ [kata physin], as apposed to the mere juxtaposition or joining of the same natures [kata physin]. St. Cyril of Alexandria (about 415) makes use of this formula oftener even than the other Fathers; he calls Christ “the Word of the Father united in nature with the Flesh [ton ek theou Patros Logon kata physin henothenta sarki] (“De Recta Fide”, n. 8, in P. G., LXXVI, 1210). For other and very numerous citations, see Petavius (111, 4). The Fathers always explain that this physical union of the two natures does not mean the intermingling of the natures, nor any such union as would imply a change in God, but only such union as was necessary to explain the fact that one Divine Person had human nature as His own true nature together with His Divine nature.

The Council of Ephesus (431) condemned the heresy of Nestorius, and defined that Mary was mother in the flesh of God's Word made Flesh (can. i). It anathematized all who deny that the Word of God the Father was united with the Flesh in one hypostasis (kath hypostasin); all who deny that there is only one Christ with Flesh that is His own; all who deny that the same Christ is God at the same time and man (can. ii). In the remaining ten canons drawn up by St. Cyril of Alexandria, the anathema is aimed directly at Nestorius. “If in the one Christ anyone divides the substances, after they have been once united, and joins them together merely by a juxtaposition [mone symapton autas synapheia] of honour or of authority or of power and not rather by a union into a physical unity [synode te kath henosin physiken], let him be accursed” (can. iii). These twelve canons condemn plecemeal the various subterfuges of Nestorius. St. Cyril saw heresy lurking in phrases that seemed innocent enough to the unsuspecting. Even the co-adoration theory is condemned as an attempt to separate the Divine from the human nature in Jesus by giving to each a separate hypostasis (see Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, ed. 1908, nn. 113-26).

(2) MONOPHYSITISM

The condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius saved for the Church the dogma of the Incarnation, “the great mystery of godliness” (I Tim., iii, 16), but lost to her a portion of her children, who, though dwindled down to insignificant numbers, still remain apart from her care. The union of the two natures in one Person was saved. The battle for the dogma was not yet won. Nestorius had postulated two persons in Jesus Christ. A new heresy soon began. It postulated only one Person in Jesus, and that the Divine Person. It went farther. It went too far. The new heresy defended only one nature, as well as one Person in Jesus. The leader of this heresy was Eutyches. His followers were called Monophysites. They varied in their ways of explanation. Some thought the two natures were intermingled into one. Others are said to have worked out some sort of a conversion of the human into the Divine. All were condemned by the Council of Chalcedon (451). This Fourth General Council of the Church defined that Jesus Christ remained, after the Incarnation, “perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity . . . consubstantial with the Father according to His Divinity, consubstantial with us according to His humanity . . . one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures not intermingled, not changed, not divisible, not separable” (see Denzinger, n. 148). By this condemnation of error and definition of truth, the dogma of the Incarnation was once again saved to the Church. Once again a large portion of the faithful of the Oriental Church were lost to their mother. Monophysitism resulted in the national Churches of Syria, Egypt, and Armenia. These national Churches are still heretic, although there have in later times been formed Catholic rites called the Catholic Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian rites. The Catholic rites, as the Catholic Chaldaic rite, are less numerous than the heretic rites.

(3) MONOTHELITISM

One would suppose that there was no more room for heresy in the explanation of the mystery of the nature of the Incarnation. There is always room for heresy in the matter of explanation of a mystery, if one does not hear the infallible teaching body to whom and to whom alone Christ entrusted His mysteries to have and to keep and to teach them till ihe end of time. Three patriarchs of the Oriental Church gave rise, so far as we know, to the new heresy. These three heresiarchs were Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyrus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Athanasius, the Patriarch of Antioch. St. Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, remained true and delated his fellow patriarchs to Pope Honorius. His successor in the see of Peter, St. Martin, bravely condemned the error of the three Oriental patriarchs, who admitted the decrees of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; defended the union of two natures in one Divine Person; but denied that this Divine Person had two wills. Their principle was expressed by the words, en thelema kai mia energeia, by which they would seem to have meant one will and one activity, i. e. only one principle of action and of suffering in Jesus Christ and that one principle Divine. These heretics were called Monothelites. Their error was condemned by the Sixth General Council (the Third Council of Constantinople, 680). It defined that in Christ there were two natural wills and two natural activities, the Divine and the human, and that the human will was not at all contrary to the Divine, but rather perfectly subject thereto (Denzinger, n. 291). The Emperor Constans sent St. Martin into exile in Chersonesus. We have trace of only one body of Monothelites. The Maronites, about the monastery of John Maron, were converted from Monothelism in the time of the Crusades and have been true to the faith ever since. The other Monothelites seem to have been absorbed in Monophysitism, or in the schism of the Byzantine Church later one

The error of Monothelism is clear from the Scripture as well as from tradition. Christ did acts of adoration (John, iv, 22), humility (Matt., xi, 29), reverence (Heb., v, 7). These acts are those of a human will. The Monothelites denied that there was a human will in Christ. Jesus prayed: “Father, if Thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done,” (Luke, xxii, 42). Here there is question of two wills, the Father's and Christ's. The will of Christ was subject to the will of the Father. “As the Father hath given me commandment, so do I” (John, xiv, 31). He became obedient even unto death (Phil., ii, 8). The Divine will in Jesus could not have been subject to the will of the Father, with which will it was really identified.

(4) THE CATHOLIC FAITH

Thus far we have that which is of Faith in this matter of the nature of the Incarnation. The human and Divine natures are united in one Divine Person so as to remain that exactly which they are, namely, Divine and human natures with distinct and perfect activities of their own. Theologians go farther in their attempts to give some account of the mystery of the Incarnation, so as, at least, to show that there is therein no contradiction, nothing that right reason may not safely adhere to. This union of the two natures in one Person has been for centuries called a hypostatic union, that is, a union in the Divine Hypostasis. What is an hypostasis? The definition of Boethius is classic: rationalis naturae individua substantia (P. L., LXIV, 1343), a complete whole whose nature is rational. This book is a complete whole; its nature is not rational; it is not an hypostasis. An hypostasis is a complete rational individual. St. Thomas defines hypostasis as substantia cum ultimo complemento (III:2:3, ad 2um), a substance in its entirety. Hypostasis superadds to the notion of rational substance this idea of entirety; nor does the idea of rational nature include this notion of entirety. Human nature is the principle of human activities; but only an hypostasis, a person, can exercise these activities. The Schoolmen discuss the question whether the hypostasis has anything more of reality than human nature. To understand the discussion, one must needs be versed in scholastic Philosophy. Be the case as it may in the matter of human nature that is not united with the Divine, the human nature that is hypostatically united with the Divine, that is, the human nature that the Divine Hypostasis or Person assumes to Itself, has certainly more of reality united to it than the human nature of Christ would have were it not hypostatically united in the Word. The Divine Logos identified with Divine nature (Hypostatic Union) means then that the Divine Hypostasis (or Person, or Word, or Logos) appropriates to Itself human nature, and takes in every respect the place of the human person. In this way, the human nature of Christ, though not a human person, loses nothing of the perfection of the perfect man; for the Divine Person supplies the place of the human.

It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At the moment of conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the forcefulness of God's activity, not only was the human soul of Christ created but the Word assumed the man that was conceived. When God created the world, the world was changed, that is. it passed from the state of nonentity to the state of existence; and there was no change in the Logos or Creative Word of God the Father. Nor was there change in that Logos when it began to terminate the human nature. A new relation ensued, to be sure; but this new relation implied in the Logos no new reality, no real change; all new reality, all real change, was in the human nature. Anyone who wishes to go into this very intricate question of the manner of the Hypostatic Union of the two natures in the one Divine Personality, may with great profit read St. Thomas (III:4:2); Scotus (in III, Dist. i); (De Incarnatione, Disp. II, sec. 3); Gregory, of Valentia (in III, D. i, q. 4). Any modern text book on theology will give various opinions in regard to the way of the union of the Person assuming with the nature assumed

III. EFFECTS OF THE INCARNATION

(1) ON CHRIST HIMSELF

A. On the Body of Christ

Did union with the Divine nature do away, with all bodily inperfections? The Monophysites were split up into two parties by this question. Catholics hold that, before the Resurrection, the Body of Christ was subject to all the bodily weaknesses to which human nature unassumed is universally subject; such are hunger, thirst, pain, death. Christ hungered (Matt., iv, 2), thirsted (John, xix, 28), was fatigued (John, iv, 6), suffered pain and death. “We have not a high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin” (Heb., iv, 15). “For in that, wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted, he is able to succour them also that are tempted” (Heb., ii, 18). All these bodily weaknesses were not miraculously brought about by Jesus; they were the natural results of the human nature He assumed. To be sure, they might have been impeded and were freely willed by Christ. They were part of the free oblation that began with the moment of the Incarnation. “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not; but a body thou hast fitted to me” (Heb., x, 5). The Fathers deny that Christ assumed sickness. There is no mention in Scripture of any sickness of Jesus. Sickness is not a weakness that is a necessary belonging of human nature. It is true that pretty much all mankind suffers sickness. It is not true that any specific sickness is suffered by all mankind. Not all men must needs have measles. No one definite sickness universally belongs to human nature; hence no one definite sickness was assumed by Christ. St. Athanasius gives the reason that it were unbecoming that He should heal others who was Himself not healed (P. G., XX, 133). Weaknesses due to old age are common to mankind. Had Christ lived to an old age, He would have suffered such weaknesses just as He suffered the weaknesses that are common to infancy. Death from old age would have come to Jesus, had He not been violently put to death (see St. Augustine, “ De Peccat.”, II, 29; P. L., XLIV, 180). The reasonableness of these bodily imperfections in Christ is clear from the fact that He assumed human nature so as to satisfy for that nature's sin. Now,to satisfy forthe sin of another is to accept the penalty of that sin. Hence it was fitting that Christ should take upon himself all those penalties of the sin of Adam that are common to man and becoming. or at least not unbecoming to the Hypostatic Union. (See Summa Theologica III:14 for other reasons.) As Christ did not take sickness upon Himself, so other imperfections, such as deformities, which are not common to mankind, were not His. St. Clement of Alexandria (III Paedagogus, c. 1), Tertullian (De Carne Christi, c. ix), and a few others taught that Christ was deformed. They misinterpreted the words of Isaias: “There is no beauty in him, nor comeliness; and we have seen him, and there was no sightlinesss” etc. (liii, 2). The words refer only to the suffering Christ. Theologians now are unanimous in the view that Christ was noble in bearing and beautiful in form, such as a perfect man should be; for Christ was, by virtue of His incarnation, a perfect man (see Stentrup, “Christologia”, theses lx, lxi).

B. On the Human Soul of Christ

(a) IN THE WILL

Sinlessness

The effect of the Incarnation on the human will of Christ was to leave it free in all things save only sin. It was absolutely impossible that any stain of sin should soil the soul of Christ. Neither sinful act of the will nor sinful habit of the soul were in keeping with the Hypostatic Union. The fact that Christ never sinned is an article of faith (see Council, Ephes., can. x, in Denzinger, 122, wherein the sinlessness of Christ is implicit in the definition that he did not offer Himself for Himself, but for us). This fact of Christ's sinlessness is evident from the Scripture. “There is no sin in Him” (I John, iii, 5). Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us” i. e. a victim for sin (II Cor., v, 21). The impossibility of a sinful act by Christ is taught by all theologians, but variously explained. Günther defended an impossibility consequent solely upon the Divine provision that He would not sin (Vorschule, II, 441). This is no impossibility at all. Christ is God. It is absolutely impossible, antecedent to the Divine prevision, that God should allow His flesh to sin. If God allowed His flesh to sin, He might sin, that is, He might turn away from Himself; and it is absolutely impossible that God should turn from Himself, be untrue to His Divine attributes. The Scotists teach that this impossibility to sin, antecedent to God's revision, is not due to the Hypostatic Union, but is like to the impossibility of the beatified to sin, and is due to a special Divine Providence (see Scotus, in III, d. xiii, Q. i). St. Thomas (III:15:1) and all Thomists, Suarez (d. xxxiii, 2), Vasquez (d. xi, c. iii), de Lugo (d. xxvi, 1, n. 4), and all theologians of the Society of Jesus teach the now almost universally admitted explanation that the absolute impossibility of a sinful act on the part of Christ was due to the hypostatic union of His human nature with the Divine.

Liberty

The will of Christ remained free after the Incarnation. This is an article of faith. The Scripture is most clear on this point. “When he had tasted, he would not drink” (Matt., xxvii, 34). “I will; be thou made clean” (Matt., viii, 3). The liberty of Christ was such that He merited. “He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him” (Phil., ii, 8). “Who having joy set before him, endured the cross” (Heb., xii, 2). That Christ was free in the matter of death, is the teaching of all Catholics; else He did not merit nor satisfy for us by His death. Just how to reconcile this liberty of Christ with the impossibility of His committing sin has ever been a crux for theologians. Some seventeen explanations are given (see Summa Theologica III:47:3, ad 3; Molina, “Concordia”, d. liii, membr. 4).

(b) IN THE INTELLECT

The effects of the Hypostatic Union upon the knowledge of Christ will be treated in a special article (See KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST).

(c) SANCTITY OF CHRIST

The Humanity of Christ was holy by a twofold sanctity: the grace of union and sanctifying grace. The grace of union, i. e. the Substantial and Hypostatic Union of the two natures in the Divine Word, is called the substantial sanctity of Christ. St. Augustine says: “Tunc ergo sanctificavit se in se, hoc est hominem se in Verbo se, quia unus est Christus, Verbum et homo, sanctificans hominem in Verbo” (When the Word was made Flesh then, indeed, He sanctified Himself in Himself, that is, Himself as Man in Himself as Word; for that Christ is One Person, both Word and Man, and renders His human nature holy in the holiness of the Divine nature) (In Johan. tract. 108, n. 5, in P. L., XXXV, l916). Besides this substantial sanctity of the grace of Hypostatic Union, there was in the soul of Christ, the accidental sanctity called sanctifying grace. This is the teaching of St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and of the Fathers generally. The Word was “full of grace” (John, i, 14), and “of his fullness we all have received, and grace for grace” (John, i, 16). The Word were not full of grace, if any grace were wanting in Him which would be a perfection fitting to His human nature. All theologians teach that sanctifying grace is a perfection fitting the humanity of Christ. The mystical body of Christ is the Church, whereof Christ is the Head (Rom., xii, 4; I Cor., xii, 11; Eph., i, 20; iv, 4; Col. i, 18: ii, 10). It is especially in this sense that we say the grace of the Head flows through the channels of the sacraments of the Church—through the veins of the body of Christ. Theologians commonly teach that from the very beginning of His existence, He received the fullness of sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts (except faith, hope, and the moral virtue of penance); nor did He ever increase in these gifts or this sanctifying grace. For so to increase would be to become more pleasing to the Divine Majesty; and this were impossible in Christ. Hence St. Luke meant (ii, 52) that Christ showed more and more day after day the effects of grace in His outward bearing.

(d) LIKES AND DISLIKES

The Hypostatic Union did not deprive the Human Soul of Christ of its human likes and dislikes. The affections of a man, the emotions of a man were His in so far as they were becoming to the grace of union, in so far as they were not out of order. St. Augustine well argues: “Human affections were not out of place in Him in Whom there was really and truly a human body and a human soul” (De Civ. Dei, XIV, ix, 3). We find that he was subject to anger against the blindness of heart of sinners (Mark, iii, 5); to fear (Mark, xiv, 33); to sadness (Matt., xxvi, 37): to the sensible affections of hope, of desire, and of joy. These likes and dislikes were under the complete will-control of Christ. The fomes peccati, the kindling-wood of sin—that is, those likes and dislikes that are not under full and absolute control of right reason and strong will-power—could not, as a matter of course, have been in Christ. He could not have been tempted by such likes and dislikes to sin. To have taken upon Himself this penalty of sin would not have been in keeping with the absolute and substantial holiness which is implied by the grace of union in the Logos.

C. On the God-Man (Deus-Homo, theanthropos)

One of the most important effects of the union of the Divine nature and human nature in One Person is a mutual interchange of attributes, Divine and human, between God and man, the Communicatio Idiomatum. The God-Man is one Person, and to Him in the concrete may be applied the predicates that refer to the Divinity as well as those that refer to the Humanity of Christ. We may say God is man, was born, died, was buried. These predicates refer to the Person Whose nature is human, as well as Divine; to the Person Who is man, as well as God. We do not mean to say that God, as God, was born; but God, Who is man, was born. We may not predicate the abstract Divinity of the abstract humanity, nor the abstract Divinity of the concrete man, nor vice versa; nor the concrete God of the abstract humanity, nor vice versa. We predicate the concrete of the concrete: Jesus is God; Jesus is man; the God-Man was sad; the Man-God was killed. Some ways of speaking should not be used, not that they may not be rightly explained, but that they may easily be misunderstood in an heretical sense (see COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM).

(2) THE ADORATION OF THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST

The human nature of Christ, united hypostatically with the Divine nature, is adored with the same worship as the Divine nature (see ADORATION). We adore the Word when we adore Christ the Man; but the Word is God. The human nature of Christ is not at all the reason of our adoration of Him; that reason is only the Divine nature. The entire term of our adoration is the Incarnate Word; the motive of the adoration is the Divinity of the Incarnate Word. The partial term of our adoration may be the human nature of Christ: the motive of the adoration is the same as the motive of the adoration that reaches the entire term. Hence, the act of adoration of the Word Incarnate is the same absolute act of adoration that reaches the human nature. The Person of Christ is Iadored with the cult called latria. But the cult that is due to a person is due in like manner to the whole nature of that Person and to all its parts. Hence, since the human nature is the real and true nature of Christ, that human nature and all its parts are the object of the cult called latria, i. e., adoration. We shall not here enter into the question of the adoration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (see HEART OF JESUS, DEVOTION TO THE). (For the Adoration of the Cross, CROSS AND CRUCIFIX, THE, subtitle II.)

(3) OTHER EFFECTS OF THE INCARNATION

The effects of the incarnation on the Blessed Mother and us, will be found treated under the respective special subjects. (See GRACE; JUSTIFICATION; SATISFACTION; IMMACULATE CONCEPTION; MARY, THE BLESSED VIRGIN.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fathers of the Church: ST. IRENAEUS, Adversus Haer.; ST.ATHANASIUS, De Incarnatione Verbi; IDEM, Contra Arianos; ST. AMBROSE, De Incarnatione; ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium; IDEM, Tractatus ad Theophilum contra Apollinarium; the writings of ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN, ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, and others who attacked the Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, and Monothelites.

Scholastics: ST. THOMAS, Summa Theologica, III, QQ. 1-59; ST. BONAVENTURE, Brevil., IV; IDEM, in III Sent.; BELLARMINE, De Christo Capite Tolius Ecclesia, Controversiae., 1619; SUAREZ, De Incarnatione, DE LUGO, De Incarnatione, III; PETAVIUS, De incarn. Verbi: Theologia Dogmatica, IV.

WALTER DRUM

Interest

Notion of interest

Interest is a value exacted or promised over and above the restitution of a borrowed capital. Moratory interest, that is interest due as an indemnity or a penalty for delay in payment, is distinguished from compensatory interest, which indemnifies the lender for the danger he really runs of losing his capital, the loss that he suffers or the gain of which he deprives himself in disembarrassing himself of his capital during the period of the loan, and from lucrative interest, which is an emolument that the lender would not gain without lending. Interest originates in the loan of goods for consumption, which permits the borrower to expend or to destroy the things lent, on condition of giving back an equal number of the same kind or quality. The sum to be paid for the usage of an article, which must itself be given back, is called hire. Everything which is consumed by usage: corn, wine, oil, fruit, etc., can be the matter of a loan, (forer sense), but ordinarily it is a sum of money which is lent.

Legitimacy of lending at interest

Is it permitted to lend at interest? Formerly (see USURY) the Church rigorously condemned the exacting of anything over and above capital, except when, by reason of some special circumstance, the lender was in danger of losing his capital or could not advance his loan of money without exposing himself to a loss or to deprivation of a gain. These special reasons, which authorise the charging of interest, are called extrinsic titles.

Besides these compensatory interests, the Church has likewise admitted moratory interest. In our day, she permits the general practice of lending at interest, that is to say, she authorizes the impost, without one's having to enquire if, on lending his money, he has suffered a loss or deprived himself of a gain, provided he demand a moderate interest for the money he lends. This demand is never unjust. Charity alone, not justice, can oblige anyone to make a gratuitous loan (see the replies of the Penitentiary and of the Holy Office since 1830). What is the reason for this change in the attitude of the Church towards the exaction of interest? As may be more fully seen in the article USURY, this differece is due to economical circumstances. The price of goods is regulated by common valuation, and the latter by the utility that their possession ordinarily brings in a given centre. Now, today, otherwise than formerly, one can commonly employ one's money fruitfully, at least by putting it into a syndicate. Hence, today, the mere possession of money means a certain value. Whoever hands over this possession can claim in return this value. Thus it is that one acts in demanding an interest.

Just rate of interest

Even today one can still sin against justice by demanding too high an interest, or usury, as it is called. What interest then is just and moderate? Theoretically, and in an abstract way, the fair rate of interest nearly corresponds to the average gain that those engaged in business may generally expect in a determined centre. It nearly corresponds, for the interest being guaranteed, whilst the profit is uncertain, we must discount the value of an insurance premium from the average profit. Accordingly, in a determined centre, if those who sink their money in buildings, land, or industrial undertakings generally look for a profit of 6 per cent, the just rate of interest will be about 4 or 5 per cent. This rate covers the risks and ordinary inconveniences of lending. But if one had to run special riss or had to give up an extraordinary premium, one might in all justice exact a higher rate of interest. Such, therefore, is the theorertical rule. In practice, however, as even the answer of the Sacred Penitentiary shows (18 April, 1889), the best course is to conform to the usages establihed amongst men, precisely as one does with regard to other prices, and, as happens in the case of such prices, particular circumstances influece the rate of interest, either by increasing or lowering it. In this way, the security offered by advances to the governments of wealthy countries and those that cover mortgages diminish the rate for public loans and loans on mortgage. On the contrary, the interest on shipping, and mercantile business is higher than that in civil business, on account of the greater uncertainty in sea voyages and in commercial enterprise.

A. VERMEERSCH

Ivory

Ivory (French ivoire; Italian avorio; Latin ebur), dentine, the tusks of the elephant, hippopotamus, walrus, and other animals: a tough and elastic substance, of a creamy white, taking a high and lasting polish, largely employed in the arts since pre-historic times, and used extensively in making or adorning ecclesiastical objects by the primitive and medieval Christians. In the museums of Europe there are examples of pre-historic incised and carved ivories, and also many specimens of Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman bas-reliefs, statues, diptychs, plaques, and caskets. The classical authors frequently allude to ivory, and the Old Testament terms with references to its employment, even using its attributes as poetic qualifications, in the same way as the church does to-day in the Litany of Loretto (“Tower of ivory”). As soon as the Christians were free to display the symbols of their faith and illustrate its history pictorially, they adopted the art then in vogue for this purpose, and among their first aesthetic expressions, carved ivory diptychs were the most important; they followed closely the designs used in consular diptychs, excepting that symbolism and poetic imagery took the place of representations of mythological subjects. They consisted of two plates of ivory, hinged so as to fold together like a book; the inside of each leaf was slightly counter-sunk, with a narrow raised margin, so as to hold the wax that received the writing, while the outside of the leaves was profusely adorned with carvings. They were used for various purposes, such as listing the names of the baptized, bishops, martyrs, saints, and benefactors, and of the living and the dead who were to be prayed for.

That these diptychs suggested ivory plaques for book covers, reliquary doors and triptych shrines, is obvious; hundreds of plaques are in existence, dating from the time of Constantine to the sixteenth century, and many of them are exquisite works of art; in the British Museum there is one, six inches by four, divided into thirty panels, less than an inch square, and each compartment contains a scene from the life of the Blessed virgin, all being beautiful examples of ivory sculpture. Another use the early Christians found for ivory was the making of cylindrical pyxes from a cross section of the elephant tusk; upon the covers, they carved figures of Our Lord, St. Peter, and St. Paul, and on the side the Apostles and biblical subjects. Again, somewhat later, no doubt remembering that Solomon made “a great throne of ivory” (III Kings, x, 18), they overlaid their episcopal chairs with carved ivory tablets, as may be seen at Ravenna in the chair of St. Maximian, archbishop of that city (546). After the fifth century, possibly before, ivory crosiers were in use; eighty or more of them are now in existence, including those said to have belonged to a number of the saints. At the same time liturgical combs of ivory were in use. A beautiful example, the comb of St. Lupus (623), is in the treasury of St-Etienne at Lens. Representations of the Crucifixion in ivory upon various objects, are common, but not the crucifix. Most of the crucifixes date from the seventeenth century, and of these there are many, but of the earlier ones, only five have survived the action of time and the fanaticism of the Reformers. During the whole of the Middle Ages ivory was extensively used for paxes (instrumenta pacis), tabernacles, portable altars, caskets, holy-water buckets, statuettes, rosary-beads, seals, and the decoration of ecclesiastical furniture.

CARYL COLEMAN

Popess Joan

The fable about a female pope, who afterwards bore the name of Johanna (Joan), is first noticed in the middle of the thirteenth century. The first who appears to have had cognizance of it was the Dominican chronicler Jean de Mailly (Archiv der Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichte, xii, 17 sq., 469 sq.) from whom another Dominican, Etienne de Bourbon (d. 1261), adopted the tale into his work on the “Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost” (Quetit-Echard, “Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum”, I, Paris, 1719). In this account the alleged popess is placed about the year 1100, and no name is yet assigned her. The story runs that a very talented woman, dressed as a man, became notary to the Curia, then cardinal and finally pope; that one day this person went out on horseback, and on this occasion gave birth to a son; that she was then bound to the tail of a horse, dragged round the city, stoned to death by the mob, and was buried at the place where she died; and that an inscription was put up there as follows: “Petre pater patrum papissae prodito partum”. In her reign, the story adds, the Ember days were introduced, called therefore the “fasts of the popess”. A different version appears in the third recension of the chronicle of Martin of Troppau (Martinus Polonus) possibly inserted by the author himself and not by a subsequent transcriber. Through this very popular work the tale became best known in the following form: After Leo IV (847-55) the Englishman John of Mainz (Johannes Anglicus, natione Moguntinus) occupied the papal chair two years, seven months and four days. He was, it is alleged, a woman. When a girl, she was taken to Athens in male clothes by her lover, and there made such progress in learning that no one was her equal. She came to Rome, where she taught science, and thereby attracted the attention of learned men. She enjoyed the greatest respect on account of her conduct and erudition, and was finally chosen as pope, but, becoming pregnant by one of her trusted attendants, she gave birth to a child during a procession from St. Peter's to the Lateran, somewhere between the Colosseum and St. Clement's. There she died almost immediately, and it is said she was buried at the same place. In their processions the popes always avoid this road; many believe that they do this out of abhorrence of that calamity (Mon. Germ. Hist. Ser., xxii, 379, 475).

Here occurs for the first time the name of Johanna (Joan) as that of the alleged popess. Martin of Troppau had lived at the Curia as papal chaplain and penitentiary (he died 1278), for which reason his papal history was widely read, and through him the tale obtained general acceptance. One MS. of his chronicle relates in a different way the fate of the alleged popess. (Mon. Germ., loc.cit., 428), i.e., after her confinement Joan was immediately deposed, and did penance for many years. Her son, it is added, became Bishop of Ostia, and had her interred there after her death. Later chroniclers even give the name which she bore as a girl; some call her Agnes, some Gilberta. Still further variations are found in the works of different chroniclers, e.g. in the “Universal Chronicle of Metz”, written about 1250 (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Scr., xxiv, 514), and in subsequent editions of the twelfth (?) century “Mirabilia Urbis Romae”. According to the latter, the popess was given the choice in a vision, of temporal disgrace or eternal punishment; she chose the former, and died at her confinement in the open street (“Mirabilia Romae”, ed. Parthey, Berlin, 1869). In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries this popess was already counted as an historical personage, whose existence no one doubted. She had her place among the carved busts which stood in Siena Cathedral. Under Clement VIII, and at his request, she was transformed into Pope Zacharias. The heretic Hus, in the defense of his false doctrine before the Council of Constance, referred to the popess, and no one offered to question the fact of her existence. She is not found in the “Liber Pontificalis” nor among the papal portraits in St. Paul's Outside the Walls, at Rome.

This alleged popess is a pure figment of the imagination. In the fifteenth century, after the awakening of historical criticism, a few scholars like Aeneas Silvius (Epist., I,30) and Platina (Vitae Pontificum, No. 106) saw the untenableness of the story.Since the sixteenth century Catholic historians began to deny the existence of the popess, e.g., Onofrio Panvinio (Vitae Pontificum, Venice, 1557), Aventinus (Annales Boiorum, lib. IV), Baronius (Annales ad a. 879, n. 5), and others. A few Protestants also, e.g., Blondel (Joanna Papissa, 1657) and Leibniz (“Flores sparsae in tumulum papissae” in “Bibliotheca Historica”, Göttingen, 1758, 267 sq.), admitted that the popess never existed. Numerous Protestants, however, made use of the fable in their attacks on the papacy. Even in the nineteenth century, when the untenableness of the legend was recognized by all serious historians, a few Protestants (e.g. Kist, 1843; Suden, 1831; and Andrea, 1866) attempted, in an anti-Roman spirit, to prove the historical existence of the popess. Even Hase (“Kirchengesch.”, II, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1895, 81) could not refrain from a spiteful and absolutely unhistorical note on this subject.

The principal proofs of the entirely mythical character of the popess are:

1. Not one contemporaneous historical source among the papal histories knows anything about her; also, no mention is made of her until the middle of the thirteenth century. Now it is incredible that the appearance of a “popess”, if it was an historical fact, would be noticed by none of the numerous historians from the tenth to the thirteenth century.
2. In the history of the popes, there is no place where this legendary figure will fit in. Between Leo IV and Benedict III, where Martinus Polonus places her, she cannot be inserted, because Leo IV died 17 July, 855, and immediately after his death Benedict III was elected by the clergy and people of Rome; but owing to the setting up of an anti-pope, in the person of the deposed Cardinal Anastasius, he was not consecrated until 29 September. Coins exist which bear both the image of Benedict III and of Emperor Lothair, who died 28 September, 855; therefore Benedict must have been recognized as pope before the last-mentioned date. On 7 October, 855, Benedict III issued a charter for the Abbey of Corvey. Hinemar, Archbishop of Reims, informed Nicholas I that a messenger whom he had sent to Leo IV learned on his way of the death of this pope, and therefore handed his petition to Benedict III, who decided it (Hinemar, ep. xl in P.L., CXXXVI, 85). All these witnesses prove the correctness of the dates given in the lives of Leo IV and Benedict III, and there was no interregnum between these two popes, so that at this place there is no room for the alleged popess. Further, is is even less probable that a popess could be inserted in the list of popes about 1100, between Victor III (1087) and Unban II (1088-99) or Paschal II (1099-1110), as is suggested by the chronicle of Jean de Mailly.

This fable of a Roman popess seems to have had an earlier counterpart at Constantinople. Indeed, in his letter to Michael Caerularius (1053), Leo IX says that he would not believe what he had heard, namely that the Church of Constantinople had already seen eunuchs, indeed even a woman, in its episcopal chair(Mansi “Concil.”, XIX, 635 sq.). Concerning the origin of the whole legend of Popess Joan, different hypotheses have been advanced. Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, III, 24) believes that the tale was brought from Constantinople to Rome. Baronius (Annales ad a., 879, n.5) conjectures that the much censured effeminate weaknesses of Pope John VII (872-82) in dealing with the Greeks may have given rise to the story. Mai has shown (Nova Collectio Patr., I, Proleg., xlvii) that Photius of Constantinople (De Spir. Sanct. Myst., lxxxix) refers emphatically three times to this pope as “the Manly”, as though he would remove from him the stigma of effeminacy. Other historians point to the degradation of the papacy in the tenth century, when so many popes bore the name John; it seemed therefore a fitting name for the legendary popess. Thus Aventinus sees in the story a satire on John IX; Blondel, a satire on John XI; Panvinio (notae ad Platinam, De vitis Rom. Pont.) applies it to John XII, while Neander (Kirkengesch., II, 200) understands it as applicable generally to the baneful female influence on the papacy during the tenth century.

Other investigators endeavour to find in various occurrences and reports a more definite basis for the origin of this legend. Leo Allatius (Diss. Fab. de Joanna Papissa) connects it with the false prophetess Theota, condemned at the Synod of Mainz (847); Leibniz recalls the story that an alleged bishop Johannes Anglicus came to Rome and was there recognized as a woman. The legend has also been connected with the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, e.g. by Karl Blascus (“Diatribe de Joanna Papissa”, Naples, 1779), and Gfrörer (Kirchengesch., iii, 978).

Döinger's explanation has met with more general approval (“Papstfabeln”, Munich, 1863, 7-45). He recognizes the fable of Popess Joan as a survival of some local Roman folk-tale originally connected with certain ancient monuments and peculiar customs. An ancient statue discovered in the reign of Sixtus V, in a street near the Colosseum, which showed a figure with a child, was popularly considered to represent the popess. In the same street a monument was discovered with an inscription at the end of which occurred the well-known formula P.P.P. (proprie pecuniâ posuit) together with a prefixed name which read: Pap. (?Papirius) pater patrum. This could easily have given origin to the inscription mentioned by Jean de Mailly (see above). It was also observed that the pope did not pass along this street in solemn procession (perhaps on account of its narrowness). Further it was noticed that, on the occasion of his formal inauguration in front of the Lateran Basilica, the newly-elected pope always seated himself on a marble chair. This seat was an ancient bath-stool, of which there were many in Rome; it was merely made use of by the pope to rest himself. But the imagination of the vulgar took this to signify that the sex of the pope was thereby tested, in order to prevent any further instance of a woman attaining to the Chair of St. Peter. Erroneous explanations - such as were often excogitated in the Middle Ages in connexion with ancient monuments — and popular imagination are originally responsible for the fable of “Popess Joan” that uncritical chroniclers, since the middle of the thirteenth century, dignified by consigning it to their pages.

J.P. KIRSCH

St. John Fisher

Cardinal, Bishop of Rochester, and martyr; born at Beverley, Yorkshire, England, 1459 (?1469); died 22 June, 1535. John was the eldest son of Robert Fisher, merchant of Beverley, and Agnes his wife. His early education was probably received in the school attached to the collegiate church in his native town, whence in 1484 he removed to Michaelhouse, Cambridge. He took the degree of B.A. in 1487, proceeded M.A. in 1491, in which year he was elected a fellow of his college, and was made Vicar of Northallerton, Yorkshire. In 1494 he resigned his benefice to become proctor of his university, and three years later was appointed Master of Michaelhouse, about which date he became chaplain and confessor to Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby, mother of King Henry VII. In 1501 he received the degree of D.D., and was elected Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University. Under Fisher's guidance, the Lady Margaret founded St. John's and Christ's Colleges at Cambridge, and also the two “Lady Margaret” professorships of divinity at Oxford and Cambridge respectively, Fisher himself being the first occupant of the Cambridge chair.

By Bull dated 14 October, 1504, Fisher was advanced to the Bishopric of Rochester, and in the same year was elected Chancellor of Cambridge University, to which post he was re-elected annually for ten years and then appointed for life. At this date also he is said to have acted as tutor to Prince Henry, afterwards Henry VIII. As a preacher his reputation was so great that in 1509, when King Henry VII and the Lady Margaret died, Fisher was appointed to preach the funeral oration on both occasions; these sermons are still extant. In 1542 Fisher was nominated as one of the English representatives at the Fifth Council of Lateran, then sitting, but his journey to Rome was postponed, and finally abandoned. Besides his share in the Lady Margaret's foundations, Fisher gave further proof of his genuine zeal for learning by inducing Erasmus to visit Cambridge. The latter indeed (Epist., 6:2) attributes it to Fisher's protection that the study of Greek was allowed to proceed at Cambridge without the active molestation that it encountered at Oxford. He has also been named, though without any real proof, as the true author of the royal treatise against Luther entitled “Assertio septem sacramentorum”, published in 1521, which won the title Fidei Defensor for Henry VIII. Before this date Fisher had denounced various abuses in the Church, urging the need of disciplinary reforms, and in this year he preached at St. Paul's Cross on the occasion when Luther's books were publicly burned.

When the question of Henry's divorce from Queen Catherine arose, Fisher became the Queen's chief supporter and most trusted counsellor. In this capacity he appeared on the Queen's behalf in the legates' court, where he startled his hearers by the directness of his language and most of all by declaring that, like St. John the Baptist, he was ready to die on behalf of the indissolubility of marriage. This statement was reported to Henry VIII, who was so enraged by it that he himself composed a long Latin address to the legates in answer to the bishop's speech. Fisher's copy of this still exists, with his manuscript annotations in the magin which show how little he feared the royal anger. The removal of the cause to Rome brought Fisher's personal share therein to an end, but the king never forgave him for what he had done. In November, 1529, the “Long Parliament” of Henry's reign began its series of encroachments on the Church. Fisher, as a member of the upper house, at once warned Parliament that such acts could only end in the utter destruction of the Church in England. On this the Commons, through their speaker, complained to the king that the bishop had disparaged Parliament. Dr. Gairdner (Lollardy and the Reformation, I, 442) says of this incident “it can hardly be a matter of doubt that this strange remonstrance was prompted by the king himself, and partly for personal uses of his own”.

The opportunity was not lost. Henry summoned Fisher before him, demanding an explanation. Thisbeing given, Henry declared himself satisfied, leaving it to the Commons to declare that the explanation was inadequate, so that he appeared as a magnanimous sovereign, instead of Fisher's enemy.

A year later (1530) the continued encroachments on the Church moved the Bishops of Rochester, Bath, and Ely to appeal to the Apostolic see. This gave the king his opportunity. An edict forbidding such appeals was immediately issued, and the three bishops were arrested. Their imprisonment, however, can have lasted a few months only, for in February, 1531, Convocation mmet, and Fisher was present. This was the occasion when the clergy were forced, at a cost of 1000,000 pounds, to purchase the king's pardon for having recognized Cardinal Wolsey's authority as legate of the pope; and at the same time to acknowledge Henry as Supreme Head of the Church in England, to which phrase, however, the addition “so far as God's law permits” was made, through Fisher's efforts.

A few days later, several of the bishop's servants were taken ill after eating some porridge served to the household, and two actually died. Popular opinion at the time regarded this as an attempt on the bishop's life, although he himself chanced not to have taken any of the poisoned food. To disarm suspicion, the king not only expressed strong indignation at the crime, but caused a special Act of Parliament to be passed, whereby poisoning was to be accounted high treason, and the person guilty of it boiled to death. This sentence was actually carried out on the culprit, but it did not prevent what seems to have been a second attempt on Fisher's life soon afterwards.

Matters now moved rapidly. In May, 1532, Sir Thomas More resigned the chancellorship, and in June, Fisher preached publicly against the divorce. In August, Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, died, and Cranmer was at once nominated to the pope as his successor. In January, 1533, Henry secretly went through the form of marriage with Anne Boleyn; Cranmer's consecration took place in March of the same year, and, a week later, Fisher was arrested. It seems fairly clear that the purpose of this arrest was to prevent his opposing the sentence of divorce which Cranmer pronounced in May, or the coronation of Anne Boleyn which followed on 1 Hune; for Fisher was set at liberty again within a fortnight of the latter event, no charge being made against him. In the autumn of this year (1533), various arrests were made in connexion with the so-called revelations of the Holy Maid of Kent (see BARTON, ELIZABETH), but as Fisher was taken seriously ill in December, proceedings against him were postponed for a time. In March, 1534, however, a special bill of attainder against the Bishop of Rochester and others for complicity in the matter of the Nun of Kent was introduced and passed. By this Fisher was condemned to forfeiture of all his personal estate and to be imprisoned during the king's pleasure. Subsequently a pardon was granted him on payment of a fine of 300 pounds.

In the same session of Parliamment was passed the Act of Succession, by which all who should be called upon to do so were compelled to take an oath of succession, acknowledging the issue of Henry and Anne as legitimate heirs to the throne, under pain of being guilty of misprision of treason. Fisher refused the oath and was sent to the Tower of London, 26 April, 1534. Several efforts were made to induce him to submit, but without effect, and in November he was a second time attained of misprision of treason, his goods being forfeited as from 1 March preceding, and the See of Rochester being declared vacant as from 2 June following. A long letter exists, written from the Tower by the bishop to Thomas Cromwell, which records the severity of his confinement and the sufferings he endured.

In may, 1535, the new pope, Paul III, created Fisher Cardinal Priest of St. Vitalis, his motive being apparently to induce Henry by this mark of esteem to treat the bishop less severely. The effect was precisely the reverse. Henry forbade the cardinal's hat to be brought into England, declaring that he would send the head to Rome instead. In June a special commission for Fisher's trial was issued, and on 17 June he was arraigned in Westminster Hall on a charge of treason, in that he denied the king to be supreme head of the Church. Since he had been deprived of his bishopric by the Act of Attainder, he was treated as a commoner, and tried by jury. He was declared guilty, and condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, but the mode of excution was changed, and instead he was beheaded on Tower Hill. The martyr's last moments were thoroughly in keeping with his previous life.

He met death with a calm dignified courage which profoundly impressed all present. His headless body was stripped and left on the scaffold till evening, when it was thrown naked into a grave in the churchyard of Allhallows, Barking. Thence it was removed a fortnight later and laid beside that of Sir Thomas More in the church of St. Peter ad Vincula by the Tower. His head was stuck upon a pole on London Bridge, but its ruddy and lifelike appearance excited so much attention that, after a fortnight, it was thrown into the Thames, its place being taken by that of Sir Thomas More, whose martyrdom occurred on 6 July next following.

Several portraits of Fisher exist, the best being by Holbein in the royal collection; and a few secondary relics are extant. In the Decree of 29 December, 1886, when fifty-four of the English martyrs were beatified by Leo XIII, the best place of all is given to John Fisher. In 1935, Pope Pius XI canonized him. A list of Fisher's writings will be found in Gillow, “Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics” (London, s.d.), II, 262-270. There are twenty-six works in all, printed and manuscript, mostly ascetical or controversial treatises, several of which have been reprinted many times. The original editions are very rare and valuable. The principal are:

• “Treatise concernynge...the seven penytencyall Psalms” (London, 1508);
• “Sermon...agayn ye pernicyous doctrin of Martin Luther” (London, 1521);
• “Defensio Henrici VIII” (Cologne, 1525);
• “De Veritate Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia, adversus Johannem Oecolampadium” (Cologne, 1527);
• “De Causa Matrimonii...Henrici VIII cum Catharina Aragonensi” (Alcalá de Henares, 1530);
• “The Wayes to Perfect Religion” (London, 1535);
• “A Spirituall Consolation written...to hys sister Elizabeth” (London, 1735).

G. ROGER HUDLESTON

St. John of the Cross

Founder (with St. Teresa) of the Discalced Carmelites, doctor of mystic theology, b. at Hontoveros, Old Castile, 24 June, 1542; d. at Ubeda, Andalusia, 14 Dec., 1591. John de Yepes, youngest child of Gonzalo de Yepes and Catherine Alvarez, poor silk weavers of Toledo, knew from his earliest years the hardships of life. The father, originally of a good family but disinherited on account of his marriage below his rank, died in the prime of his youth; the widow, assisted by her eldest son, was scarcely able to provide the bare necessities. John was sent to the poor school at Medina del Campo, whither the family had gone to live, and proved an attentive and diligent pupil; but when apprenticed to an artisan, he seemed incapable of learning anything. Thereupon the governor of the hospital of Medina took him into his service, and for seven years John divided his time between waiting on the poorest of the poor, and frequenting a school established by the Jesuits. Already at that early age he treated his body with the utmost rigour; twice he was saved from certain death by the intervention of the Blessed Virgin. Anxious about his future life, he was told in prayer that he was to serve God in an order the ancient perfection of which he was to help bring back again. The Carmelites having founded a house at Medina, he there received the habit on 24 February, 1563, and took the name of John of St. Matthias. After profession he obtained leave from his superiors to follow to the letter the original Carmelite rule without the mitigations granted by various popes. He was sent to Salamanca for the higher studies, and was ordained priest in 1567; at his first Mass he received the assurance that he should preserve his baptismal innocence. But, shrinking from the responsibilities of the priesthood, he determined to join the Carthusians.

However, before taking any further step he made the acquaintance of St. Teresa, who had come to Medina to found a convent of nuns, and who persuaded him to remain in the Carmelite Order and to assist her in the establishment of a monastery of friars carrying out the primitive rule. He accompanied her to Valladolid in order to gain practi cal experience of the manner of life led by the reformed nuns. A small house having been offered, St. John resolved to try at once the new form of life, although St. Teresa did not think anyone, however great his spirituality, could bear the discomforts of that hovel. He was joined by two companions, an ex-prior and a lay brother, with whom he inaugurated the reform among friars, 28 Nov., 1568. St. Teresa has left a classical dscription of the sort of life led by these first Discalced Carmelites, in chaps.xiii and xiv of her “Book of Foundations”. John of the Cross, as he now called himself, became the first master of novices, and laid the foundation of the spiritual edifice which soon was to assume majestic proportions. He filled various posts in different places until St. Teresa called him to Avila as director and confessor to the convent of the Incarnation, of which she had been appointed prioress. He remained there, with a few interruptions, for over five years. Meanwhile, the reform spread rapidly, and, partly through the confusion caused by contradictory orders issued by the general and the general chapter on one hand, and the Apostolic nuncio on the other, and partly through human passion which sometimes ran high, its existence became seriously endangered.

St. John was ordered by his provincial to return to the house of his profession (Medina), and, on his refusing to do so, owing to the fact that he held his office not from the order but from the Apostolic delegate, he was taken prisoner in the night of 3 December, 1577, and carried off to Toledo, where he suffered for more than nine months close imprisonment in a narrow, stifling cell, together with such additional punishment as might have been called for in the case of one guilty of the most serious crimes. In the midst of his sufferings he was visited with heavenly consolations, and some of his exquisite poetry dates from that period. He made good his escape in a miraculous manner, August, 1578. During the next years he was chiefly occupied with the foundation and government of monasteries at Baeza, Granada, Cordova, Segovia, and elsewhere, but took no prominent part in the negotiations which led to the establishment of a separate government for the Discalced Carmelites. After the death of St. Teresa (4 Oct.,1582), when the two parties of the Moderates under Jerome Gratian, and the Zelanti under Nicholas Doria struggled for the upper hand, St. John supported the former and shared his fate. For some time he filled the post of vicar provincial of Andalusia, but when Doria changed the government of the order, concentrating all power in the hands of a permanent committee, St. John resisted and, supporting the nuns in their endeavour to secure the papal approbation of their constitutions, drew upon himself the displeasure of the superior, who deprived him of his offices and relegated him to one of the poorest monasteries, where he fell seriously ill. One of his opponents went so far as to go form to monastery gathering materials in order to bring grave charges against him, hoping for his expulsion from the order which he had helped to found.

As his illness increased he was removed to the monastery of Ubeda, where he at first was treated very unkindly, his constant prayer, “to suffer and to be despised”, being thus literally fulfilled almost to the end of his life. But at last even his adversaries came to acknowledge his sanctity, and his funeral was the occasion of a great outburst of enthusiasm. The body, still incorrupt, as has been ascertained within the last few years, was removed to Segovia, only a small portion remaining at Ubeda; there was some litigation about its possession. A strange phenomenon, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given, has frequently been observed in connexion with the relics of St. John of the Cross: Francis de Yepes, the brother of the saint, and after him many other persons have noticed the appearance in his relics of images of Christ on the Cross, the Blessed Virgin, St. Elias, St. Francis Xavier, or other saints, according to the devotion of the beholder. The beatification took place onb 25 Jan., 1675, the translation of his body on 21 May of the same year, and the canonization on 27 Dec., 1726.

He left the following works, which for the first time appeared at Barcelona in 1619.

1. “The Ascent of Mount Carmel”, an explanation of some verses beginning: “In a dark night with anxious love inflamed”. This work was to have comprised four books, but breaks off in the middle of the third.
2. “The Dark Night of the Soul”, another explanation of the same verses, breaking off in the second book. Both these works were written soon after his escape from prison, and, though incomplete, supplement each other, forming a full treatise on mystic theology.
3. An explanation of the “Spiritual Canticle”, (a paraphrase of the Canticle of Canticles) beginning “Where hast Thou hidden Thyself?” composed part during his imprisonment, and completed and commented upon some years later at the request of Venerable Anne of Jesus.
4. An explanation of a poem beginning: “O Living Flame of Love”, written about 1584 at the bidding of Dona Ana de Penalosa.
5. Some instructions and precautions on matters spiritual.
6. Some twenty letters, chiefly to his penitents. Unfortunately the bulk of his correspondence, including numerous letters to and from St. Teresa, was destroyed, partly by himself, partly during the persecutions to which he fell a victim.
7. “Poems”, of which twenty-six have been hitherto published, viz., twenty in the older editions, and recently six more, discovered partly at the National Library at Madrid, and partly at the convent of Carmelite nuns at Pamplona.
8. “A Collection of Spiritual Maxims” (in some editions to the number of one hundred, and in others three hundred and sixty-five) can scarcely count as an independent work, as they are culled from his writings.

It has been recorded that during his studies St. John particularly relished psychology; this is amply borne out by his writings. He was not what one would term a scholar, but he was intimately acquainted with the “Summa” of St. Thomas Aquinas, as almost every page of his works proves. Holy Scripture he seems to have known by heart, yet he evidently obtained his knowledge more by meditation than in the lecture room. But there is no vestige of influence on him of the mystical teaching of the Fathers, the Aeropagite, Augustine, Gregory, Bernard, Bonaventure,etc., Hugh of St. Victor, or the German Dominican school. The few quotations from patristic works are easily traced to the Breviary or the “Summa”. In the absence of any conscious or unconscious influence of earlier mystical schools, his own system, like that of St. Teresa, whose influence is obvious throughout, might be termed empirical mysticism. They both start from their own experience, St. Teresa avowedly so, while St. John, who hardly ever speaks of himself, “invents nothing” (to quote Cardinal Wiseman), “borrows nothing from others, but gives us clearly the results of his own experience in himself and others. He presents you with a portrait, not with a fancy picture. He represents the ideal of one who has passed, as he had done, through the career of the spiritual life, through its struggles and its victories”.

His axiom is that the soul must empty itself of self in order to be filled with God, that it must be purified of the last traces of earthly dross before it is fit to become united with God. In the application of this simple maxim he shows the most uncompromising logic. Supposing the soul with which he deals to be habitually in the state of grace and pushing forward to better things, he overtakes it on the very road leading it, in its opinion to God, and lays open before its eyes a number of sores of which it was altogether ignorant, viz. what he terms the spiritual capital sins. Not until these are removed (a most formidable task) is it fit to be admitted to what he calls the “Dark Night”, which consists in the passive purgation, where God by heavy trials, particularly interior ones, perfects and completes what the soul had begun of its own accord. It is now passive, but not inert, for by submitting to the Divine operation it co-operates in the measure of its power. Here lies one of the essential differences between St. John's mysticism and a false quietism. The perfect purgation of the soul in the present life leaves it free to act with wonderful energy: in fact it might almost be said to obtain a share in God's omnipotence, as is shown in the marvelous deeds of so many saints. As the soul emerges from the Dark Night it enters into the full noonlight described in the “Spiritual Canticle” and the “Living Flame of Love”. St. John leads it to the highest heights, in fact to the point where it becomes a”partaker of the Divine Nature”. It is here that the necessity of the previous cleansing is clearly perceived the pain of the mortification of all the senses and the powers and faculties of the soul being amply repaid by the glory which is now being revealed in it.

St. John has often been represented as a grim character; nothing could be more untrue. He was indeed austere in the extreme with himself, and, to some extent, also with others, but both from his writings and from the depositions of those who knew him, we see in him a man overflowing with charity and kindness, a poetical mind deeply influenced by all that is beautiful and attractive.

The best life of St. John of the Cross was written by JEROME DE SAN JOSÉ (Madrid, 1641), but, not being approved by the superiors, it was not incorporated in the chronicles of the order, and the author lost his position of annalist on account of it.

BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN

Joseph of Arimathea

All that is known for certain concerning him is derived from the canonical Gospels. He was born at Arimathea - hence his surname - “a city of Judea” (Luke, xxiii, 51), which is very likely identical with Ramatha, the birthplace of the Prophet Samuel, although several scholars prefer to identify it with the town of Ramleh. He was a wealthy Israelite (Matt., xxvii, 57), “a good and a just man” (Luke, xxiii, 50), “who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God” (Mark, xv, 43). He is also called by St. Mark and by St. Luke a bouleutes, literally, “a senator”, whereby is meant a member of the Sanhedrin or supreme council of the Jews. He was a disciple of Jesus, probably ever since Christ's first preaching in Judea (John, ii, 23), but he did not declare himself as such “for fear of the Jews” (John, xix, 38). On account of this secret allegiance to Jesus, he did not consent to His condemnation by the Sanhedrin (Luke, xxiii, 51), and was most likely absent from the meeting which sentenced Jesus to death (cf. Mark, xiv, 64).

The Crucifixion of the Master quickened Joseph's faith and love, and suggested to him that he should provide for Christ's burial before the Sabbath began. Unmindful therefore of all personal danger, a danger which was indeed considerable under the circumstances, he boldly requested from Pilate the Body of Jesus, and was successful in his request (Mark, xv, 43-45). Once in possession of this sacred treasure, he — together with Nicodemus, whom his courage had likewise emboldened, and who brought abundant spices — wrapped up Christ's Body in fine linen and grave bands, laid it in his own tomb, new and yet unused, and hewn out of a rock in a neighbouring garden, and withdrew after rolling a great stone to the opening of the sepulchre (Matt., xxvii, 59, 60; Mark, xv, 46; Luke, xxiii, 53; John, xix, 38-42). Thus was fulfilled Isaiah's prediction that the grave of the Messias would be with a rich man (Is., liii, 9). The Greek Church celebrates the feast of Joseph of Arimathea on 31 July, and the Roman Church on 17 March. The additional details which are found concerning him in the apocryphal “Acta Pilati”, are unworthy of credence. Likewise fabulous is the legend which tells of his coming to Gaul A.D. 63, and thence to Great Britain, where he is supposed to have founded the earliest Christian oratory at Glastonbury. Finally, the story of the translation of the body of Joseph of Arimathea from Jerusalem to Moyenmonstre (Diocese of Toul) originated late and is unreliable.

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

St. Joseph of Cupertino

Mystic, born 17 June, 1603; died at Osimo 18 September, 1663; feast, 18 September. Joseph received his surname from Cupertino, a small village in the Diocese of Nardo, lying between Brindisi and Otranto in the Kingdom of Naples. His father Felice Desa, a poor carpenter, died before Joseph was born and left some debts, in consequence of which the creditors drove the mother, Francesca Panara, from her home, and she was obliged to give birth to her child in a stable. In his eighth year Joseph had an ecstatic vision while at school and this was renewed several times; so that the children, seeing him gape and stare on such occasions, lost to all things about him, gave him the sobriquet “Bocca Aperta”. At the same time he had a hot and irascible temper which his strict mother strove hard to overcome. He was apprenticed to a shoemaker, but at the age of seventeen he tried to be admitted to the Friars Minor Conventuals and was refused on account of his ignorance. He then applied to the Capuchins at Martino near Tarento, where he was accepted as a lay-brother in 1620, but his continual ecstasies unfitted him for work and he was dismissed. His mother and his uncles abused him as a good-for-nothing, but Joseph did not lose hope. By his continued prayers and tears he succeeded in obtaining permission to work in the stable as lay help or oblate at the Franciscan convent of La Grotella near Cupertino. He now gave evidence of great virtues, humility, obedience, and love of penance to such an extent that he was admitted to the clerical state in 1625, and three years later, on 28 March he was raised to the priesthood. Joseph was but little versed in human knowledge, for his biographers relate that he was able to read but poorly, yet infused by knowledge and supernatural light he not only surpassed all ordinary men in the learning of the schools but could solve the most intricate questions.

His life was now one long succession of visions and other heavenly favours. Everything that in any way had reference to God or holy things would bring on an ecstatic state: the sound of a bell or of church music, the mention of the name of God or of the Blessed Virgin or of a saint, any event in the life of Christ, the sacred Passion, a holy picture, the thought of the glory in heaven, all would put Joseph into contemplation. Neither dragging him about, buffeting, piercing with needles, nor even burning his flesh with candles would have any effect on him - only the voice of his superior would make him obey. These conditions would occur at any time or place, especially at Mass or during Divine Service. Frequently he would be raised from his feet and remain suspended in the air. Besides he would at times hear heavenly music. Since such occurrences in public caused much admiration and also disturbance in a community, Joseph for thirty-five years was not allowed to attend choir, go to the common refectory, walk in procession or say Mass in church, but was ordered to remain in his room, where a private chapel was prepared for him. Evil-minded and envious men even brought him before the Inquisition, and he was sent from one lonely house of the Capuchins or Franciscans to another, but Joseph retained his resigned and joyous spirit, submitting confidently to Divine Providence. He practised mortification and fasting to such a degree, that he kept seven Lents of forty days each year, and during many of them tasted no food except on Thursdays and Sundays. His body is in the church at Osimo. He was beatified by Benedict XIV in 1753, and canonized 16 July 1767 by Clement XIII; Clement XIV extended his office to the entire Church. His life was written by Robert Nuti (Palermo, 1678). Angelo Pastrovicchi wrote another in 1773, and this is used by the Bollandist “Acta SS.”, V, Sept., 992.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Juliana of Norwich

English mystic of the fourteenth century, author or recipient of the vision contained in the book known as the “Sixteen Revelations of Divine Love”. The original form of her name appears to have been Julian. She was probably a Benedictine nun, living as a recluse in an anchorage of which traces still remain in the east part of the churchyard of St. Julian in Norwich, which belonged to Carrow Priory. According to her book, this revelation was “shewed” to her on 8 or 14 May (the readings differ), 1373, when she was thirty years and a half old. This would refer her birth to the end of 1342. Her statement, that “for twenty years after the time of this shewing, save three months, I had teaching inwardly”, proves that the book was not written before 1393. An early fifteenth-century manuscript, recently purchased for the British Museum from the Amherst library, states that she “yet is on life, Anno Domini 1413”. It is probable that this is the manuscript cited by Francis Blomefield, the eigtheenth-century historian of Norfolk, and that a misreading of the date led to the statement that she was still living in 1442. Attempts have been made to identify her with Lady Julian Lampet, the anchoress of Carrow, references concerning legacies to whom occur in documents from 1426 to 1478; but this is manifestly impossible. The newly-discovered manuscript differs considerably from the complete version hitherto known, of which it is a kind of condensation, lacking the beginning and the end. Only three, much later, manuscripts of the fuller text are known to exist. The earliest, in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris (from which the book was first edited by Serenus de Cressy in 1670), dates from the sixteenth century; the other two, both in the British Museum and not independent of each other, belong to the seventeenth. The better of the latter is evidently a copy of a much earlier original.

Whatever be their precise date, these “Revelations”, or “Shewings”, are the most perfect fruit of later medieval mysticism in England. Juliana described herself as a “simple creature unlettered” when she received them; but, in the years that intervened between the vision and the composition of the book, she evidently acquired some knowledge of theological phraseology, and her work appears to show the influence of Walter Hilton, as well as neo-Platonic analogies, the latter probably derived from the anonymous author of the “Divine Cloud of Unknowing”. There is one passage, concerning the place in Christ's side for all mankind that shall be saved, which argues an acquaintance with the letters of St. Catherine of Siena. The psychological insight with which she describes her condition, distinguishing the manner of her vision and recognizing when she has to deal with a mere delusion, is worthy of St. Teresa. When seemingly at the point of death, in the bodily sickness for which she had prayed in order to renew her spiritual life, she passes into a trance while contemplating the crucifix, and has the vision of Christ's suffering “in which all the shewings that follow be grounded and joined”.

The book is the record of twenty years' meditation upon that one experience; for, “when the shewing, which is given for a time, is passed and hid, then faith keepeth it by grace of the Holy Ghost unto our lives end”. More than fifteen years later, she received “in ghostly understanding” the explanation, the key to all religious experience: “What? wouldest thou wit thy Lord's meaning in this thing? Wit it well: Love was His meaning. Who sheweth it thee? Love. Wherefore sheweth He it thee? For love. Hold thee therein, thou shalt wit more in the same. But thou shalt never wit therein other without end.” With this illumination, the whole mystery of Redemption and the purpose of human life become clear to her, and even the possibility of sin and the existence of evil does not trouble her, but is made “a bliss by love”. This is the great deed, transcending our reason, that the Blessed Trinity shall do at the last day: “Thou shalt see thyself that all manner of thing shall be well.” Like St. Catherine, Juliana has little of the dualism of body and soul that is frequent in the mystics. God is in our “sensuality” as well as in our “substance”, and the body and the soul render mutual aid: “Either of them take help of other till we be brought up into stature, as kind worketh.” Knowledge of God and knowledge of self are inseparable: we may never come to the knowing of one without the knowing of the other. “God is more nearer to us than our own soul”, and “in falling and rising we are ever preciously kept in one love.” She lays special stress upon the “homeliness” and “courtesy” of God's dealings with us, “for love maketh might and wisdom full meek to us.” With this we must correspond by a happy confidence; “failing of comfort” is the “most mischief” into which the soul can fall. In the Blessed Virgin the Lord would have all mankind see how they are loved. Throughout her revelation Juliana submits herself to the authority of the Church: “I yield me to our mother Holy Church, as a simple child oweth.”

EDMUND G. GARDNER

Venerable William Knight

Put to death for the Faith at York, on 29 November, 1596; with him also suffered Venerables George Errington of Herst, William Gibson of Ripon, and William Abbot of Howden, in Yorkshire. William Knight was the son of Leonard Knight and lived at South Duffield, Hemington. On coming of age he claimed some property, left to him by his father, from his uncle, a Protestant, who denounced him to the authorities for being a Catholic; he was at once seized and committed to the custody of Colyer, a pursuivant, who treated him with indignity and severity. He was sent in October, 1593, to York Castle, where William Gibson and George Errington were already confined, the latter having been arrested some years previously for participation in a rising in the North. A certain Protestant clergyman chanced to be among their fellow prisoners. To gain his freedom he had recourse to an act of treachery: geigning a desire to become a Catholic, he won the confidence of Knight and his two companions, who explained the Faith to him. With the connivance of the authorities, he was directed to one Henry Abbot, then at liberty, who endeavoured to procure a priest to reconcile him to the Church. Thereupon Abbot was arrested and, together with Knight and his two comrades, accused of persuading the clergyman to embrace Catholicism — an act of treason under the penal laws. They were found guilty, sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, and suffered their martyrdom with joy and fortitude at York, on 29 November, 1596.

A. A. MACERLEAN

Pope St. Linus

(About A. D. 64 or 67-76 or 79).

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, “ De vir. ill.”, xv) . The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Tim., iv, 21. The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads: “After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus ii mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus”. We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in II Tim., iv, 21, goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.

Linus's term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. The dates given in this catalogue, A. D=2E 56 until A. D. 67, are incorrect. Perhaps it was on account of these dates that the writers of the fourth century gave their opinion that Linus had held the position of head of the Roman community during the life of the Apostle; e. g., Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the pseudo-Clementine “Recognitiones”. But this hypothesis has no historical foundation. It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which, however, is not known for certain. The “ Liber Pontificalis “ asserts that Linus's home was in Tuscany, and that his father's name was Herculanus; but we cannot discover the origin of this assertion. According to the same work on the popes, Linus is supposed to have issued a decree “ in conformity with the ordinance of St. Peter”, that women should have their heads covered in church. Without doubt this decree is apocryphal, and copied by the author of the “ Liber Pontificalis “ from the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (xi, 5) and arbitrarily attributed to the first successor of the Apostle in Rome. The statement made in the same source, that Linus suffered martyrdom, cannot be proved and is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and Irenaeus (1. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus as a glorious martyr.

Finally this book asserts that Linus after his death, was buried in the Vatican beside St. Peter. We do not know whether the author had any decisive reason for this assertion. As St. Peter was certainly buried at the foot of the Vatican Hill, it is quite possible that the earliest bishops of the Roman Church also were interred there. There was nothing in the liturgical tradition of the fourth-century Roman Church to prove this, because it was only at the end of the second century that any special feast of martyrs-was instituted and consequently Linus does not appear in the fourth-century lists of the feasts of the Roman saints. According to Torrigio (“Le sacre grotte Vaticane”, Viterbo, 1618, 53) when the present confession was constructed in St. Peter's (1615), sarcophagi were found, and among them was one which bore the word Linus. The explanation given by Severano of this discovery (“Memorie delle sette chiese di Roma”, Rome, 1630, 120) is that probably these sarcophagi contained the remains of the first Roman bishops, and that the one bearing that inscription was Linus's burial place. This assertion was repeated later on by different writers. But from a MS. of Torrigio's we see that on the sarcophagus in question there were other letters beside the word Linus, so that they rather belonged to some other name (such as Aquilinus, Anullinus). The place of the discovery of the tomb is a proof that it could not be the tomb of Linus. (De Rossi, “Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae”, II, 23-7). The feast of St. Linus is now celebrated on 23 September. This is also the date given in the “ Liber Pontificalis “. An epistle on the martyrdom of the Apostles St. Peter and Paul was at a later period attributed to St. Linus, and supposedly was sent by him to the Eastern Churches. It is apocryphal and of later date than the history of the martyrdom of the two Apostles, by some attributed to Marcellus, which is also apocryphal (“Acta Apostolorum apocrypha”, ed. Lipsius and Bonnet, I, ed; Leipzig, 1891, XIV sqq., 1 sqq.)

LIGHTFOOT, The Apostolic Fathers; St. Clement of Rome, I (London, 1890), 201 sqq.; HARNACK, Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur, II: Die Chronologie I (Leipzig, 1897), 70; Acta SS. September, VI, 539 sqq., Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, I, 121: cf. Introduction, lxix; DE SMEDT, Dissertationes selectae in primam aetatem hist. eccl., I, 300 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Love (Theological Virtue)

The third and greatest of the Divine virtues enumerated by St. Paul (1 Cor., xiii, 13), usually called charity, defined: a divinely infused habit, inclining the human will to cherish god for his own sake above all things, and man for the sake of god.

This definition sets off the main characteristics of charity:

(1) Its origin, by Divine infusion. “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost” (Rom., v, 5). It is, therefore, distinct from, and superior to, the inborn inclination or the acquired habit of loving God in the natural order. Theologians agree in saying that it is infused together with sanctifying grace, to which it is closely related either by way of real identity, as some few hold, or, according to the more common view, by way of connatural emanation.

(2) Its seat, in the human will. Although charity is at times intensely emotional, and frequently reacts on our sensory faculties, still it properly resides in the rational will a fact not to be forgotten by those who would make it an impossible virtue.

(3) Its specific act, i.e. the love of benevolence and friendship. To love God is to wish Him all honour and glory and every good, and to endeavour, as far as we can, to obtain it-for Him. St. John (xiv, 23; xv, 14) emphasizes the feature of reciprocity which makes charity a veritable friendship of man with God.

(4) Its motive, i.e., the Divine goodness or amiability taken absolutely and as made known to us by faith. It matters not whether that goodness be viewed in one, or several, or all of the Divine attributes, but, in all cases, it must be adhered to, not as a source of help, or reward, or happiness for ourselves, but as a good in itself infinitely worthy of our love, in this sense alone is God loved for His own sake. However, the distinction of the two loves: concupiscence, which prompts hope; and benevolence, which animates charity, should not be forced into a sort of mutual exclusion, as the Church has repeatedly condemned any attempts at discrediting the workings of Christian hope (q. v.).

(5) Its range, i.e., both God and man. While God alone is all lovable, yet, inasmuch as all men, by grace and glory, either actually share or at least are capable of sharing in the Divine goodness, it follows that supernatural love rather includes than excludes them, according to Matt., xxii, 39, and Luke, x, 27. Hence one and the same virtue of charity terminates in both God and man, God primarily and man secondarily.

I. Love of God

Man's paramount duty of loving God is tersely expressed in Deut., vi, 5; Matt., xxii, 37; and Luke, x, 27. Quite obvious is the imperative character of the words “thou shalt”. Innocent XI (Denziger, nos. 1155-57) declares that the precept is not fulfilled by an act of charity performed once in a lifetime, or every five years, or on the rather indefinite occasions when justification cannot be otherwise procured.

Moralists urge the obligation at the beginning of the moral life when reason has attained its full de velopment; at the point of death; and from time to time during life, an exact count being neither possible nor necessary since the Christian habit of daily prayer surely covers the obligation.

The violation of the precept is generally negative, i.e., by omission or indirect, i.e., implied in every grievous fault; there are, however, sins directly opposed to the love of God: spiritual sloth, at least when it entails a voluntary loathing of spiritual goods, and the hatred of God, whether it be an abomination of God's restrictive and punitive laws or an aversion for His Sacred Person (see SLOTH; HATRED).

The qualifications, “with thy whole heart,and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength”, do not mean a maximum of intensity, for intensity of action never falls under a command; still less do they imply the necessity of feeling more sensible love for God than for creatures, for visible creatures, howsoever imperfect, appeal to our sensibility much more than the invisible God. Their true significance is that, both in our mental appreciation and in our voluntary resolve, God should stand above all the rest, not excepting father or mother, son or daughter (Matt., x, 37). St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xliv, a. 5) would assign a special meaning to each of the four Biblical phrases; others, with more reason, take the whole sentence in its cumulative sense, and see in it the purpose, not only of raising charity above the low Materialism of the Sadducees or the formal Ritualism of the Pharisees, but also of declaring that “to love God above all things is to insure the sanctity of our whole life” (Le Camus, “Vie de Notre-Seigneur Jesus-Christ”, III, 81).

The love of God is even more than a precept binding the human conscience; it is also, as Le Camus observes, “the principle and goal of moral perfection.”

As the principle of moral perfection in the supernatural order, with faith as foundation and hope as incentive, the love of God ranks first among the means of salvation styled by theologians necessary, necessitate medii”. By stating that “charity never falleth away” (1 Cor xiii, 8), St Paul clearly intimates that there is no difference of kind, but only of degree, between charity here below and glory above; as a consequence Divine love becomes the necessary inception of that God-like life which reaches its fullness in heaven only. The necessity of habitual charity is inferred from its close communion with sanctifying grace. The necessity of actual charity is no less evident. Apart from the cases of the actual reception of baptism, penance, or extreme unction, wherein the love of charity by a special dispensation of God, admits of attrition as a substitute, all adults stand in need of it, according to 1 John, iii, 14: “He that loveth not, abideth in death”.

As the goal of moral perfection, always in the supernatural order, the love of God is called “the greatest and the first commandment” (Matt., xxii, 38), “the end of the commandment” (1 Tim., i, 5), “ the bond of perfection” (Col., iii, 14). It stands as an all-important factor in the two main phases of our spiritual life, justification and the acquisition of merits. The justifying power of charity, so well expressed in Luke, vii, 47, and 1 Pet., iv, 8, has in no way been abolished or reduced by the institution of the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance as necessary means of moral rehabilitation; it has only been made to include a willingness to receive these sacraments where and when possible. Its meritorious power, emphasized by St. Paul (Rom,.viii, 28), covers both the acts elicited or commanded by charity. St. Augustine (De laudibus quartets) calls charity the “life of virtues” (vita virtutum); and St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xxiii, a. 8), the “form of virtues” (forma virtutum). The meaning is that the other virtues, while possessing a real value of their own, derive a fresh and greater excellence from their union with charity, which, reaching out directly to God, ordains all our virtuous actions to Him.

As to the manner and degree of influence which charity should exercise over our virtuous actions in order to render them meritorious of heaven, theologians are far from being agreed, some requiring only the state of grace, or habitual charity, others insisting upon the more or less frequent renewal of distinct acts of divine love.

Of course, the meritorious power of charity is, like the virtue itself, susceptible of indefinite growth. St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xxiv, 24 a. 4 and 8) mentions three principal stages:

1. freedom from mortal sin by strenuous resistance to temptation,
2. avoidance of deliberate venial sins by the assiduous practice of virtue,
3. union with God through the frequent recurrence of acts of love.

To these, ascetic writers like Alvarez de Paz, St. Teresa, St. Francis of Sales, add many more degrees, thus anticipating even in this world the “many mansions in the Father's house”. The prerogatives of charity should not, however, be construed so as to include inamissibility. The saying of St. John (1 Ep., iii, 6), “Whosoever abideth in him [God], sinneth not”, means indeed the special permanence of charity chiefly in its higher degrees, but it is no absolute guarantee against the possible loss of it; while the infused habit is never diminished by venial sins, a single grievous fault is enough to destroy it and so end man's union and friendship with God.

II. Love of Man

While charity embraces all the children of God in heaven, on earth, and in purgatory (see COMMUNION OF SAINTS), it is taken here as meaning man's supernatural love for man, and that in this world; as such, it includes both love of self and love of neighbour.

(1) Love of Self

St. Gregory the Great (Hom. XIII in Evang.) objects to the expression “charity towards self”, on the plea that charity requires two terms, and St. Augustine (De bono viduitatis, xxi) remarks that no command was needed to make man love himself. Obviously, St. Gregory's objection is purely grammatical; St. Augustine's remark applies to natural self-love. As a matter of fact, the precept of supernatural love of self is not only possible or needed, but also clearly implied in Christ's command to love our neighbour as ourselves. Its obligation, however, bears in a vague manner on the salvation of our soul (Matt., xvi, 26), the acquisition of merits (Matt., vi, 19 sqq.), the Christian use of our body (Rom., vi, 13; 1 Cor., vi, 19; Col., iii, 5). and can hardly be brought down to practical points not already covered by more specific precepts.

(2) Love of Neighbour

The Christian idea of brotherly love as compared with the pagan or Jewish concept has been touched upon elsewhere (see CHARITY AND CHARITIES). Briefly, its distinctive feature, and superiority as well, is to be found less in its commands, or prohibitions, or even results, than in the motive which prompts its laws and prepares its achievements. The faithful carrying out of the “new commandment” is called the criterion of true Christian discipleship (John xiii, 34 sq.), the standard by which we shall be judged (Matt., xxv, 34 sqq.), the best proof that we love God Himself (1 John, iii, 10), and the fulfilment of the whole law (Gal., v, 14), because, viewing the neighbour in God and through God, it has the same value as the love of God. The expression “to love the neighbour for the sake of God” means that we rise above the consideration of mere natural solidarity and fellow-feeling to the higher view of our common Divine adoption and heavenly heritage; in that sense only could our brotherly love be brought near to the love which Christ had for us (John, xiii, 35), and a kind of moral identity between Christ and the neighbour (Matt., xxv, 40), become intelligible. From this high motive the universality of fraternal charity follows as a necessary consequence. Whosoever sees in his fellow-men, not the human peculiarities, but the God-given and God-like privileges, can no longer restrict his love to members of the family, or co-religionists, or fellow-citizens, or strangers within the borders (Lev., xix, 34), but must needs extend it, without distinction of Jew or Gentile (Rom., x, 12), to all the units of the human kind, to social outcasts (Luke, x, 33 sqq.), and even to enemies (Matt., v, 23 sq.). Very forcible is the lesson wherein Christ compels His hearers to recognize, in the much despised Samaritan, the true type of the neighbour, and truly new is the commandment whereby He urges us to forgive our enemies, to be reconciled with them, to assist and love them.

The exercise of charity would soon become injudicious and inoperative unless there be in this, as in all the moral virtues, a well-defined order. The ordo caritatis, as theologians a term it, possibly from a wrong rendering into Latin of Cant., ii, 4 (ordinavit in me charitatem), takes into account these different factors:

1. the persons who claim our love,
2. the advantages which we desire to procure for them, and
3. the necessity in which they are placed.

The precedence is plain enough when these factors are viewed separately. Regarding the persons alone, the order is somewhat as follows: self, wife, children, parents, brothers and sisters, friends, domestics, neighbours, fellow-countrymen, and all others. Considering the goods by themselves, there is a triple order:

1. the most important spiritual goods appertaining to the salvation of the soul should first appeal to our solicitude; then
2. the intrinsic and natural goods of the soul and body, like life, health, knowledge, liberty, etc.;
3. finally, the extrinsic goods of reputation, wealth, etc.

Viewing apart the various kinds of necessity, the following order would obtain:

1. first, extreme necessity, wherein a man is in danger of damnation, or of death, or of the loss of other goods of nearly equal importance and can do nothing to help himself;
2. second, grave necessity, when one placed in similar danger can extricate himself only by heroic efforts;
3. third, common necessity, such as affects ordinary sinners or beggars who can help themselves without great difficulty.

When the three factors are combined, they give rise to complicated rules, the principal of which are these:

1. The love of complacency and the love of benefaction do not follow the same standard, the former being guided by the worthiness, the latter by the nearness and need, of the neighbour.
2. Our personal salvation is to be preferred to all else. We are never justified in committing the slightest sin for the love of any one or anything whatsoever, nor should we expose ourselves to spiritual danger except in such cases and with such precautions as would give us a moral right to, and guarantee of, God's protection.
3. We are bound to succour our neighbour in extreme spiritual necessity even at the cost of our own life, an obligation which, however supposes the certainty of the neighbour's need and of the effectiveness of our service to him.
4. Except in the very rare cases described above, we are not bound to risk life or limb for our neighbour, but only to undergo that amount of inconvenience which is justified by the neighbour's need and nearness. Casuists are not agreed as to the right to give one's life for another's life of equal importance.

TANQUEREY, De virtute caritatis in Synopsis Theologiae Moralis, II (New York, 1906), 426; SLATER, A Manual of Moral Theology, I (New York, 1909), 179 sqq.; BATIFFOL, L'Enseignement de Jésus (Paris 1905); NORTHCOTE, The Bond of Perfection (London, 1907); GAFFRE, La Loi d'Amour (Paris, 1908); DE SALES, Traité de l'amour de Dieu; PESCH Praelectiones Dogmaticae, VIII (Freiburg im Br., 1898), 226 sqq.; DUBLANCHY in Dict. de Théol. Cath. s. v. Charité, with an exhaustive bibliography of the theologians and mystics who have dealt with this matter.

J. F. SOLLIER

St. Maximus of Constantinople

Known as the Theologian and as Maximus Confessor, born at Constantinople about 580; died in exile 13 August, 662. He is one of the chief names in the Monothelite controversy one of the chief doctors of the theology of the Incarnation and of ascetic mysticism, and remarkable as a witness to the respect for the papacy held by the Greek Church in his day. This great man was of a noble family of Constantinople. He became first secretary to the Emperor Heraclius, who prized him much, but he quitted the world and gave himself up to contemplation in a monastery at Chrysopolis, opposite Constantinople. He became abbot there- but seems to have left this retreat on account of its insecurity from hostile attacks. He speaks of the Palestinian ascetic St. Sophronius afterwards Patriarch of Jerusalem, as his master, father, and teacher (Ep. 13), so that he probably passed some time with him, and he was with him in Africa with other monks during the preparations which issued in the “watery union” by which Cyrus the Patriarch reconciled a number of Monophysites to the Church by rejecting the doctrine of “two operations” in Christ (see MONOTHELITISM) . The first action of St. Maximus that we know of in this affair is a letter sent by him to Pyrrhus, then an abbot at Chrysopolis, a friend and supporter of Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, the patron of the Monothelite expression “two operations” . As the letter is said to have entailed a long voyage on the monks who carried it St. Maximus was perhaps already in Africa when he wrote it. Pyrrhus had published a work on the Incarnation, for which St. Maximus gives him rather fulsome praise, as an introduction to the question (which he puts with much diffidence and many excuses) what Pyrrhus means by one energeia or energema. Maximus is clearly anxious to get him to withdraw or explain the mistaken expression, without exasperating him by contradiction.

The Ecthesis of Heraclius was published in 638, and Sergius and Pope Honorius both died in that year. A letter of Maximus tells us on the authority of his friends at Constantinople, that the Roman apocrisiarii who had come thither to obtain the emperor's confirmation for the newly elected Pope Severinus, were met by the clergy of Constantinople with the demand that they should promise to obtain the pope's signature to the Ecthesis, otherwise they should receive no assistance in the matter for which they had made so long a voyage:

This passage does not call the prohibition of “two operations” yet by the name of heresy and does not mention the “one Will” confessed in the Ecthesis. But it gives verv clearly St. Maximus's view that the smallest point of faith is to be held at the risk of one's life, and it demonstrates the ample admission made at Constantinople, before the struggles began, of the prerogatives of Rome.

When in 641 John IV wrote his defence of Pope Honorius, it was re-echoed by St. Maximus in a letter to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus. He declares that Honorius, when he confessed one will of our Lord, only meant to deny that Christ had a will of the flesh, of concupiscence, since he was conceived and born without stain of sin. Maximus appeals to the witness of Abbot John Symponus, who wrote the letter for Honorius. Pyrrhus was now Sergius's successor, but on the accession of the Emperor Constans in 642 he was exiled. Maximus then sent a letter to the patrician Peter, apparently the Governor of Syria and Palestine who had written to him concerning Pyrrhus, whom ha now calls simply abbot. Pyrrhus was in Palestine and Peter had restrained him from putting forward his heretical views. Pyrrhus had declared that he was ready to satisfy Maximus as to his orthodoxy. The latter says he would have written to Peter before

The new Ecthesis is worse than the old heresies- Pyrrhus and his predecessor have accused Sophronius of error- they persuaded Heraclius to give his name to the Ecthesis:

Pyrrhus thought he might regain his see by the help of the pope. He came to Africa, and in July, 645, a public disputation took place between him and Maximus, in the presence of the Governor Gregory (called George in the MSS. of St. Maximus), who was a friend and correspondent of the saint. The minutes are interesting. Pyrrhus argues that two wills must imply two Persons willing- Maximus replies that in that case there must be three wills in the Holy Trinity. He shows that the will belongs to the Nature, and distinguishes between will as a faculty and will as the act of the faculty. Pyrrhus then admits two wills, on account of the two natures, but adds that we should also confess one will on account of the perfect union. Maximus replies that this would lead us to confess one nature on account of the perfect union. He then cites many passages of Scripture for two wills and two operations. Pyrrhus puts forward Honorius and Vigilius. Maximus defends the former from the charge of teaching two wills, and denies that the latter ever rece*ed the letter of Mennas, the authenticity of which is assumed. He complains of the changeableness of Sergius. Lastly the famous “new theandric operation” of the Pseudo-Dionysius is discussed, and i8 explained and defended by St. Maximus. Then Pyrrhus gives in, and consents to go to Rome, where in fact he condemned his former teaching, and was reconciled to the Church by the pope. But the revolt of aregory, who made himself emperor in Africa, but was defeated in 647, brought Maximus into disfavour at court, and destroyed the hope of restoring Pyrrhus a8 orthodox patriarch. After the Ecthesis had been withdrawn, and the Type, Typos, substituted by the Emperor Constans, St. Maximus was present at the great Lateran council held by St. Martin at his instance in 649. He wrote from Rome (where he stayed some years):

Pope Martin was dragged from Rome in 653, and died of ill treatment at Inkerman in March, 655. It was probably later in that year that an official named Gregory came to Rome to get Pope Eugene to receive the Type. He came to the cell of St. Maximus, who argued with him and denounced the Type. As the saint was recognized as t,he leader of the orthodox Easterns, he was sent to Constantinople at the end of 655 (not, as is commonly stated, at the same time as St. Martin). He was now seventy-five years old. The acts of his trials have been preserved by Anastasius Bibliothecarius. He was accused of conspiring with the usurper Gregory, together with Pope Theodore, and it was said that he had caused the loss to the empire of Egypt, Alexandria, Pentapolis, and Africa. He refused to communicate with the See of Constantinople,

He disbelieved the statement made to him that the envoys of the pope had accepted the confession of “two wills on account of the diversity and one will on account of the union,” and pointed out that the union not being a substance could have no will. He wrote on this account to his disciple the Abbot Anastasius, who was able to send a letter to warn “the men of elder Rome firm as a rock” of the deceitful confession which the Patriarch Peter was despatching to the pope. On the day of the first trial a council of clergy was held, and the emperor was persuaded to send Maximus to Byzia in Thrace, and his disciples, Abbot Anastasius and Anastasius the papal apocrisiarius, to Perberis and Mesembria.

They suffered greatly from cold and hunger. On 24 September, 656, Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia, visited Maximus by the emperor's command, accompanied by the consuls, Theodosius and Paul. The saint confounded his visitors with the authority of the Fathers, and declared that he would never accept the Type. The bishop then replied: “We declare to you in response that if you will communicate, our master the emperor will annul the Type.” Maximus answered that the Ecthesis, though taken down, had not been disowned and that the canons of the Lateran Council must be formally accepted before he would communicate. The Byzantine bishop unblushingly urged: “The synod is invalid, since it was held without the Ernperor's orders.” Maximus retorts:

The bishop is ready to consent to two wills and two operations: but St. Maximus says he is himself but a monk and cannot receive his declaration- the bishop, and also the emperor, and the patriarch and his synod, must send a supplication to the pope. Then all arose with joy and tears, and knelt down and prayed, and kissed the Gospels and the crucifix and the image of the Mother of God, and all embraced. But the consul doubted:

“Do you think,” he said, “that the emperor will make a supplication to Rome?”

“Yes,” said the abbot, “if he will humble himself as God has humbled Himself.”

The bishop gave him money and a tunic, but the tunic was seized by the Bishop of Byzia. On 8 September, the abbot was honourably sent to Rhegium, and next day two patricians arrived in state with Bishop Theodosius and offered the saint great honour if he would accept the Type and communicate with the emperor. Maximus solemnly turned to the bishop and reminded him of the day of judgment.

“What could I do if the emperor took another view?” whispered the miserable man. The abbot was struck and spat upon. The patrician Epiphanius declared that all now accepted two wills and two operations, and that the Type was only a compromise. Maximus reiterated the Roman view that to forbid the use of an expression was to deny it. Next morning, 19 September, the saint was stripped of his money and even of his poor stock of clothes, and was conveyed to Salembria, and thence to Perberis (Perbera).

Six years later, in 662, Maximus and the two Anastasii were brought to trial at Constantinople. They were anathematized, and with them St. Martin and St. Sophronius. The prefect was ordered to beat them, to cut out their tongues and lop off their right hands, to exhibit them thus mutilated in every quarter of the city, and to send them to perpetual exile and imprisonment. A long letter of the Roman Anastasius tells us of their sufferings on the journey to Colchis where they were imprisoned in different forts. He tells us that St. Maxirmus foresaw in a vision the day of his death, and that miraculous lights appeared nightly at his tomb. The monk Anastasius had died in the preceding month; the Roman lived on until 666.

Thus St. Maximus died for orthodoxy and obedience to Rome. He has always been considered one of the chief theological writers of the Greek Church, and has obtained the honourable title of the Theologian. He may be said to complete and close the series of patristic writings on the Incarnation, as they are summed up by St. John of Damascus. His style is unfortunately very obscure, but he is accurate in his thought and deeply learned in the Fathers. His exegetical works explain Holy Scripture allegorically. We have commentaries on Psalm 59, on the Lord's Prayer, and a number of explanations of different texts. These are principally intended for the use of monks, and deal much with mystical theology. More professedly mystical are his “Scholia” on Pseudo-Dionysius, his explanations of difficulties in Dionysius and St. Gregory Nazianzen and his “Ambigua” on St. Gregory. This last work was translated into Latin by Scotus Erigena at the request of Charles the Bald. The polemical writings include short treatises against the Monophysites, and a more important series against the Monothelites, beside which must be placed the letters and the disputation with Pyrrhus. The numerous ascetical writings have always received great honour in Eastern monasteries. The best known is a beautiful dialogue between an abbot and a young monk on the spiritual life; there are also various collections of sententiae, ethical and devotional, for use in the cloister. The “Mystagogia” is an explanation of ecclesiastical symbolism, of importance for liturgical history. Three hymns are preserved, and a chronological work (published in Petavius's “Uranologium”, Paris, 1630, and in P. G., XIX). Some writings exist only in MS. St. Maximus's literary labours had thus a vast range. He was essentially a monk, a contemplative, a mystic, thoroughly at home in the Platonism of Dionysius. But he was also a keen dialectician, a scholastic theologian, a controversialist. His influence in both lines has been very great. His main teaching may be summed up under two heads, the union of God with humanity by the Incarnation, and the union of man with God by the practice of perfection and contemplation. St. Maximus is commemorated in the Roman Martyrology on 13 August, and in the Greek Menaea on 21 January and 12 and 13 August. His Greek office is given by Combéfis (P. G., XC, 206).

A complete edition of his works was begun by the Dominican Combéfis. Two volumes appeared (Paris 1675), but the third is wanting In the reprint by Migne (P. G., XC-XCI) there is added the “De Locis difficilibus Dionysii et Gregorii”, from Oehler's edition (Halle, 1857), and the hymns from Daniel “Thesaurus Hymnolog.” III. Anastasius Bibliothecarius has preserved some letters and other documents in Latin in his “Collectanea” (P. L., CXXIX, and Mansi, X). The “Scholia” on Dionysius the Areopagite are printed with the works of the latter (P. G., IV). The ancient “Vita et certamen” (P. G., XC-Acta SS., 13 Aug.) is not contemporary and cannot be trusted.

JOHN CHAPMAN

St. Michael the Archangel

(Hebr. “Who is like God?”), one of the principal angels; his name was the war-cry of the good angels in the battle fought in heaven against the enemy and his followers. Four times his name is recorded in Scripture:

• Dan., x, 13 sqq., Gabriel says to Daniel, when he asks God to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem: “The Angel [D. V. prince] of the kingdom of the Persians resisted me...and, behold Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me... and none is my helper in all these things, but Michael your prince”;
• Dan., xii, the Angel speaking of the end of the world and the Antichrist says: “At that time shall Michael rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people.”
• In the Catholic Epistle of St. Jude: “When Michael the Archangel, disputing with the the devil, contended about the body of Moses”, etc. St. Jude alludes to an ancient Jewish tradition of a dispute between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses, an account of which is also found in the apocryphal book on the assumption of Moses (Origen, “De principiis”, III, 2, 2). St. Michael concealed the tomb of Moses; Satan, however, by disclosing it, tried to seduce the Jewish people to the sin of hero-worship. St. Michael also guards the body of Eve, according to the “Revelation of Moses” (“Apocryphal Gospels”, etc., ed. A. Walker, Edinburgh, p. 647).
• Apocalypse, xii, 7, “And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon.” St. John speaks of the great conflict at the end of time, which reflects also the battle in heaven at the beginning of time. According to the Fathers there is often question of St. Michael in Scripture where his name is not mentioned. They say he was the cherub who stood at the gate of paradise, “to keep the way of the tree of life” (Gen., iii, 24), the angel through whom God published the Decalogue to his chosen people, the angel who stood in the way against Balaam (Numbers 22:22 sqq.), the angel who routed the army of Sennacherib (IV Kings 19:35).

Following these Scriptural passages, Christian tradition gives to St. Michael four offices:

1. To fight against Satan.
2. To rescue the souls of the faithful from the power of the enemy, especially at the hour of death.
3. To be the champion of God's people, the Jews in the Old Law, the Christians in the New Testament; therefore he was the patron of the Church, and of the order of knights during the Middle Ages.
4. To call away from earth and bring men's souls to judgment (“signifer S. Michael repraesentet eas in lucam sanctam”, Offert. Miss Defunct. “Constituit eum principem super animas suscipiendas”, Antiph. off. Cf. “Hermas”, Pastor, I, 3, Simil. VIII, 3).

Regarding his rank in the celestial hierarchy opinions vary; St. Basil (Hom. de angelis) and other Greek Fathers, also Salmeron, Bellarmine, etc., place St. Michael over all the angels; they say he is called “archangel” because he is the prince of the other angels; others (cf. P. Bonaventura, op. cit.) believe that he is the prince of the seraphim, the first of the nine angelic orders. But, according to St. Thomas (Summa, I, cxiii, a. 3) he is the prince of the last and lowest choir, the angels. The Roman Liturgy seems to follow the Greek Fathers; it calls him “Princeps militiae coelestis quem honorificant angelorum cives”. The hymn of the Mozarabic Breviary places St. Michael even above the Twenty-four Elders. The Greek Liturgy styles him Archistrategos, “highest general” (cf. Menaea, 8 Nov. and 6 Sept.).

VENERATION

It would have been natural to St. Michael, the champion of the Jewish people, to be the champion also of Christians, giving victory in war to his clients. The early Christians, however, regarded some of the martyrs as their military patrons: St. George, St. Theodore, St. Demetrius, St. Sergius, St. Procopius, St. Mercurius, etc.; but to St. Michael they gave the care of their sick. At the place where he was first venerated, in Phrygia, his prestige as angelic healer obscured his interposition in military affairs. It was from early times the centre of the true cult of the holy angels, particularly of St. Michael. Tradition relates that St. Michael in the earliest ages caused a medicinal spring to spout at Chairotopa near Colossae, where all the sick who bathed there, invoking the Blessed Trinity and St. Michael, were cured. Still more famous are the springs which St. Michael is said to have drawn from the rock at Colossae (Chonae, the present Khonas, on the Lycus). The pagans directed a stream against the sanctuary of St. Michael to destroy it, but the archangel split the rock by lightning to give a new bed to the stream, and sanctified forever the waters which came from the gorge. The Greeks claim that this apparition took place about the middle of the first century and celebrate a feast in commemoration of it on 6 September (Analecta Bolland., VIII, 285-328). Also at Pythia in Bithynia and elsewhere in Asia the hot springs were dedicated to St. Michael. At Constantinople likewise, St. Michael was the great heavenly physician. His principal sanctuary, the Michaelion, was at Sosthenion, some fifty miles south of Constantinople; there the archangel is said to have appeared to the Emperor Constantine. The sick slept in this church at night to wait for a manifestation of St. Michael; his feast was kept there 9 June. Another famous church was within the walls of the city, at the thermal baths of the Emperor Arcadius; there the synaxix of the archangel was celebrated 8 Nov. This feast spread over the entire Greek Church, and the Syrian, Armenian, and Coptic Churches adopted it also; it is now the principal feast of St. Michael in the Orient. It may have originated in Phrygia, but its station at Constantinople was the Thermae of Arcadius (Martinow, “Annus Graeco-slavicus”, 8 Nov.). Other feasts of St. Michael at Constantinople were: 27 Oct., in the “Promotu” church; 18 June, in the Church of St. Julian at the Forum; 10 Dec., at Athaea.

The Christians of Egypt placed their life-giving river, the Nile under the protection of St. Michael; they adopted the Greek feast and kept it 12 Nov.; on the twelfth of every month they celebrate a special commemoration of the archangel, but 12 June, when the river commences to rise, they keep as a holiday of obligation the feast of St. Michael “for the rising of the Nile”, euche eis ten symmetron anabasin ton potamion hydaton.

At Rome the Leonine Sacramentary (sixth cent.) has the “Natale Basilicae Angeli via Salaria”, 30 Sept.; of the five Masses for the feast three mention St. Michael. The Gelasian Sacramentary (seventh cent.) gives the feast “S. Michaelis Archangeli”, and the Gregorian Sacramentary (eighth cent.), “Dedicatio Basilionis S. Angeli Michaelis”, 29 Sept. A manuscript also here adds “via Salaria” (Ebner, “Miss. Rom. Iter Italicum”, 127). This church of the Via Salaria was six miles to the north of the city; in the ninth century it was called Basilica Archangeli in Septimo (Armellini, “Chiese di Roma”, p. 85). It disappeared a thousand years ago. At Rome also the part of heavenly physician was given to St. Michael. According to an (apocryphal?) legend of the tenth century he appeared over the Moles Hadriani (Castel di S. Angelo), in 950, during the procession which St. Gregory held against the pestilence, putting an end to the plague. Boniface IV (608-15) built on the Moles Hadriani in honour of him, a church, which was styled St. Michaelis inter nubes (in summitate circi).

Well known is the apparition of St. Michael (a. 494 or 530-40), as related in the Roman Breviary, 8 May, at his renowned sanctuary on Monte Gargano, where his original glory as patron in war was restored to him. To his intercession the Lombards of Sipontum (Manfredonia) attributed their victory over the Greek Neapolitans, 8 May, 663. In commemoration of this victory the church of Sipontum instituted a special feast in honour of the archangel, on 8 May, which has spread over the entire Latin Church and is now called (since the time of Pius V) “Apparitio S. Michaelis”, although it originally did not commemorate the apparition, but the victory.

In Normandy St. Michael is the patron of mariners in his famous sanctuary at Mont-Saint-Michel in the diocese of Coutances. He is said to have appeared there, in 708, to St. Aubert, Bishop of Avranches. In Normandy his feast “S. Michaelis in periculo maris” or “in Monte Tumba” was universally celebrated on 18 Oct., the anniversary of the dedication of the first church, 16 Oct., 710; the feast is now confined to the Diocese of Coutances. In Germany, after its evangelization, St. Michael replaced for the Christians the pagan god Wotan, to whom many mountains were sacred, hence the numerous mountain chapels of St. Michael all over Germany.

The hymns of the Roman Office are said to have been composed by St. Rabanus Maurus of Fulda (d. 856). In art St. Michael is represented as an angelic warrior, fully armed with helmet, sword, and shield (often the shield bears the Latin inscription: Quis ut Deus), standing over the dragon, whom he sometimes pierces with a lance. He also holds a pair of scales in which he weighs the souls of the departed (cf. Rock, “The Church of Our Fathers”, III, 160), or the book of life, to show that he takes part in the judgment. His feast (29 Sept.) in the Middle Ages was celebrated as a holy day of obligation, but along with several other feasts it was gradually abolished since the eighteenth century (see FEASTS). Michaelmas Day, in England and other countries, is one of the regular quarter-days for settling rents and accounts; but it is no longer remarkable for the hospitality with which it was formerly celebrated. Stubble-geese being esteemed in perfection about this time, most families had one dressed on Michaelmas Day. In some parishes (Isle of Skye) they had a procession on this day and baked a cake, called St. Michael's bannock.

FREDERICK G. HOLWECK

Modernism

• Origin of the Word
• Theory of Theological Modernism
• The essential error of Modernism
• Catholic and Modernist Notions of Dogma Compared
• Various Degrees of Modernism and its Criterion
• Proofs of the Foregoing Views
• Modernist Aims Explained by its Essential Error
• Modernist Propositions Explained by its Essential Error
• The Modernist Movement
• The Philosophical Origin and Consequences of Modernism
• The Origin
• The Consequences
• The Psychological Causes of Modernism
• Pontifical Documents Concerning Modernism
• Reference Material
• Protestant Sources
• Modernist Sources
• Catholic Sources

Origin of the Word

Etymologically, modernism means an exaggerated love of what is modern, an infatuation for modern ideas, “the abuse of what is modern”, as the Abbé Gaudaud explains (La Foi catholique, I, 1908, p. 248). The modern ideas of which we speak are not as old as the period called “modern times”. Though Protestantism has generated them little by little, it did not understand from the beginning that such would be its sequel. There even exists a conservative Protestant party which is one with the Church in combating modernism. In general we may say that modernism aims at that radical transformation of human thought in relation to God, man, the world, and life, here and hereafter, which was prepared by Humanism and eighteenth-century philosophy, and solemnly promulgated at the French Revolution. J. J. Rousseau, who treated an atheistical philosopher of his time as a modernist, seems to have been the first to use the word in this sense (“Correspondance à M. D.”, 15 Jan. 1769). Littré (Dictionnaire), who cites the passage; explains: “Modernist, one who esteems modern times above antiquity”. After that, the word seems to have been forgotten, till the time of the Catholic publicist Périn (1815-1905), professor at the University of Louvain, 1844-1889. This writer, while apologizing for the coinage, describes “the humanitarian tendencies of contemporary society” as modernism. The term itself he defines as “the ambition to eliminate God from all social life “. With this absolute modernism he associates a more temperate form, which he declares to be nothing less than “liberalism of every degree and shade” (“Le Modernisme dans l'Eglise d'après les lettres inédites de Lamennais”, Paris, 1881).

During the early years of the present century, especially about 1905 and 1906, the tendency to innovation which troubled the Italian dioceses, and especially the ranks of the young clergy, was taxed with modernism. Thus at Christmas, 1905, the bishops of the ecclesiastical provinces of Turm and Vercelli, in a circular letter of that date, uttered grave warnings against what they called “ Modernismo nel clero “ (Modernism among the clergy) . Several pastoral letters of the year 1906 made use of the same term; among others we may mention the Lenten charge of Cardinal Nava, Archbishop of Catania, to his clergy, a letter of Cardinal Bacilieri, Bishop of Verona, dated 22 July, 1906 and a letter of Mgr Rossi, Archbishop of Acerenza and Matera. “Modernismo e Modernisti”, a work by Abbate Cavallanti which was published towards the end of 1906, gives long extracts from these letters. The name “modernism” was not to the liking of the reformers. The propriety of the new term was discussed even amongst good Catholics. When the Decree “Lamentabili” appeared, Mgr Baudrillart expressed his pleasure at not finding the word “modernism” mentioned in it (Revue pratique d'apologetique, IV, p. 578). He considered the term “too vague”. Besides it seemed to insinuate “that the Church condemns everything modern”. The Encyclical “Pascendi” (8 Sept., 1907) put an end to the discussion. It bore the official title, “De Modernistarum doctrinis”. The introduction declared that the name commonly given to the upholders of the new errors was not inapt. Since then the modernists themselves have acquiesced in the use of the name, though they have not admitted its propriety (Loisy, “ Simples réflexions sur le decret 'Lamentabili' et sur l'encyclique 'Pascendi' du 8 Sept., 1907”, p. 14; “Il programma dei modernisti”: note at the beginning).

Theory of Theological Modernism

The essential error of Modernism

A full definition of modernism would be rather difficult. First it stands for certain tendencies, and secondly for a body of doctrine which, if it has not given birth to these tendencies (practice often precedes theory), serves at any rate as their explanation and support. Such tendencies manifest themselves in different domains. They are not united in each individual, nor are they always and everywhere found together. Modernist doctrine, too, may be more or less radical, and it is swallowed in doses that vary with each one's likes and dislikes. In the Encyclical “Pascendi”, Pius X says that modernism embraces every heresy. M. Loisy makes practically the same statement when he writes that “in reality all Catholic theology, even in its fundamental principles the general philosophy of religion, Divine law, and the laws that govern our knowledge of God, come up for judgment before this new court of assize” (Simples réflexions, p. 24). Modernism is a composite system: its assertions and claims lack that principle which unites the natural faculties in a living being. The Encyclical “ Pascendi “ was the first Catholic synthesis of the subject. Out of scattered materials it built up what looked like a logical system. Indeed friends and foes alike could not but admire the patient skill that must have been needed to fashion something like a coordinated whole. In their answer to the Encyclical, “Il programma dei Modernisti”, the Modernists tried to retouch this synthesis. Previous to all this, some of the Italian bishops, in their pastoral letters, had attempted such a synthesis. We would particularly mention that of Mgr Rossi, Bishop of Acerenza and Matera. In this respect, too, Abbate Cavallanti's book, already referred to, deserves mention. Even earlier still, German and French Protestants had done some synthetical work in the same direction. Prominent among them are Kant, “Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der reinen Vernunft” (1803); Schleiermacher, “Der christliche Glaube” (1821-1822); and A. Sabatier, “Esquisse d'une philosophie de la religion d'aprè la psychologie et l'histoire” (1897).

The general idea of modernism may be best expressed in the words of Abbate Cavallanti, though even here there is a little vagueness: “ Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and of the Christian religion”. A remodelling, a renewal according to the ideas of the twentieth century — such is the longing that possesses the modernists. “The avowed modernists”, says M. Loisy, “form a fairly definite group of thinking men united in the common desire to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral and social needs of today” (op. cit., p. 13). “Our religious attitude”, as “Il programma dei modernisti” states (p. 5, note l), “is ruled by the single wish to be one with Christians and Catholics who live in harmony with the spirit of the age”. The spirit of this plan of reform may be summarized under the following heads:

1. A spirit of complete emancipation, tending to weaken ecclesiastical authority; the emancipation of science, which must traverse every field of investigation without fear of conflict with the Church; the emancipation of the State, which should never be hampered by religious authority; the emancipation of the private conscience whose inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions or anathemas; the emancipation of the universal conscience, with which the Church should be ever in agreement;
2. A spirit of movement and change, with an inclination to a sweeping form of evolution such as abhors anything fixed and stationary;
3. A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences.

Such are the fundamental tendencies. As such, they seek to explain, justify, and strengthen themselves in an error, to which therefore one might give the name of “essential” modernism. What is this error? It is nothing less than the perversion of dogma. Manifold are the degrees and shades of modernist doctrine on the question of our relations with God. But no real modernist keeps the Catholic notions of dogma intact. Are you doubtful as to whether a writer or a book is modernist in the formal sense of the word? Verify every statement about dogma; examine his treatment of its origin, its nature, its sense, its authority. You will know whether you are dealing with a veritable modernist or not, according to the way in which the Catholic conception of dogma is travestied or respected. Dogma and supernatural knowledge are correlative terms; one implies the other as the action implies its object. In this way then we may define modernism as “the critique of our supernatural knowledge according to the false postulates of contemporary philosophy”.

It will be advisable for us to quote a full critique of such supernatural knowledge as an example of the mode of procedure. (In the meantime however we must not forget that there are partial and less advanced modernists who do not go so far). For them external intuition furnishes man with but phenomenal contingent, sensible knowledge. He sees, he feels, he hears, he tastes, he touches this something, this phenomenon that comes and goes without telling him aught of the existence of a suprasensible, absolute and unchanging reality outside all environing space and time. But deep within himself man feels the need of a higher hope. He aspires to perfection in a being on whom he feels his destiny depends. And so he has an instinctive, an affective yearning for God. This necessary impulse is at first obscure and hidden in the subconsciousness. Once consciously understood, it reveals to the soul the intimate presence of God. This manifestation, in which God and man collaborate, is nothing else than revelation. Under the influence of its yearning, that is of its religious feelings, the soul tries to reach God, to adopt towards Him an attitude that will satisfy its yearning. It gropes, it searches. These gropings form the soul's religious experience. They are more easy, successful and far-reaching, or less so, according as it is now one, now another individual soul that sets out in quest of God. Anon there are privileged ones who reach extraordinary results. They communicate their discoveries to their fellow men, and forthwith become founders of a new religion, which is more or less true in the proportion in which it gives peace to the religious feelings.

The attitude Christ adopted, reaching up to God as to a father and then returning to men as to brothers — such is the meaning of the precept, “Love God and thy neighbour” — brings full rest to the soul. It makes the religion of Christ the religion par excellence, the true and definitive religion. The act by which the soul adopts this attitude and abandons itself to God as a father and then to men as to brothers, constitutes the Christian Faith. Plainly such an act is an act of the will rather than of the intellect. But religious sentiment tries to express itself in intellectual concepts, which in their turn serve to preserve this sentiment. Hence the origin of those formulae concerning God and Divine things, of those theoretical propositions that are the outcome of the successive religious experiences of souls gifted with the same faith. These formulae become dogmas, when religious authority approves of them for the life of the community. For community life is a spontaneous growth among persons of the same faith, and with it comes authority. Dogmas promulgated in this way teach us nothing of the unknowable, but only symbolize it. They contain no truth. Their usefulness in preserving the faith is their only raison d'être. They survive as long as they exert their influence. Being the work of man in time, and adapted to his varying needs, they are at best but contingent and transient. Religious authority too, naturally conservative, may lag behind the times. It may mistake the best methods of meeting needs of the community, and try to keep up worn-out formulae. Through respect for the community, the individual Christian who sees the mistake continues in an attitude of outward submission. But he does not feel himself inwardly bound by the decisions of higher powers; rather he makes praiseworthy efforts to bring his Church into harmony with the times. He may confine himself, too, if he cares, to the older and simpler religious forms; he may live his life in conformity with the dogmas accepted from the beginning. Such is Tyrrell's advice in his letter to Fogazzaro, and such was his own private practice.

Catholic and Modernist Notions of Dogma Compared

The tradition of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, considers dogmas as in part supernatural and mysterious, proposed to our faith by a Divinely instituted authority on the ground that they are part of the general revelation which the Apostles preached in the name of Jesus Christ. This faith is an act of the intellect made under the sway of the will. By it we hold firmly what God has revealed and what the Church proposes to us to believe. For believing is holding something firmly on the authority of God's word, when such authority may be recognized by signs that are sufficient, at least with the help of grace, to create certitude.

Comparing these notions, the Catholic and the modernist, we shall see that modernism alters the source, the manner of promulgation, the object, the stability, and the truth of dogma. For the modernist, the only and the necessary source is the private consciousness. And logically so, since he rejects miracles and prophecy as signs of God's word (Il programma, p. 96). For the Catholic, dogma is a free communication of God to the believer made through the preaching of the Word. Of course the truth from without, which is above and beyond any natural want, is preceded by a certain interior finality or perfectibility which enables the believer to assimilate and live the truth revealed. It enters a soul well-disposed to receive it, as a principle of happiness which, though an unmerited gift to which we have no right, is still such as the soul can enjoy with unmeasured gratitude. In the modernist conception, the Church can no longer define dogma in God's name and with His infallible help; the ecclesiastical authority is now but a secondary interpreter, subject to the collective consciousness which she has to express. To this collective consciousness the individual need conform only externally; as for the rest he may embark on any private religious adventures he cares for. The modernist proportions dogma to his intellect or rather to his heart. Mysteries like the Trinity or the Incarnation are either unthinkable (a modernist Kantian tendency), or are within the reach of the unaided reason (a modernist Hegelian tendency). “The truth of religion is in him (man) implicitly, as surely as the truth of the whole physical universe, is involved in every part of it. Could he read the needs of his own spirit and conscience, he would need no teacher” (Tyrrell, “Scylla and Charybdis”, p. 277).

Assuredly Catholic truth is not a lifeless thing. Rather is it a living tree that breaks forth into green leaves, flowers, and fruits. There is a development, or gradual unfolding, and a clearer statement of its dogmas. Besides the primary truths, such as the Divinity of Christ and His mission as Messias, there are others which, one by one, become better understood and defined, eg. the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and that of the Infallibility of the Pope. Such unfolding takes place not only in the study of the tradition of the dogma but also in showing its origin in Jesus Christ and the Apostles, in the understanding of the terms expressing it and in the historical or rational proofs adduced in support of it. Thus the historical proof of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception has certainly been strengthened since the definition in 1854. The rational conception of the dogma of Divine Providence is a continual object of study the dogma of the Sacrifice of the Mass allows the reason to inquire into the idea of sacrifice. It has always been believed that there is no salvation outside the Church, but as this belief has gradually come to be better understood, many are now considered within the soul of the Church who would have been placed without, in a day when the distinction between the soul and the body of the Church had not generally obtained. In another sense, too dogma is instinct with life. For its truth is not sterile, but always serves to nourish devotion. But while holding with life, progress and development, the Church rejects transitory dogmas that in the modernist theory would be forgotten unless replaced by contrary formulae. She cannot admit that “thought, hierarchy, cult, in a word, everything has changed in the history of Christianity”, nor can she be content with “the identity of religious spirit” which is the only permanency that modernism admits (Il programma dei Modernisti).

Truth consists in the conformity of the idea with its object. Now, in the Catholic concept, a dogmatic formula supplies us with at least an analogical knowledge of a given object. For the modernist, the essential nature of dogma consists in its correspondence with and its capacity to satisfy a certain momentary need of the religious feeling. It is an arbitrary symbol that tells nothing of the object it represents. At most, as M. Leroy, one of the least radical of modernists, suggests, it is a positive prescription of a practical order (Leroy, “Dogme et critique”, p. 25). Thus the dogma of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist means: “ Act as if Christ had the local presence, the idea of which is so familiar to you”. But, to avoid exaggeration, we add this other statement of the same writer (loc. cit.), “This however does not mean that dogma bears no relation to thought; for (1) there are duties concerning the action of thinking; (2) dogma itself implicitly affirms that reality contains in one form or another the justification of such prescriptions as are either reasonable or salutary”.

Various Degrees of Modernism and its Criterion

Modernist attacks on dogma, as we have already remarked, vary according to the degree in which its doctrines are embraced. Thus, in virtue of the leading idea of their systems, Father Tyrrell was an agnostic modernist, and Campbell (a Congregationalist minister) is a symbolic modernist. Again the tendency to innovation is at times not at all general, but limited to some particular domain. Along with modernism in the strict sense, which is directly theological, we find other kinds of modernism in philosophy, politics, and social science. In such cases a wider meaning must be given to the term.

Here, however, it is needful to speak a word of warning against unreasonable attacks. Not every novelty is to be condemned, nor is every project of reform to be dubbed modernist because it is untimely or exaggerated. In the same way, the attempt fully to understand modern philosophic thought so as to grasp what is true in such systems, and to discover the points of contact with the old philosophy, is very far from being modernism. On the contrary, that is the very best way to refute modernism. Every error contains an element of truth. Isolate that element and accept it. The structure which it helps to support, having lost its foundation, will soon crumble. The name modernist then will be appropriate only when there is question of opposition to the certain teaching of ecclesiastical authority through a spirit of innovation. The words of Cardinal Ferrari. Archbishop of Milan, as cited in “La Revue Pratique d'Apologétique” (VI, 1908, p. 134), will help to show the point of our last remark. “We are deeply pained”, he says, “to find that certain persons, in public controversy against modernism, in brochures, newspapers and other periodicals, go to the length of detecting the evil everywhere, or at any rate of imputing it to those who are very far from being infected with it”. In the same year, Cardinal Maffei had to condemn “La Penta azurea”, an anti-modernist organ, on account of its exaggeration in this respect. On the other hand, it is regrettable that certain avowed leaders of modernism, carried away perhaps by the desire to remain within the Church at all costs — another characteristic of modernism — have taken refuge in equivocation, reticence, or quibbles. Such a line of action merits no sympathy; while it explains, if it does not altogether justify, the distrust of sincere Catholics.

Proofs of the Foregoing Views

But does the principle and the quasi-essential error of modernism lie in its corruption of dogma? Let us consult the Encyclical “Pascendi”. The official Latin text calls the modernist dogmatic system a leading chapter in their doctrine. The French translation, which is also authentic, speaks thus: “Dogma, its origin and nature, such is the ground principle of modernism.” The fundamental principle of modernism is, according to M. Loisy, “the possibility, the necessity and the legitimacy of evolution in understanding the dogmas of the Church, including that of papal infallibility and authority, as well as in the manner of exercising this authority” (op. cit., p. 124). The character and leaning of our epoch confirm our diagnosis. It likes to substitute leading and fundamental questions in the place of side issues. The problem of natural knowledge is the burning question in present-day metaphysics. It is not surprising therefore that the question of supernatural knowledge is the main subject of discussion in religious polemics. Finally, Pius X has said that modernism embraces all the heresies. (The same opinion is expressed in another way in the encyclical “Editae” of 16 May, 1910.) And what error, we ask, more fully justifies the pope's statement than that which alters dogma in its root and essence? It is furthermore clear — to use a direct argument — that modernism fails in its attempt at religious reform, if it makes no change in the Catholic notion of dogma. Moreover, does not its own conception of dogma explain both a large number of its propositions and its leanings towards independence, evolution, and conciliation?

Modernist Aims Explained by its Essential Error

The definition of an unchangeable dogma imposes itself on every Catholic, learned or otherwise, and it necessarily supposes a Church legislating for all the faithful, passing judgment on State action — from its own point of view of course — and that even seeks alliance with the civil power to carry on the work of the Apostolate. On the other hand, once dogma is held to be a mere symbol of the unknowable, a science which merely deals with the facts of nature or history could neither oppose it nor even enter into controversy with it. If it is true only in so far as it excites and nourishes religious sentiment, the private individual is at full liberty to throw it aside when its influence on him has ceased; nay, even the Church herself, whose existence depends on a dogma not different from the others in nature and origin, has no right to legislate for a self-sufficing State. And thus independence is fully realized. There is no need to prove that the modernist spirit of movement and evolution is in perfect harmony with its concept of ever-changing dogma and is unintelligible without it; the matter is self-evident. Finally, as regards the conciliation of the different religions, we must necessarily distinguish between what is essential to faith regarded as a sentiment, and beliefs which are accessory, mutable, and practically negligible. If therefore you go as far as making the Divinity a belief, that is to say, a symbolical expression of faith, then docility in following generous impulses may be religious, and the atheist's religion would not seem to differ essentially from yours.

Modernist Propositions Explained by its Essential Error

We make a selection of the following propositions from the Encyclical for discussion:

1. the Christ of faith is not the Christ of history. Faith portrays Christ according to the religious needs of the faithful; history represents Him as He really was, that is, in so far as His appearance on earth was a concrete phenomenon. In this way it is easy to understand how a believer may, without contradiction, attribute certain things to Christ, and at the same time deny them in the quality of historian. In the “Hibbert Journal” for Jan., 1909, the Rev. Mr. Robert wished to call the Christ of history “Jesus” and reserve “Christ” for the same person as idealized by faith;
2. Christ's work in founding the Church and instituting the sacraments was mediate, not immediate. The main point is to find supports for the faith. Now, as religious experience succeeds so well in creating useful dogmas, why may it not do likewise in the matter of institutions suited to the age?
3. The sacraments act as eloquent formulae which touch the soul and carry it away. Precisely; for if dogmas exist only in so far as they preserve religious sentiment, what other service can one expect of the sacraments?
4. The Sacred Books are in every religion a collection of religious experiences of an extraordinary nature. For if there is no external revelation, the only substitute possible is the subjective religious experience of men of particular gifts, experiences such as are worthy of being preserved for the community.

The Modernist Movement

The late M. Périn dated the modernist movement from the French Revolution. And rightly so, for it was then that many of those modern liberties which the Church has reproved as unrestrained and ungoverned, first found sanction. Several of the propositions collected in the Syllabus of Pius IX, although enunciated from a rationalist point of view, have been appropriated by modernism. Such, for example are, the fourth proposition which derives all religious truth from the natural force of reason; the fifth, which affirms that revelation, if it joins in the onward march of reason, is capable of unlimited progress; the seventh, which treats the prophecies and miracles of Holy Scripture as poetical imaginings; propositions sixteen to eighteen on the equal value of all religions from the point of view of salvation; proposition fifty-five on the separation of Church and State; propositions seventy-five and seventy-six, which oppose the temporal power of the pope. The modernist tendency is still more apparent in the last proposition, which was condemned on 18 March, 1861: “The Roman Pontiff can and ought to conform with contemporary progress, liberalism, and civilization.”

Taking only the great lines of the modernist movement within the Church itself. we may say that under Pius IX its tendency was politico-liberal, under Leo XIII and Pius X social; with the latter pontiff still reigning, its tendency has become avowedly theological.

It is in France and Italy above all that modernism properly so-called, that is, the form which attacks the very concept of religion and dogma, has spread its ravages among Catholics. Indeed, some time after the publication of the Encyclical of 8th September, 1907 the German, English, and Belgian bishops congratulated themselves that their respective countries had been spared the epidemic in its more contagious form. Of course, individual upholders of the new error are to be found everywhere, and even England as well as Germany has produced modernists of note. In Italy, on the contrary, even before the Encyclical appeared, the bishops have raised the cry of alarm in their pastoral letters of 1906 and 1907. Newspapers and reviews, openly modernist in their opinions, bear witness to the gravity of the danger which the Sovereign Pontiff sought to avert. After Italy it is France that has furnished the largest number of adherents to this religious reform or ultra-progressive party. In spite of the notoriety of certain individuals, comparatively few laymen have joined the movement; so far it has found adherents chiefly among the ranks of the younger clergy. France possesses a modernist publishing house (La librairie Nourry). A modernist review founded by the late Father Tyrrell, “Nova et Vetera”, is published at Rome. “La Revue Moderniste Internationale” was started this year (1910) at Geneva. This monthly periodical calls itself “the organ of the international modernist society”= It is open to every shade of modernist opinions, and claims to have co-workers and correspondents in France, Italy, Germany, England, Austria, Hungary, Spain, Belgium, Russia, Rumania and America. The Encyclical “Pascendi” notes and deplores the ardour of the modernist propaganda. A strong current of modernism is running through the Russian Schismatic Church. The Anglican Church has not escaped. And indeed liberal Protestantism is nothing but a radical form of modernism that is winning the greater number of the theologians of the Reformed Church. Others who oppose the innovation find refuge in the authority of the Catholic Church.

The Philosophical Origin and Consequences of Modernism

1. The Origin

Philosophy renders great service to the cause of truth; but error calls for its assistance too. Many consider the philosophic groundwork of modernism to be Kantian. This is true, if by Kantian philosophy is meant every system that has a root connexion with the philosophy of the Koenigsberg sage. In other words, the basis of modernist philosophy is Kantian if, because Kant is its father and most illustrious moderate representative, all agnosticism be called Kantism (by agnosticism is meant the philosophy which denies that reason, used at any rate in a speculative and theoretical way, can gain true knowledge of suprasensible things). It is not our business here to oppose the application of the name Kantian to modernist philosophy. Indeed if we compare the two systems, we shall find that they have two elements in common, the negative part of the “Critique of Pure Reason” (which reduces pure or speculative knowledge to phenomenal or experiential intuition), and a certain argumentative method in distinguishing dogma from the real basis of religion. On the positive side, however, modernism differs from Kantism in some essential points. For Kant, faith is a really rational adhesion of the mind to the postulates of practical reason. The will is free to accept or reject the moral law; and it is on account of this option that he calls its acceptance “belief”. Once it is accepted, the reason cannot but admit the existence of God, liberty, and immortality. Modernist faith, on the other hand, is a matter of sentiment, a flinging of oneself towards the Unknowable, and cannot be scientifically justified by reason. In Kant's system, dogmas and the whole positive framework of religion are necessary only for the childhood of humanity or for the common people. They are symbols that bear a certain analogy to images and comparisons. They serve to inculcate those moral precepts that for Kant constitute religion. Modernist symbols, though changeable and fleeting, correspond to a law of human nature. Generally speaking, they help to excite and nourish the effective religious sentiment which Kant (who knew it from his reading of the pietists) calls schwärmerei. Kant, as a rationalist, rejects supernatural religion and prayer. The modernists consider natural religion a useless abstraction; for them it is prayer rather that constitutes the very essence of religion. It would be more correct to say that modernism is an offshoot of Schleiermacher (1768-1834), who though he owed something to Kant's philosophy, nevertheless built up his own theological system. Ritschl called him the “ legislator of theology” (Rechtf. und Vers., III, p. 486). Schleiermacher conceives the modernist plan of reforming religion with the view of conciliating it with science. Thus would he establish an entente cordiale among the various cults, and even between religion and a kind of religious sentimentality which, without recognizing God, yet tends towards the Good and the Infinite. Like the modernists, he has dreams of new religious apologetics; he wants to be a Christian; he declares himself independent of all philosophy; he rejects natural religion as a pure abstraction, and derives dogma from religious experience. His principal writings on this subject are “Ueber die Religion” (1799: note the difference between the first and the later editions) and “Der Christliche Glaube” (1821-22). Ritschl, one of Kant's disciples, recognizes the New Testament as the historical basis of religion. He sees in Christ the consciousness of an intimate union with God, and considers the institution of the Christian religion, which for him is inconceivable without faith in Christ, as a special act of God's providence. Thus has he prepared the way for a form of modernism more temperate than that of Schleiermacher. Though he predicted a continual development of religion, Schleiermacher admitted a certain fixity of dogma. For this reason it seems to us that modernists owe their radical evolutionary theory to Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). It was through the writings of A. Sabatier (18391901), a French Protestant of the Broad Church type) that the religious theories we have spoken of, spread among the Latin races, in France and in Italy. It is in these countries, too, that modernism has done greatest harm among the Catholics. Sabatier is a radical modernist. He has especially drawn upon Schleiermacher for the composition of his two works on religious synthesis (“Esquisse d'une philosophie de la religion d'aprè la psychologie et l'histoire”, Paris, 1897; “Les religions d'autorité et la religion de l'esprit”, Paris, 1902).

The fundamental error of the modernist philosophy is its misunderstanding of the scholastic formula which takes account of the two aspects of human knowledge. Doubtless, the human mind is a vital faculty endowed with an activity of its own, and tending towards its own object. However, as it is not in continual activity, it is not self-sufficient; it has not in itself the full principle of its operations, but is forced to utilize sensible experience in order to arrive at knowledge. This incompleteness and falling short of perfect autonomy is due to man's very nature. As a consequence, in all human knowledge and activity, account must be taken both of the intrinsic and of the extrinsic side. Urged on by the finality that inspires him man tends towards those objects which suit him, while at the same time objects offer themselves to him. In the supernatural life, man acquires new principles of action and, as it were, a new nature. He is now capable of acts of which God is the formal object. These acts, however, most be proposed to man, whether God deigns to do so by direct revelation to man's soul, or whether, in conformity with man's social nature, God makes use of intermediaries who communicate exteriorly with man. Hence the necessity of preaching, of motives of credibility, and of external teaching authority. Catholic philosophy does not deny the soul's spontaneous life, the sublimity of its suprasensible and supernatural operations, and the inadequacy of words to translate its yearnings. Scholastic doctors give expression to mystical transports far superior to those of the modernists. But in their philosophy they never forget the lowliness of human nature, which is not purely spiritual. The modernist remembers only the internal element of our higher activity. This absolute and exclusive intrinsecism constitutes what the Encyclical calls “vital immanence”. When deprived of the external support which is indispensable to them, the acts of the higher intellectual faculties can only consist in vague sentiments which are as indetermined as are those faculties themselves. Hence it is that modernist doctrines, necessarily expressed in terms of this sentiment, are so intangible. Furthermore, by admitting the necessity of symbols, modernism makes to extrinsecism a concession which is its own refutation.

2. The Consequences

The fact that this radically intrinsic conception of the spiritual or religious activity of man (this perfect autonomy of the reason vis-à-vis of what is exterior) is the fundamental philosophical conception of the modernists, as the alteration of dogma is the essential characteristic of their heresy, can be shown without difficulty by deducting from it their entire system of philosophy. First of all, of their agnosticism: the vague nature which they attribute to our faculties does not permit them, without scientific observation, to arrive at any definite intellectual result. Next, of their evolutionism: there is no determined object to assure to dogmatic formulae a permanent and essential meaning compatible with the life of faith and progress. Now, from the moment that these formulae simply serve to nourish the vague sentiment which for modernism is the only common and stable foundation of religion, they must change indefinitely with the subjective needs of the believer. It is a right and even a duty for the latter freely to interpret, as he sees fit, religious facts and doctrines. We meet here with the a priorisms to which the Encyclical “Pascendi” drew attention.

We wish to insist a little on the grave consequence that this Encyclical puts especially before our eyes. In many ways, modernism seems to be on the swift incline which leads to pantheism. It seems to be there on account of its symbolism. After all, is not the affirmation of a personal God one of these dogmatic formulae which serve only as symbolic expressions of the religious sentiment? Does not the Divine Personality then become something uncertain? Hence radical modernism preaches union and friendship, even with mystical atheism. Modernism is inclined to pantheism also by its doctrine of Divine Immanence that is, of the intimate presence of God within us. Does this God declare Himself as distinct from us? If so, one must not then oppose the position of modernism to the Catholic position and reject exterior revelation. But if God declares Himself as not distinct from us, the position of modernism becomes openly pantheistic. Such is the dilemma proposed in the Encyclical. Modernism is pantheistic also by its doctrine of science and faith. Faith having for object the Unknowable cannot make up for the want of proportion that modernists put between the intellect and its object. Hence, for the believer as well as for the philosopher, this object remains unknown. Why should not this “Unknowable” be the very soul of the world? It is pantheistic also in its way of reasoning. Independent of and superior to religious formulae, the religious sentiment on the one hand originates them and gives them their entire value, and, on the other hand, it cannot neglect them, it must express itself in them and by them; they are its reality. But we have here the ontology of pantheism, which teaches that the principle does not exist outside of the expression that it gives itself. In the pantheist philosophy, Being or the Idea, God, is before the world and superior to it, He creates it and yet He has no reality outside the world; the world is the realization of God.

The Psychological Causes of Modernism

Curiosity and pride are, according to the Encyclical “Pascendi”, two remote causes. Nothing is truer; but, apart from offering an explanation common to all heretical obstinacy, we ask ourselves here why this pride has taken the shape of modernism. We proceed to consider this question. In modernism we find, first of all, the echo of many tendencies of the mentality of the present generation. Inclined to doubt, and distrustful of what is affirmed, men's minds tend of their own accord to minimize the value of dogmatic definitions. Men are struck by the diversity of the religions which exist on the face of the earth. The Catholic religion is no longer, in their eyes, as it was in the eyes of our ancestors, the morally universal religion of cultured humanity. They have been shown the influence of race on the diffusion of the Gospel. They have been shown the good sides of other cults and beliefs. Our contemporaries find it hard to believe that the greater part of humanity is plunged in error, especially if they are ignorant that the Catholic religion teaches that the means of salvation are at the disposal of those who err in good faith. Hence they are inclined to overlook doctrinal divergencies in order to insist on a certain fundamental conformity of tendencies and of aspirations.

Then again they are moved by sentiments of liberalism and moderation, which reduce the importance of formal religion, as they see in the various cults only private opinions which change with time and place, and which merit an equal respect from all. In the West where people are of a more practical turn, a non-intellectual interest explains the success of heresies which win a certain popularity. Consider the countries in which modernism is chiefly promulgated: France and Italy. In these two countries, and especially in Italy, ecclesiastical authority has imposed social and political directions which call for the sacrifice of humanitarian and patriotic ideas or dreams. That there are important reasons for such commands does not prevent discontent. The majority of men have not enough virtue or nobility to sacrifice for long, to higher duties, a cause which touches their interest or which engages their sympathy. Hence it is that some Catholics, who are not quite steady in their faith and religion, attempt to revolt, and count themselves fortunate in having some doctrinal pretexts to cover their secession.

The founder of the periodical “La Foi Catholique”, a review started for the purpose of combating modernism, adds this explanation: “ The insufficient cultivation of Catholic philosophy and science is the second deep explanation of the origin of modernist errors. Both have too long confined themselves to answers which, though fundamentally correct, are but little suited to the mentality of our adversaries, and are formulated in a language which they do not understand and which is no longer to the point. Instead of utilizing what is quite legitimate in their positive and critical tendencies, they have only considered them as so many abnormal leanings that must be opposed . . .” (Gaudeau, “La Foi Catholique”, I, pp. 62-65). Another point is that the intrinsic nature of the movement of contemporary philosophy has been too much despised or ignored in Catholic schools. They have not given it that partial recognition which is quite consonant with the best scholastic tradition: “In this way, we have failed to secure a real point of contact between Catholic and modern thought” (Gaudeau, ibid.). For lack of professors who knew how to mark out the actual path of religious science, many cultured minds, especially among the young clergy, found themselves defenseless against an error which seduced them by its speciousness and by any element of truth contained in its reproaches against the Catholic schools. It is scholasticism ill-understood and calumniated that has incurred this disdain. And for the pope, this is one of the immediate causes of modernism. “Modernism”, he says “is nothing but the union of the faith with false philosophy”. Cardinal Mercier, on the occasion of his first solemn visit to the Catholic University of Louvain (8 December, 1907), addressed the following compliment to the professors of theology: “Because, with more good sense than others, you have vigorously kept to objective studies and the calm examination of facts, you have both preserved our Alma Mater from the strayings of modernism and have secured for her the advantages of modern scientific methods.” (“Annuaire de l'Université Catholique de Louvain”, 1908, p. XXV, XXVI.) Saint Augustine (De Genesi contra Manicheos, I, Bk. I, i) in a text that has passed into the Corpus Juris Canonici (c. 40, c. xxiv, q. 3) had already spoken as follows: “Divine Providence suffers many heretics of one kind or another, so that their challenges and their questions on doctrines that we are ignorant of, may force us to arise from our indolence and stir us with the desire to know Holy Scripture.” From another point of view, modernism marks a religious reaction against materialism and positivism, both of which fail to satisfy the soul's longing. This reaction however, for reasons that have just been given, strays from the right path.

Pontifical Documents Concerning Modernism

The semi-rationalism of several modernists, such as Loisy for instance, had already been condemned in the Syllabus; several canons of the Vatican Council on the possibility of knowing God through his creatures, on the distinction between faith and science, on the subordination of human science to Divine revelation on the unchangeableness of dogma, deal in a similar strain with the tenets of modernism.

The following are the principal decrees or documents expressly directed against modernism.

1. The pope's address on 17 April, 1907, to the newly-created cardinals. It is a résumé which anticipates the Encyclical “Pascendi”.
2. A letter from the Congregation of the Index of 29 April, 1907, to the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan with regard to the review “Il Rinnovamento” . In it we find more concrete notions of the tendencies which the popes condemn. The letter even goes so far as to mention the names of Fogazzaro, Father Tyrrell, von Hügel and the Abbate Murri.
3. Letters from Pius X, 6 May, 1907, to the archbishops and bishops and to the patrons of the Catholic Institute of Paris. It shows forth clearly the great and twofold care of Pius X for the restoration of sacred studies and Scholastic philosophy, and for the safeguarding of the clergy.
4. The decree “Lamentabili” of the Holy Office, 3-4 July, 1907, condemning 65 distinct propositions.
5. The injunction of the Holy Office, “Recentissimo”, of 28 August, 1907, which with a view to remedying the evil, enjoins certain prescriptions upon bishops and superiors of religious orders.
6. The Encyclical “Pascendi”, of 8 September, 1907, of which we shall speak later on.
7. Three letters of the Cardinal Secretary of State, of 2 and 10 October, and of 5 November, 1907, on the attendance of the clergy at secular universities, urging the execution of a general regulation of 1896 on this subject. The Encyclical had extended this regulation to the whole Church.
8. The condemnation by the Cardinal-Vicar of Rome of the pamphlet “ Il programma dei modernisti”, and a decree of 29 October, 1907, declaring the excommunication of its authors, with special reservations.
9. The decree Motu Proprio of 18 November, 1907, on the value of the decisions of the Biblical Commission, on the decree “Lamentabili”, and on the Encyclical “Pascendi” . These two documents are again confirmed and upheld by ecclesiastical penalties.
10. The address at the (Consistory of 16 December, 1907.
11. The decree of the Holy Office of 13 February, 1908, in condemnation of the two newspapers, “La Justice sociale” and “La Vie Catholique “. Since then several condemnations of the books have appeared.
12. The Encyclical “Editae” of 26 May, 1910, renewed the previous condemnations.
13. Still stronger is the tone of the Motu Proprio “ Sacrorum Antistitum”, of 1 September, 1910, declared:
14. by a decree of the Consistorial Congregations of 25 September, 1910. This Motu Proprio inveighs against modernist obstinacy and specious cunning. After having quoted the practical measures prescribed in the Encyclical “Pascendi”, the pope urges their execution, and, at the same time, makes new directions concerning the formation of the clergy in the seminaries and religious houses. Candidates for higher orders, newly appointed confessors, preachers, parish priests, canons, the beneficed clergy, the bishop's staff, Lenten preachers, the officials of the Roman congregations, or tribunals, superiors and professors in religious congregations, all are obliged to swear according to a formula which reprobates the principal modernist tenets.
15. The pope's letter to Prof. Decurtins on literary modernism. (All these documents are contained in Vermeersch, op. cit. infra.)

These acts are for the most part of a disciplinary character (the Motu Proprio of September, 1910, is clearly of the same nature); the decree “Lamentabili” is entirely doctrinal; the Encyclical “Pascendi” and the Motu Proprio of 18 March, 1907, are both doctrinal and disciplinary in character. Writers do not agree as to the authority of the two principal documents; the decree “ Lamentabili “ and the Encyclical “Pascendi”. In the present writer's opinion, since the new confirmation accorded to these decrees by the Motu Proprio, they contain in their doctrinal conclusions the infallible teaching of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. (For a more moderate opinion cf. Choupin in “Etudes”, Paris, CXIV, p. 119-120.) The decree “Lamentabili” has been called the new Syllabus, because it contains the proscription by the Holy Office of 65 propositions, which may be grouped under the following heads: Prop. 1-8, errors concerning the teaching of the Church; Prop. 9-19, errors concerning the inspiration, truth, and study of Holy Writ, especially the Gospels; Prop. 20-36, errors concerning revelation and dogma; Prop. 2728, Christological errors; Prop. 39-51, errors relative to the sacraments; Prop. 52-57, errors concerning the institution and organization of the Church; Prop= 58-65, errors on doctrinal evolution. The Encyclical “Pascendi” in the introduction laid bare the gravity of the danger, pointed out the necessity of firm and decisive action, and approved of the title “Modernism” for the new errors. It gives us first a very methodical exposition of modernism; next follows its general condemnation with a word as to corollaries that may be drawn from the heresy. The pope then goes on to examine the causes and the effects of modernism, and finally seeks the necessary remedies. Their application he endeavors to put into practice by a series of energetic measures. An urgent appeal to the bishops fittingly closes this striking document.

Protestant Sources

KANT, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der reinen Vernunft (2nd ed., 1794)
FICHTE, Versuch einer Kritik aller Offenbarung (1792)
SCHLEIRMACHER, Ueber die Religion, Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren Veraechtern (4th ed., 1831)
IDEM, Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundsaetzen der evangelischen Kirche, im Zusammenhang dargestellt (1811-22; 6th ed., 1884(
SCHELLING, Vorlesungen ueber die Methode des akademischen Studiums (3rd ed., 1830);
HEGEL, Vorlesungen ueber die Philosophie der Religion (1832), in vols. XI and XII of his complete works;
RITSCHL, ALBRECHT, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versoehnung (3 vol., 1870-84);
IDEM, Theologie und Metaphysik (1881);
HERMAN, Die Gewissheit des Glaubens und die Freihet der Theologie (2nd ed., 1889);
LIPSIUS, Dogmatische Beitraege (1878);
IDEM, Philosophie und Religion (1885)
LANGE, Geschichte des Materialismus (4th part, 3rd ed., 1876)
SCHWARZ, Zur Geschichte der neusten Theologie (3rd ed., 1864);
EUCKEN, from his numerous works on the subject we may mention Der Wahrheitsgehalt der Religion (1901); PFLEIDERER, Die Religion, ihr Wesen und ihre Geschichte (2nd vol., 1869);
IDEM Grundriss der christlichen Glaubens- und Sittenlehere (1880);
IDEM, Entwickelung der protestantischen Theologie seit Kant (1892);
SABATIER, Esquisse d'une philosophie de la religion aprè la philosophie et l'histoire (1897);
IDEM, Les religions d'autorite et la religion de l'espirit [posthumous] (1902);
HAMILTON, Discussion on Philosophy and Literature (3rd ed., 1866);
CAMPBELL, The New Theology (London, 1907);
HARNACK, Das Wesen des Christentums (enlarged ed., Jena, 1908);
GORE (anti-modernist), The New Theology and the Old Religion (London 1907);
HAKLUYT (anti-modernist), Liberal Theology and the Ground of Faith (London, 1908); Father Tyrell's Modernism : an expository criticism of “Through Scylla and Charybdis” in an open letter to Mr. Athelstan Riley (London, 1909)

Modernist Sources

MURRI, Psicologia della religione, note ed appunti, published under the pseudonym of SOSTENE GELLI (Rome, 1905);
IDEM, Democrazia e christianesimo;
IDEM, I principi comuni in Programma della societa regionale di cultura (Rome ,1906);
IDEM, La Vita religiosa nel cristianesimo: Discorsi (Rome, 1907)
IDEM, La filosofia nuova e l'enciclica contro il modernismo (Rome, 1908)
FOGAZZARO, Il Santo (Milan, 1905);
Il Programma dei Modernisti. Riposta all' Enciclica di Pio X, “Pascendi Dominici gregis” (Rome, 1908);
VOGRINEC, Nostra maxima culpa! Die bedraengte Lage der katholischen Kirche, deren Ursachen und Vorschlaege zur Besserung (Vienna and Leipzig, 1904);
LOISY, l'Evangile et l'Eglise (Paris, 1902);
IDEM, Autour d'un petit livre (Paris, 1903);
IDEM, Simples reflexions sur le decret du Saint-Office “Lamentabili sane exitu”, et sur l'Encyclique “Pascendi Dominici gregis” (Ceffonds, 1908);
LEROY, Dogme et critique (Paris) [In referring to this book, which has been condemned, we do not wish to make any reflexion on the Catholicity of the author];
TYRRELL, Lex orandi (London, New York, Bombay, 1906);
IDEM, A confidential letter to a friend who is a professor of anthropology, It. tr. (inaccurate) in Il Corriere della Sera (1 January, 1906); Letters to His Holines Pope Pius X by a Modernist (Chicago, 1910)

Catholic Sources

PORTALIE, Dogme et Histoire in Bulletin de litterature ecclesiastique (Feb. to March, 1904);
CAVALLANTI, Modernismo e Modernisti (Brescia, 1907);
MERCIER, Le modernisme, sa position vis-a-vis de la science, sa condamnation par le Pape Pie X (Brussels, 1908);
DE TONQUEDEC, La notion de verite dans la philosophie nouvelle (Paris, 1908);
LEPIN, Christologie : Commentaire des propositions 27-38 du decret du S. Office “Lamentabili” (Paris, 1908);
LEBRETON, L'encyclique et la theologie modernista (Paris, 1908);
GAUDAUD, Les erreurs du Modernisme in La foi catholique (1908, 1909);
PESCH, Theologische Zeitfragen, Glaube, Dogmen und geschichtlichen Tatsachen. Eine Untersuching ueber den Modernismus, 4th series (Freibug im Breisgau, 1908);
HEINER, Der neue Syllabus Pius X (Mainz, 1908);
MICHELITSCH, Der neue Syllabus (Gras and Vienna, 1908);
KNEIB, Wesen und Bedeutung der Encyclika gegen den Modernismus (Mainz, 1908);
GODRYEZ, The doctrine of Modernism and its refutation (Philadelphia, 1908);
RICKABY, T he Modernist, (London, 1908);
MAUMUS, Les modernistes (Paris, 1909);
VERMEERSCH, De modernismo tractatus et notae canonicae cum Actis S. Sedis a 17 April, 1907 ad 25 Sept., 1910 (Bruges, 1901)

A. VERMEERSCH

Monarchians

Heretics of the second and third centuries. The word, Monarchiani, was first used by Tertullian as a nickname for the Patripassian group (adv. Prax., x), and was seldom used by the ancients. In modern times it has been extended to an earlier group of heretics, who are distinguished as Dynamistic, or Adoptionist, Monarchians from the Modalist Monarchians, or Patripassians.

I. DYNAMISTS, OR ADOPTIONISTS

All Christians hold the unity (monarchia) of God as a fundamental doctrine. By the Patripassians this first principle was used to deny the Trinity, and they are with some reason called Monarchians. But the Adoptionists, or Dynamists, have no claim to the title, for they did not start from the monarchy of God, and their error is strictly Christological. An account of them must, however, be given here simply because the name Monarchian has adhered to them in spite of the repeated protests of historians of dogma. But their ancient and accurate name was Theodotians. The founder of the sect was a leather-seller of Byzantium named Theodotus. He came to Rome under Pope Victor (c. 190-200) or earlier. He taught (Philosophumena, VII, xxxv) that Jesus was a man born of a virgin according to the counsel of the Father, that He lived like other men, and was most pious; that at His baptism in the Jordan the Christ came down upon Him in the likeness of a dove, and therefore wonders (dynameis) were not wrought in Him until the Spirit (which Theodotus called Christ) came down and was manifested in Him. They did not admit that this made Him God; but some of them said He was God after His resurrection. It was reported that Theodotus had been seized, with others, at Byzantium as a Christian, and that he had denied Christ, whereas his companions had been martyred; he had fled to Rome, and had invented his heresy in order to excuse his fall, saying that it was but a man and not God that he had denied. Pope Victor excommunicated him, and he gathered together a sect in which we are told much secular study was carried on. Hippolytus says that they argued on Holy Scripture in syllogistic form. Euclid, Aristotle, and Theophrastus were their admiration, and Galen they even adored. We should probably assume, with Harnack, that Hippolytus would have had less objection to the study of Plato or the Stoics, and that he disliked their purely literal exegesis, which neglected the allegorical sense. They also emended the text of Scripture, but their versions differed, that of Asclepiodotus was different from that of Theodotus, and again from that of Hermophilus; and the copies of Apolloniades did not even tally with one another. Some of them “denied the law and the Prophets”, that is to say, they followed Marcion in rejecting the Old Testament. The only disciple of the leather-seller of whom we know anything definite is his namesake Theodotus the banker (ho trapezites). He added to his master's doctrine the view that Melchisedech was a celestial power, who was the advocate for the angels in heaven, as Jesus Christ was for men upon earth (a view found among later sects). (See MELCHISEDECHIANS). This teaching was of course grounded on Hebrews, vii, 3, and it is refuted at length by St. Epiphanius as Heresy 55, “Melchisedechians”, after he has attacked the leather-seller under Heresy 54, “Theodotians”. As he meets a series of arguments of both heretics, it is probable that some writings of the sect had been before Hippolytus, whose lost “Syntagma against all heresies” supplied St. Epiphanius with all his information. After the death of Pope Victor, Theodotus, the banker, and Asclepiodotus designed to raise their sect from the position of a mere school like those of the Gnostics to the rank of a Church like that of Marcion. They got hold of a certain confessor named Natalius, and persuaded him to be called their bishop at a salary of 150 denarii (24 dollars) a month. Natalius thus became the first antipope. But after he had joined them, he was frequently warned in visions by the Lord, Who did not wish His martyr to be lost outside the Church. He neglected the visions, for the sake of the honour and gain, but finally was scourged all night by the holy angels, so that in the morning with haste and tears he betook himself in sackcloth and ashes to Pope Zephyrinus and cast himself at the feet of the clergy, and even of the laity, showing the weals of the blows, and was after some difficulty restored to communion. This story is quoted by Eusebius II (VI, xxviii) from the “Little Labyrinth” of the contemporary Hippolytus, a work composed against Artemon, a late leader of the sect (perhaps c. 225-30), whom he did not mention in the “Syntagma” or the “Philosophumena”. Our knowledge of Artemon, or Artemas, is limited to the reference to him made at the end of the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata (about 266-268), where that heretic was said to have followed Artemon, and in fact the teaching of Paul is but a more learned and theological development of Theodotianism (see Paul of Samosata).

The sect probably died out about the middle of the third century, and can never have been numerous. All our knowledge of it goes back to Hippolytus. His “Syntagma” (c.205) is epitomized in Pseudo-Tertullian (Praescript., lii) and Philastrius, and is developed by Epiphanius (Haer., liv. lv); his “Little Labyrinth” (written 139-5, cited by Eusebius, V, 28) and his “Philosophumena” are still extant. See also his “Contra Noetum” 3, and a fragment “On the Melchisedechians and Theodotians and Athingani”, published by Caspari (Tidskr. für der Evangel. Luth. Kirke, Ny Raekke, VIII, 3, p. 307). But the Athingani are a later sect, for which see MEDCHISEDECHIANS. The Monarchianism of Photinus (q. v.) seems to have been akin to that of the Theodotians. All speculations as to the origin of the theories of Theodotus are fanciful. At any rate he is not connected with the Ebionites. The Alogi have sometimes been classed with the Monarchians. Lipsius in his “Quelenkritik des Epiphanius” supposed them to be even Philanthropists, on account of their denial of the Logos, and Epiphanius in fact calls Theodotus an apopasma of the Alogi; but this is only a guess, and is not derived by him from Hippolytus. As a fact, Epiphanius assures us (Haer. 51) that the Alogi (that is, Gaius and his party) were orthodox in their Christology (see MONTANISTS).

II. MODALISTS

The Monarchians properly so-called (Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons: God the Father appears on earth as Son; hence it seemed to their opponents that Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West they were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually called Sabellians. The first to visit Rome was probably Praxeas, who went on to Carthage some time before 206-208; but he was apparently not in reality a heresiarch, and the arguments refuted by Tertullian somewhat later in his book “Adversus Praxean” are doubtless those of the Roman Monarchians (see PRAXEAS).

A. History

Noetus (from whom the Noetians) was a Smyrnaean (Epiphanius, by a slip, says an Ephesian). He called himself Moses, and his brother Aaron. When accused before the presbyterate of teaching that the Father suffered, he denied it; but after having made a few disciples he was again interrogated, and expelled from the Church. He died soon after, and did not receive Christian burial. Hippolytus mockingly declares him to have been a follower of Heraclitus, on account of the union of the opposites which he taught when he called God both visible and invisible, passible and impassible. His pupil Epigonus came to Rome. As he was not mentioned in the “Syntagma” of Hippolytus, which was written in one of the first five years of the third century, he was not then well known in Rome, or had not yet arrived. According to Hippolytus (Philos., IX, 7), Cleomenes, a follower of Epigonus, was allowed by Pope Zephyrinus to establish a school, which flourished under his approbation and that of Callistus. Hagemann urges that we should conclude that Cleomenes was not a Noetian at all, and that he was an orthodox opponent of the incorrect theology of Hippolytus. The same writer gives most ingenious and interesting (though hardly convincing) reasons for identifying Praxeas with Callistus; he proves that the Monarchians attacked in Tertullian's “Contra Praxean” and in the “Philosophumena” had identical tenets which were not necessarily heretical; he denies that Tertullian means us to understand that Praxeas came to Carthage, and he explains the nameless refuter of Praxeas to be, not Tertullian himself, but Hippolytus. It is true that it is easy to suppose Tertullian and Hippolytus to have misrepresented the opinions of their opponents, but it cannot be proved that Cleomenes was not a follower of the heretical Noetus, and that Sabellius did not issue from his school; further, it is not obvious that Tertullian would attack Callistus under a nickname.

Sabellius soon became the leader of the Monarchians in Rome, perhaps even before the death of Zephyrinus (c. 218). He is said by Epiphanius to have founded his views on the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and the fragments of that apocryphon support this statement. Hippolytus hoped to convert Sabellius to his own views, and attributed his failure in this to the influence of Callistus. That pope, however, excommunicated Sabellius c. 220 (“fearing me”, says Hippolytus). Hippolytus accuses Callistus of now inventing a new heresy by combing the views of Theodotus and those of Sabellius, although he excommunicated them both (see CALLISTUS I, POPE). Sabellius was apparently still in Rome when Hippolytus wrote the Philosophumena (between 230 and 235). Of his earlier and later history nothing is known. St. Basil and others call him a Libyan from Pentapolis, but this seems to rest on the fact that Pentapolis was found to be full of Sabellianism by Dionysius of Alexandria, c. 260. A number of Montanists led by Aeschines became Modalists (unless Harnack is right in making Modalism the original belief of the Montanists and in regarding Aeschines as a conservative). Sabellius (or at least his followers) may have considerably amplified the original Noetianism. There was still Sabellianism to be found in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra developed a Monarchianism of his own, which was carried much further by his disciple, Photinus. Priscillian was an extreme Monarchian and so was Commodian (“Carmen Apol.”, 89, 277, 771). The “Monarchian Prologues” to the Gospels found in most old manuscripts of the Vulgate, were attributed by von Dobschütz and P. Corssen to a Roman author of the time of Callistus, but they are almost certainly the work of Priscillian. Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra, is vaguely said by Eusebius (H. E., VI, 33) to have taught that the Saviour had no distinct pre-existence before the Incarnation, and had no Divinity of His own, but that the Divinity of the Father dwelt in Him. Origen disputed with him in a council and convinced him of his error. The minutes of the disputation were known to Eusebius. It is not clear whether Beryllus was a Modalist or a Dynamist.

B. Theology

There was much that was unsatisfactory in the theology of the Trinity and in the Christology of the orthodox writers of the Ante-Nicene period. The simple teaching of tradition was explained by philosophical ideas, which tended to obscure as well as to elucidate it. The distinction of the Son from the Father was so spoken of that the Son appeared to have functions of His own, apart from the Father, with regard to the creation and preservation of the world, and thus to be a derivative and secondary God. The unity of the Divinity was commonly guarded by a reference to a unity of origin. It was said that God from eternity was alone, with His Word, one with Him (as Reason, in vulca cordis, logos endiathetos), before the Word was spoken (ex ore Patris, logos prophorikos), or was generated and became Son for the purpose of creation. The Alexandrians alone insisted rightly on the generation of the Son from all eternity; but thus the Unity of God was even less manifest. The writers who thus theologize may often expressly teach the traditional Unity in Trinity, but it hardly squares with the Platonism of their philosophy. The theologians were thus defending the doctrine of the Logos at the expense of the two fundamental doctrines of Christianity, the Unity of God, and the Divinity of Christ. They seemed to make the Unity of the Godhead split into two or even three, and to make Jesus Christ something less than the supreme God the Father. This is eminently true of the chief opponents of the Monarchians, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian. (See Newman, “The Causes of Arianism”, in “Tracts theol. and eccles.”) Monarchianism was the protest against this learned philosophizing, which to the simplicity of the faithful looked too much like a mythology or a Gnostic emanationism. The Monarchians emphatically declared that God is one, wholly and perfectly one, and that Jesus Christ is God, wholly and perfectly God. This was right, and even most necessary, and whilst it is easy to see why the theologians like Tertullian and Hippolytus opposed them (for their protest was precisely against the Platonism which these theologians had inherited from Justin and the Apologists), it is equally comprehensible that guardians of the Faith should have welcomed at first the return of the Monarchians to the simplicity of the Faith, “ne videantur deos dicere, neque rursum negare salvatoris deitatem” (“Lest they seem to be asserting two Gods or, on the other hand, denying the Saviour's Godhead”. — Origen, “On Titus”, frag. II). Tertullian in opposing them acknowledges that the uninstructed were against him; they could not understand the magic word oikonomia with which he conceived he had saved the situation; they declared that he taught two or three Gods, and cried “Monarchiam tenemus.” So Callistus reproached Hippolytus, and not without reason, with teaching two Gods.

Already St. Justin knew of Christians who taught the identity of the Father and the Son (“Apol.”, I, 63; “Dial.”, cxxviii). In Hermas, as in Theodotus, the Son and the Holy Ghost are confused. But it was reserved for Noetus and his school to deny categorically that the unity of the Godhead is compatible with a distinction of Persons. They seem to have regarded the Logos as a mere name, or faculty, or attribute, and to have made the Son and the Holy Ghost merely aspects of modes of existence of the Father, thus emphatically identifying Christ with the one God. “What harm am I doing”, was the reply made by Noetus to the presbyters who interrogated him, “in glorifying Christ?” They replied: “We too know in truth one God; we know Christ; we know that the Son suffered even as He suffered, and died even as He died, and rose again on the third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, and cometh to judge the living and the dead; and what we have learned we declare” (Hippol.; “Contra Noetum”, 1). Thus they refuted Noetus with tradition - the Apostles' Creed is enough; for the Creed and the New Testament indeed make the distinction of Persons clear, and the traditional formulas and prayers were equally unmistakable. Once the Monarchian system was put into philosophical language, it was seen to be no longer the old Christianity. Ridicule was used; the heretics were told that if the Father and the Son were really identified, then no denial on their part could prevent the conclusion that the Father suffered and died, and sat at His own right hand. Hippolytus tells us that Pope Zephyrinus, whom he represents as a stupid old man, declared at the instance of Callistus: “I know one God Christ Jesus, and besides Him no other Who was born and Who suffered”; but he added: “Not the Father died, but the Son”. The reporter is an unsympathetic adversary; but we can see why the aged pope was viewing the simple assertions of Sabellius in a favorable light. Hippolytus declares that Callistus said that the Father suffered with the Son, and Tertullian says the same of the Monarchians whom he attacks. Hagemann thinks Callistus-Praxeas especially attacked the doctrine of the Apologists and of Hippolytus and Tertullian, which assigned all such attributes as impassibility and invisibility to the Father and made the Son alone capable of becoming passible and visible, ascribing to Him the work of creation, and all operations ad extra. It is true that the Monarchians opposed this Platonizing in general, but it is not evident that they had grasped the principle that all the works of God ad extra are common to the Three Persons as proceeding form the Divine Nature; and they seem to have said simply that God as Father is invisible and impassible, but becomes visible and passible as Son. This explanation brings them curiously into line with their adversaries. Both parties represented God as one and alone in His eternity. Both made the generation of the Son a subsequent development; only Tertullian and Hippolytus date it before the creation, and the Monarchians perhaps not until the Incarnation. Further, their identification of the Father and the Son was not favourable to a true view of the Incarnation. The very insistence on the unity of God emphasized also the distance of God from man, and was likely to end in making the union of God with man a mere indwelling or external union, after the fashion of that which was attributed to Nestorius. They spoke of the Father as “Spirit” and the Son as “flesh”, and it is scarcely surprising that the similar Monarchianism of Marcellus should have issued in the Theodotianism of Photinus.

It is impossible to arrive at the philosophical views of Sabellius. Hagemann thought that he started from the Stoic system as surely as his adversaries did from the Platonic. Dorner has drawn too much upon his imagination for the doctrine of Sabellius; Harnack is too fanciful with regard to its origin. In fact we know little of him but that he said the Son was the Father (so Novatian, “De. Trin.” 12, and Pope Dionysius relate). St. Athanasius tells us that he said the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, one is hypostasis, but two in name (so Epiphanius): “As there are divisions of gifts, but the same Spirit, so the Father is the same, but is developed [platynetai] into Son and Spirit” (Orat., IV, c. Ar., xxv). Theodoret says he spoke of one hypostasis and a threefold prosopa, whereas St. Basil says he willingly admitted three prosopa in one hypostasis. This is, so far as words go, exactly the famous formulation of Tertullian, “tres personae, una substantia” (three persons, one substance), but Sabellius seems to have meant “three modes or characters of one person”. The Father is the Monad of whom the Son is a kind of manifestation: for the Father is in Himself silent, inactive (siopon, hanenerletos), and speaks, creates, works, as Son (Athan., 1. c., 11). Here again we have a parallel to the teaching of the Apologists about the Word as Reason and the Word spoken, the latter alone being called Son. It would seem that the difference between Sabellius and his opponents lay mainly in his insisting on the unity of hypostasis after the emission of the Word as Son. It does not seem clear that he regarded the Son as beginning at the Incarnation; according to the passage of St. Athanasius just referred to, he may have agreed with the Apologists to date Sonship from the creative action of God. But we have few texts to go upon, and it is quite uncertain whether Sabellius left any writings. Monarchianism is frequently combated by Origen. Dionysius of Alexandria fought Sabellianism with some imprudence. In the fourth century the Arians and Semi-Arians professed to be much afraid of it, and indeed the alliance of Pope Julius and Arhanasius with Marcellus gave some colour to accusations against the Nicene formulas as opening the way to Sabellianism. The Fathers of the fourth century (as, for instance, St. Gregory of Nyssa, “Contra Sabellium”, ed. Mai) seem to contemplate a more developed form than that known to Hippolytus (“Contra Noetum” and “Philosophumena”) and through him, to Epiphanius: the consummation of creation is to consist in the return of the Logos from the humanity of Christ to the Father, so that the original unity of the Divine Nature is after all held to have been temporally compromised, and only in the end will it be restored, that God may be all in all.

Our chief original authorities for early Monarchianism of the Modalist type are Tertullian, “Adversus Praxean”, and Hippolytus, “Contra Noetum” (fragment) and “Philosophumena”. The “Contra Noetum” and the lost “Syntagma” were used by Epiphanius, Haer. 57 (Noetians), but the sources of Epiphanius's Haer. 62 (Sabellians) are less certain. The references by Origen, Novatian, and later Fathers are somewhat indefinite.

JOHN CHAPMAN
Aeterna, non caduca

Moses

Hebrew liberator, leader, lawgiver, prophet, and historian, lived in the thirteenth and early part of the twelfth century, B. C.

NAME

Moshéh (M. T.), Mouses, Moses. In Ex., ii, 10, a derivation from the Hebrew Mashah (to draw) is implied. Josephus and the Fathers assign the Coptic mo (water) and uses (saved) as the constituent parts of the name. Nowadays the view of Lepsius, tracing the name back to the Egyptian mesh (child), is widely patronized by Egyptologists, but nothing decisive can be established.

SOURCES

To deny or to doubt the historic personality of Moses, is to undermine and render unintelligible the subsequent history of the Israelites. Rabbinical literature teems with legends touching every event of his marvellous career: taken singly, these popular tales are purely imaginative, yet, considered in their cumulative force, they vouch for the reality of a grand and illustrious personage, of strong character, high purpose, and noble achievement, so deep, true, and efficient in his religious convictions as to thrill and subdue the minds of an entire race for centuries after his death. The Bible furnishes the chief authentic account of this luminous life.

BIRTH TO VOCATION (EXODUS 2:1-22)

Of Levitic extraction, and born at a time when by kingly edict had been decreed the drowning of every new male offspring among the Israelites, the “goodly child” Moses, after three months' concealment, was exposed in a basket on the banks of the Nile. An elder brother (Ex., vii, 7) and sister (Ex., ii, 4), Aaron and Mary (AV and RV, Miriam), had already graced the union of Jochabed and Amram. The second of these kept watch by the river, and was instrumental in inducing Pharaoh's daughter, who rescued the child, to entrust him to a Hebrew nurse. The one she designedly summoned for the charge was Jochabed, who, when her “son had grown up”, delivered him to the princess. In his new surroundings, he was schooled “in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts, vii, 22). Moses next appears in the bloom of sturdy manhood, resolute with sympathies for his degraded brethren. Dauntlessly he hews down an Egyptian assailing one of them, and on the morrow tries to appease the wrath of two compatriots who were quarrelling. He is misunderstood, however, and, when upbraided with the murder of the previous day, he fears his life is in jeopardy. Pharaoh has heard the news and seeks to kill him. Moses flees to Madian. An act of rustic gallantry there secures for him a home with Raguel, the priest. Sephora, one of Raguel's seven daughters, eventually becomes his wife and Gersam his first-born. His second son, Eliezer, is named in commemoration of his successful flight from Pharaoh.

VOCATION AND MISSION (EXODUS 2:23-12:33)

After forty years of shepherd life, Moses speaks with God. To Horeb (Jebel Sherbal?) in the heart of the mountainous Sinaitic peninsula, he drives the flocks of Raguel for the last time. A bush there flaming unburned attracts him, but a miraculous voice forbids his approach and declares the ground so holy that to approach he must remove his shoes. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob designates him to deliver the Hebrews from the Egyptian yoke, and to conduct them into the “land of milk and honey”, the region long since promised to the seed of Abraham, the Palestine of later years. Next, God reveals to him His name under a special form Yahweh (see article JEHOVAH). as a “memorial unto all generations”. He performs two miracles to convince his timorous listener, appoints Aaron as Moses's “prophet”, and Moses, so to speak, as Aaron's God (Ex., iv, 16). Diffidence at once gives way to faith and magnanimity. Moses bids adieu to Jethro (Raguel), and, with his family, starts for Egypt. He carries in his hand the “rod of God”, a symbol of the fearlessness with which he is to act in performing signs and wonders in the presence of a hardened, threatening monarch. His confidence waxes strong, but he is uncircumcised, and God meets him on the way and fain would kill him. Sephora saves her “bloody spouse”, and appeases God by circumcising a son. Aaron joins the party at Horeb. The first interview of the brothers with their compatriots is most encouraging, but not so with the despotic sovereign. Asked to allow the Hebrews three days' respite for sacrifices in the wilderness, the angry monarch not only refuses, but he ridicules their God, and then effectually embitters the Hebrews' minds against their new chiefs as well as against himself, by denying them the necessary straw for exorbitant daily exactions in brick making. A rupture is about to ensue with the two strange brothers, when, in a vision, Moses is divinely constituted “Pharaoh's God”, and is commanded to use his newly imparted powers. He has now attained his eightieth year. The episode of Aaron's rod is a prelude to the plagues. Either personally or through Aaron, sometimes after warning Pharaoh or again quite suddenly, Moses causes a series of Divine manifestations described as ten in number in which he humiliates the sun and river gods, afflicts man and beast, and displays such unwonted control over the earth and heavens that even the magicians are forced to recognize in his prodigies “the finger of God”. Pharaoh softens at times but never sufficiently to meet the demands of Moses without restrictions. He treasures too highly the Hebrew labour for his public works. A crisis arrives with the last plague. The Hebrews, forewarned by Moses, celebrate the first Pasch or Phase with their loins girt, their shoes on their feet, and staves in their hands, ready for rapid escape. Then God carries out his dreadful threat to pass through the land and kill every first-born of man and beast, thereby executing judgment on all the gods of Egypt. Pharaoh can resist no longer. He joins the stricken populace in begging the Hebrews to depart.

EXODUS AND THE FORTY YEARS (EXODUS 12:34 AND AFTER)

At the head of 600,000 men, besides women and children, and heavily laden with the spoils of the Egyptians, Moses follows a way through the desert, indicated by an advancing pillar of alternating cloud and fire, and gains the peninsula of Sinai by crossing the Red Sea. A dry passage, miraculously opened by him for this purpose at a point to-day unknown, afterwards proves a fatal trap for a body of Egyptian pursuers, organized by Pharaoh and possibly under his leadership. The event furnishes the theme of the the thrilling canticle of Moses. For upwards of two months the long procession, much retarded by the flocks, the herds, and the difficulties inseparable from desert travel, wends its way towards Sinai. To move directly on Chanaan would be too hazardous because of the warlike Philistines, whose territory would have to be crossed; whereas, on the south-east, the less formidable Amalacites are the only inimical tribes and are easily overcome thanks to the intercession of Moses. For the line of march and topographical identifications along the route, see ISRAELITES, subsection The Exodus and the Wanderings. The miraculous water obtained from the rock Horeb, and the supply of the quails and manna, bespeak the marvellous faith of the great leader. The meeting with Jethro ends in an alliance with Madian, and the appointment of a corps of judges subordinate to Moses, to attend to minor decisions. At Sinai the Ten Commandments are promulgated, Moses is made mediator between God and the people, and, during two periods of forty days each, he remains in concealment on the mount, receiving from God the multifarious enactments, by the observance of which Israel is to be moulded into a theocratic nation (cf. MOSAIC LEGISLATION). On his first descent, he exhibits an all-consuming zeal for the purity of Divine worship, by causing to perish those who had indulged in the idolatrous orgies about the Golden Calf; on his second, he inspires the deepest awe because his face is emblazoned with luminous horns.

After instituting the priesthood and erecting the Tabernacle, Moses orders a census which shows an army of 603,550 fighting men. These with the Levites, women, and children, duly celebrate the first anniversary of the Pasch, and, carrying the Ark of the Covenant, shortly enter on the second stage of their migration. They are accompanied by Hobab, Jethro's son, who acts as a guide. Two instances of general discontent follow, of which the first is punished by fire, which ceases as Moses prays, and the second by plague. When the manna is complained of, quails are provided as in the previous year. Seventy elders- a conjectural origin of the Sanhedrin- are then appointed to assist Moses. Next Aaron and Mary envy their brother, but God vindicates him and afflicts Mary temporarily with leprosy. From the desert of Pharan Moses sends spies into Chanaan, who, with the exceptions of Joshue and Caleb, bring back startling reports which throw the people into consternation and rebellion. The great leader prays and God intervenes, but only to condemn the present generation to die in the wilderness. The subsequent uprising of Core, Dathan, Abiron, and their adherents suggests that, during the thirty-eight years spent in the Badiet et-Tih., habitual discontent, so characteristic of nomads, continued. It is during this period that tradition places the composition of a large part of the Pentateuch (q.v.). Towards its close, Moses is doomed never to enter the Promised Land, presumably because of a momentary lack of trust in God at the Water of Contradiction. When the old generation, including Mary, the prophet's sister, is no more, Moses inaugurates the onward march around Edom and Moab to the Arnon. After the death of Aaron and the victory over Arad, “fiery serpents” appear in the camp, a chastisement for renewed murmurings. Moses sets up the brazen serpent, “which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed”. The victories over Sehon and Og, and the feeling of security animating the army even in the territory of the hostile Balac, led to presumptuous and scandalous intercourse with the idolatrous Moabites which results, at Moses's command, in the slaughter of 24,000 offenders. The census, however, shows that the army still numbers 601,730, excluding 23,000 Levites. Of these Moses allows the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasses to settle in the east-Jordan district, without, however, releasing them from service in the west-Jordan conquest.

DEATH AND POSTHUMOUS GLORY

As a worthy legacy to the people for whom he has endured unparalleled hardships, Moses in his last days pronounces the three memorable discourses preserved in Deuteronomy. his chief utterance relates to a future Prophet, like to himself, whom the people are to receive. He then bursts forth into a sublime song of praise to Jahweh and adds prophetic blessings for each of the twelve tribes. From Mount Nebo — on “the top of Phasga” — Moses views for the last time the Promised Land, and then dies at the age of 120 years. He is buried “in the valley of Moab over against Phogor”, but no man “knows his sepulchre”. His memory has ever been one of “isolated grandeur”. He is the type of Hebrew holiness, so far outshining other models that twelve centuries after his death, the Christ Whom he foreshadowed seemed eclipsed by him in the minds of the learned. It was, humanly speaking, an indispensable providence that represented him in the Transfiguration, side by side with Elias, and quite inferior to the incomparable Antitype whose coming he had predicted.

THOMAS A K. REILLY

Muratorian Canon

Also called the Muratorian Fragment, after the name of the discoverer and first editor, L. A. Muratori (in the “Antiquitates italicae”, III, Milan, 1740, 851 sq.), the oldest known canon or list of books of the New Testament. The manuscript containing the canon originally belonged to Bobbio and is now in the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana at Milan (Cod. J 101 sup.). Written in the eighth century, it plainly shows the uncultured Latin of that time. The fragment is of the highest importance for the history of the Biblical canon. It was written in Rome itself or in its environs about 180 - 200; probably the original was in Greek, from which it was translated into Latin. This Latin text is preserved solely in the manuscript of the Ambrosiana. A few sentences of the Muratorian Canon are preserved in some other manuscripts, especially in codices of St. Paul's Epistles in Monte Cassino. The canon consists of no mere list of the Scriptures, but of a survey, which supplies at the same time historical and other information regarding each book. The beginning is missing; the preserved text begins with the last line concerning the second Gospel and the notices, preserved entire, concerning the third and fourth Gospels. Then there are mentioned: The Acts, St. Paul's Epistles (including those to Philemon, Titus and Timothy; the spurious ones to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians are rejected); furthermore, the Epistle of St. Jude and two Epistles of St. John; among the Scriptures which “in catholica habentur”, are cited the “Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta”, as well as the Apocalypses of St. John and St. Peter, but with the remark that some will not allow the latter to be read in the church. Then mention is made of the Pastor of Hermas, which may be read anywhere but not in the divine service; and, finally, there are rejected false Scriptures, which were used by heretics. In consequence of the barbarous Latin there is no complete understanding of the correct meaning of some of the sentences. As to the author, many conjectures were made (Papias, Hegesippus, Caius of Rome, Hippolytus of Rome, Rhodon, Melito of Sardis were proposed); but no well founded hypothesis has been adduced up to the present.

J. P. KIRSCH

Nathan

Nathan (God-given), the name of several Israelites mentioned in the Old Testament.

(1) Nathan, successor of Samuel and prophet in the times of David and Solomon

No indication is given as to his origin, and he appears in the narrative for the first time when David is contemplating the erection of a house to the Lord (II Kings, vii). He assures the monarch of the Lord's support and of the divinely ordained establishment of his kingdom for all time, but dissuades him from the idea of building the proposed temple, stating that this honour was reserved for his son and successor (II Kings, vii, 13; I Chron., xvii, 1-15). Nathan appears later to reproach David in the name of the Lord for his crime of adultery and murder narrated in II Kings, Xi, and, after skilfully proposing the allegory of the poor man's little ewe lamb, surprises the king with the words: “Thou art the man”. He then declares the anger of the Lord and the punishments that are to fall upon David, although in view of the latter's repentance his sin is pronounced forgiven, for his crimes had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme (II Kings, xii, 1-15). The prophet next appears on the scene when it is question of securing to Solomon the succession to the throne of his father. Adonias, abetted by Joab and the high priest Abiathar, made an attempt to have himself proclaimed king. The plan was frustrated by Nathan who, first through Bethsabee and later in a personal interview, informed David as to the doings of Adonias, and persuaded the aged monarch to confirm his promise in favour of Solomon and have him proclaimed king at the fountain of Gihon (III Kings, i, 8-45). In this instance Nathan served the interests of the country as well as those of David and Solomon by averting a civil war. He is credited by the Chronicler with having written a part of the history of David , together with Samuel the seer and Gad the seer (I Chron., xxix, 29; II Chron., xxix, 25). The time of Nathan's death is not given, but his name is mentioned in Ecclus., xlvii, 1.

(2) Nathan, son of David and Bethsabee (II Kings, v14; I Chron. 3:5, 14:4)

The name Nathan augmented by the theophorous prefix or suffix is borne by other members of the family of David. Thus one of his brothers was Nathanael (I Chron., ii, 14), and one of his nephews, Jonathan (II Kings, xxi, 21).

(3) Nathan, father of Azarias and Zabud, important functionaries of the court of Solomon (III Kings 4:5)

By some scholars he is identified with Nathan the prophet (1), and by others with Nathan the son of David (2). Both opinions are merely conjectural. His son Zabud is designated as “priest”, this being an indication, among many others, that the functions of the priesthood were not at that period exercised exclusively by the descendants of Aaron.

(4) Nathan, son of Ethei and father of Zabad (I Chron. 2:36), of the tribe of Juda and of the branch of Caleb

His grandfather Jeraa was an Egyptian slave to whom Sesan gave one of his daughters in marriage (I Chron., ii, 34-35).

(5) Nathan, one of the prominent Jews of the time of the Captivity

Chosen by Esdras together with several others to find levites for the temple service when the Jews were camped on the banks of the Ahava preparing to return to Palestine (I Esdr., viii, 16).

(6) Nathan, one of the sons of Bani mentioned in I Esdras 10:39

He was among those who, at the command of Esdras, put away the foreign wives they had married.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

Nathanael

One of the first disciples of Jesus, to Whom he was brought by his friend Philip (John, i, 43-51). It is generally held that Nathanael is to be identified with the Apostle Bartholomew of the Synoptic writers. The latter make no mention of Nathanael, but in their lists of the Twelve, one, Bartholomew, is always designated by his family Bar-Tolmai (son of Tolmai), and it is assumed that it is he whom the author of the Fourth Gospel designates by his personal name Nathanael. The main reasons on which this assumption rests are:

1. that the circumstances under which Nathanael was called do not differ in solemnity from those connected with the call of Peter, whence it is natural to expect that he as well as the latter was numbered among the Twelve;
2. Nathanael is mentioned as present with other Apostles after the Resurrection in the scene described in John, xxi;
3. Nathanael was brought to Jesus by Philip (John, i, 45), and thus it seems significant that Bartholomew is always mentioned next to Philip in the lists of the Twelve given by the Synoptists (Matt., x, 3; Mark, iii, 18; Luke, vi, 14).

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

Book of Nehemiah

Also called the second Book of Esdras, is reckoned both in the Talmud and in the early Christian Church, at least until the time of Origen, as forming one single book with Esdras, and St. Jerome in his preface (ad Dominionem et Rogatianum), following the example of the Jews, still continues to treat it as making one with the Book of Esdras. The union of the two in a single book doubtless has its origin in the fact that the documents of which the Books of Esdras and Nehemiah are composed, underwent compilation and redaction together at the hands probably, as most critics think, of the author of Paralipomenon about B. C. 300. The separation of the Book of Nehemiah from that of Esdras, preserved in our editions, may in its turn be justified by the consideration that the former relates in a distinct manner the work accomplished by Nehemiah, and is made up, at least in the great part, from the authentic memoirs of the principal figure. The book comprises three sections:

• Section I (Chapters 1-6);
• Section II (Chapters 7-13:3);
• Section III (Chapter 13:4 - Chapter 31).

Sections I and III will be treated first, and section II, which raises special literary problems, will be discussed at the end.

SECTION I: CHAPTERS 1-6

(1) comprises the account, written by Nehemiah himself, of the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem. Already in the reign of Xerxes (B. C. 485-65), and especially during the first half of the reign of Artaxerxes I (B. C. 465-24), the Jews had attempted, but with only partial success, to rebuild the walls of their capital, a work, up to then, never sanctioned by the Persian kings (see I Esd., iv, 6-23). In consequence of the edict of Artaxerxes, given in I Esd., iv, 18-22, the enemies of the Jews at Jerusalem forcibly stopped the work (ibid., 23) and pulled down a part of what had already been accomplished.

(2) With these events the beginning of the Book of Nehemiah is connected. Nehemiah, the son of Helchias, relates how, at the court of Artaxerxes at Susa where he fulfilled the office of the king's cup-bearer, he received the news of this calamity in the twentieth year of the king (Neh., i), and how, thanks to his prudence, he succeeded in getting himself sent on a first mission to Jerusalem with full powers to rebuild the walls of the Jewish capital (Neh., ii, 1-8). This first mission lasted twelve years (v, 14; xiii, 6); he had the title of Perah (v, 14; xii, 26) or Athersatha (viii, 9; x,1). It had long been the opinion of most historians of Israel that the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was certainly the first of that name, and that consequently the first mission of Nehemiah fell in the year B. C. 445. The Aramaic papyri of Elephantine, recently published by Sachau, put this date beyond the shadow of a doubt. For in the letter which they wrote to Bahohim, Governor of Judea, in the seventeenth year of Darius II ( B. C. 408), the Jewish priests of Elephantine say that they have also made an application to the sons of Sanaballat at Samaria. Now Sanaballat was a contemporary of Nehemiah, and the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah, therefore, was the predecessor, and not the successor, of Darius II.

(3) On his arrival at Jerusalem, Nehemiah lost no time; he inspected the state of the walls, and then took measures and gave orders for taking the work in hand (ii, 9-18). Chapter iii, a document of the highest importance for determining the area of Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century B.C., contains a description of the work, carried out at all points at once under the direction of the zealous Jewish governor. The high priest Eliasib is named first among the fellow workers of Nehemiah (iii, 1). To bring the undertaking to a successful termination the latter had to fight against all sorts of difficulties.

(4) First of all, the foreign element had great influence in Judea. The Jews who had returned from captivity almost a century before, had found the country partly occupied by people belonging to the neighbouring races, and being unable to organize themselves politically, had seen themselves reduced, little by little, to a humiliating position in their own land. And so, at the time of Nehemiah, we see certain foreigners taking an exceedingly arrogant attitude towards the Jewish governor and his work. Sanaballat the Horonite, chief of the Samaritans (iv, 1, 2), Tobias the Ammonite, Gossem the Arabian, claim to exercise constant control over Jewish affairs, and try by all means in their power, by calumny (ii, 19), scoffs (iv, 1 ff), threats of violence (iv, 7 ff), and craft (vi, 1 ff), to hinder Nehemiah' work or ruin him. The reason of this was that the raising up again of the walls of Jerusalem was destined to bring about the overthrow of the moral domination, which for many years circumstances had secured for those foreigners.

(5) The cause of the foreigners was upheld by a party of Jews, traitors to their own nation. The prophet Noadias and other false prophets sought to terrify Nehemiah (vi, 14); there were some who, like Samaia, allowed themselves to be hired by Tobias and Sanaballat to set snares for him (vi, 10-14). Many Jews sided with Tobias on account of the matrimonial alliances existing between his family and certain Jewish families. Nehemiah, however, does not speak of the mixed marriages as if they had been actually forbidden. The father-in-law of Tobias' son, Mosollam, the son of Barachias, on the contrary, was a fellow worker of Nehemiah (vi, 18; iii, 4). The law of Deuteronomy only forbade marriages between Jews and Chanaanites (Deut. vii, 1, 3).

(6) Difficulties of a social nature, the result of the selfish treatment of the poor by the rich, who misused the common distress for their own ends, likewise called for the energetic intervention of Nehemiah (v). On this occasion Nehemiah recalls the fact that previous governors had practised extortion, while he was the first to show himself disinterested in the discharge of his duties (v, 15 ff).

(7) In spite of all these difficulties the rebuilding of the wall made rapid progress. We learn from vii, 15 that the work was completely finished within fifty-one days. Josephus (Ant., V, 7, 8) says that it lasted two years and four months, but his testimony, often far from reliable, presents no plausible reason for setting aside the text. The relatively short duration of the work is explained, when we consider that Nehemiah had only to repair the damage wrought after the prohibition of Artaxerxes (I Esd., iv, 23), and finish off the construction, which might at that moment have been already far advanced [see above (1)].

SECTION III: CHAPTER 13:4 TO CHAPTER 31)

After the expiration of his first mission, Nehemiah had returned to Susa in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes (B. C. 433; 13:6). Some time after, he was charged with a fresh mission to Judea, and it is with his doings during this second mission that xiii, 4-31 is concerned. The account at the beginning seems mutilated. Nehemiah relates how, at the time of his second arrival at Jerusalem, he began by putting an end to the abuses which Tobias, the Ammonite, supported by the high priest Eliasib, was practising in the temple in the matter of the depository for the sacred offerings (xiii, 4-9). He severely blames the violation of the right of the Levites in the distribution of the tithes, and takes measures to prevent its occurrence in future (xiii, 10-14); he insists on the Sabbath being strictly respected even by the foreign merchants (xiii, 15-22). Finally he dealt severely with the Jews who were guilty of marriages with strange wives, and banished a grandson of Eliasib who had married a daughter of Sanaballat (xiii, 23-28). To this son-in-law of Sanaballat is generally attributed the inauguration of the worship in the temple of Garizim. It is plain that Nehemiah' attitude during his second mission with regard to mixed marriages differs greatly from his attitude at the beginning of his first stay in Jerusalem [see section I, (5)].

SECTION II: CHAPTERS 7 TO 13:3

(1) contains accounts or documents relating to the work of politico-social and religious organization effected by Nehemiah, after the walls were finished. Here we no longer have Nehemiah speaking in the first person, except in vii, 1-5, and in the account of the dedication of the walls (xii, 31, 37, 39). He relates how, after having rebuilt the walls, he had to proceed to erect houses, and take measures for bringing into the town a population more in proportion to its importance as the capital (vii, 1-5; cf. Ecclus., xlix, 15).

(2) He gives (vii, 5 ff.) the list of the families who had returned from captivity with Zorobabel. This list is in I Esd., ii. It is remarkable that in the Book of Nehemiah, following on the list we find reproduced (vii, 70 ff.) with variants, the remark of I Esd., ii, 68-70 about the gifts given towards the work of the temple by Zorobabel's companions, and the settlement of these latter in the country; and again that Neh., viii, 1 resumes the narrative in the very words of I Esd., iii. This dependence is probably due to the redactor, who in this place gave a new form to the notes supplied him by the Jewish governor's memoirs which also explains the latter's being spoken of in the third person, Neh., viii, 9.

(3) There is a description of a great gathering held in the seventh month under the direction of Nehemiah (viii, 9-12) at which Esdras reads the Law (viii, 13). They then kept the Feast of Tabernacles (viii, 13-18). When this feast is over, the people gather together again on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month (ix, 1 ff.) to praise God, confess their sins, and to bind themselves by a written covenant faithfully to observe their obligations. Chapter X after giving the list of the subscribers to the covenant, sets forth the obligations, which the people bind themselves to fulfil; in particular the prohibition of mixed marriages (verse 30); the keeping of the Sabbath, especially in their treatment of foreign merchants (verse 31), the yearly tribute of a third part of a sicle for the Temple (verse 32), and other measures to ensure the regular celebration of sacrifices (verses 33-34), the offering of the firstfruits and of the first born (verses 35-37), and the payment and the distribution of the tithes (verses 35-39). After chapter x it is advisable to read xii, 43-xiii, 1-3; the appointment of a commission for the administration of things brought to the Temple, and the expulsion of foreigners from among the community. Chapter xi, 1, 2, recalls the measures taken to people Jerusalem; verses 3-36 give the census of Jerusalem and of other towns as Nehemiah' measures left it. In chapter xii, 27-43, we have the account of the solemn dedication of the walls of Jerusalem; Esdras the scribe is mentioned as being at the head of a group of singers (verse 35). The list in xii, 1-26, has no connexion whatever with the events of this epoch.

(4) The proceedings set forth in viii-x are closely connected with the other parts of the history of Nehemiah. The obligations imposed by the covenant, described in x, have to do with just the very matters with which Nehemiah concerned himself most during his second stay (see above, section III). The regulation concerning the providing of the wood for the altar (x, 34) is recalled by Nehemiah in xiii, 31, and the very words used in x, 39 (end of verse), we find again in xiii, 11. The covenant entered into by the people during Nehemiah' first mission was broken in his absence. At the time of his second mission he put down the abuses with severity. For instance, the attitude he takes towards mixed marriages is quite different from his attitude at the beginning of his first stay [see above section I (5); section III]. This change is explained precisely by the absolute prohibition pronounced against these marriages in the assembly described in ix-x. The view has been put forward that viii-x gives an account of events belonging to the period of the organization of worship under Zorobabel, the names of Nehemiah (viii, 9; x, 1) and Esdras (viii, 1 ff.) having been added later. But there was certainly sufficient reason for the reorganization of worship in the time of Nehemiah (cf. the Book of Malachias and Neh., xiii). Others on the contrary would regard Neh., viii-x, as the sequel to the narrative of I Esdras, ix-x, and they likewise hold that Nehemiah' name has been interpolated in Neh., viii, 9, and x, 1. This theory is equally untenable. It is true that in the Third Book of Esdras (the Greek I Esdras) the narrative of Neh., viii, is reproduced immediately after that of Esdras, ix-x; but the author of the Third Book of Esdras was led to do this by the fact that Neh., viii, presents his hero as reader of the Law. He has moreover preserved (III Esd., ix, 50) the information of Neh., viii, 9, about the intervention of the Athersatha (Nehemiah), Esdras' superior, which clearly proves that this account does not refer to the epoch when Esdras had returned to Jerusalem entrusted by the king with full powers for the administration of the Jewish community. See, moreover, the following paragraph.

(5) according to our view the return of Esdras with his emigrants and the reform effected by him (I Esd., vii-x) ought, chronologically, to be placed after the history of Nehemiah, and the Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of whose reign Esdras returned to Jerusalem, is Artaxerxes II (B. C. 405-358). As a matter of fact, Esdras finds the wall of Jerusalem rebuilt (I Esd., ix, 9), Jerusalem well populated (x, 1 ff.), the Temple treasure under proper management (viii, 29 ff.), Jonathan, son of Eliasib, high priest (x, 6; cf. Neh., xii, 23, Hebrew text), and the unlawfulness of mixed marriages recognized by every one (ix, 1 ff.). The radical reform, which Esdras introduced in this matter without being troubled by foreigners who still held the upper hand at the time of Nehemiah' first coming, definitively put an end to the abuse in question which had proved rebellious to all preventive measures (x). The politics and social situation described in the first six chapters of Nehemiah [see above, section I (4), (5), (6)], the religious situation to which the proceedings of the gathering in Neh., x, bear witness [see above, section II (3)], do not admit of being explained as immediately following after the mission of Esdras, who particularly, in virtue of the king's edict, disposed of very valuable resources for the celebration of worship (I Esd., vii, viii, 25 ff.). Esdras is again entirely unnoticed in Neh., i-vi, and in the list of the subscribers to the covenant (x,1 ff.). He is mentioned in Neh., viii, 1 ff., and in xii, 35, as fulfilling subordinate functions. Considering the singular number of the verbs in Neh., viii, 9, 10, it is probable that in the former of these two verses “Esdras and the Levites” being named as part of the subject of the phrase is due to a later hand. At the epoch of Nehemiah, therefore, Esdras was at the beginning of his career, and must have gone a little later to Babylonia, whence he returned at the head of a band of emigrants n the seventh year of Artexerxes II (B. C. 398).

(6) Many critics have maintained that in Neh., viii, we have the history of the first promulgation of the “Priestly Code” by Esdras, but the narrative in question does not authorize such an interpretation. Esdras was probably still a very young man at this time, and all he does is to read the Law before the assembled people. It is quite true that in I Esd., vii, there is made mention in the royal edict of the Law of his God which Esdras has in mind (verse 14), but besides the fact that we hold the events related in I Esd., vii, to be posterior to Neh., viii [see above (5)], these words must not be understood literally of a new document of which Esdras was the bearer. In the same terms mention is made of the wisdom of his God which Esdras has in mind (verse 25), and in this same passage it is supposed that Esdras' compatriots already know the Law of their God.

A. VAN HOONACKER

The First Council of Nicaea

First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 325 on the occasion of >the heresy of Arius (Arianism). As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria at which more than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya anathematized Arius. The latter continued to officiate in his church and to recruit followers. Being finally driven out, he went to Palestine and from there to Nicomedia. During this time St. Alexander published his “Epistola encyclica”, to which Arius replied; but henceforth it was evident that the quarrel had gone beyond the possibility of human control.

Sozomen even speaks of a Council of Bithynia which addressed an encyclical to all the bishops asking them to receive the Arians into the communion of the Church. This discord, and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-3. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay. It was evident that the emperor did not then grasp the significance of the Arian controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an oecumenical council.

The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Silvester came to an agreement (see SILVESTER I, SAINT, POPE). In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members. The choice of Nicaea was favourable to the assembling of a large number of bishops. It was easily accessible to the bishops of nearly all the provinces, but especially to those of Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace. The sessions were held in the principal church, and in the central hall of the imperial palace. A large place was indeed necessary to receive such an assembly, though the exact number is not known with certainty. Eusebius speaks of more than 250 bishops, and later Arabic manuscripts raise the figure to 2000 - an evident exaggeration in which, however, it is impossible to discover the approximate total number of bishops, as well as of the priests, deacons, and acolytes, of whom it is said that a great number were also present. St. Athanasius, a member of the council speaks of 300, and in his letter “Ad Afros” he says explicitly 318. This figure is almost universally adopted, and there seems to be no good reason for rejecting it. Most of the bishops present were Greeks; among the Latins we know only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope. The assembly numbered among its most famous members St. Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Nicholas of Myra. Some had suffered during the last persecution; others were poorly enough acquainted with Christian theology. Among the members was a young deacon, Athanasius of Alexandria, for whom this Council was to be the prelude to a life of conflict and of glory (see ATHANASIUS, SAINT).

The year 325 is accepted without hesitation as that of the First Council of Nicaea. There is less agreement among our early authorities as to the month and day of the opening. In order to reconcile the indications furnished by Socrates and by the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, this date may, perhaps, be taken as 20 May, and that of the drawing up of the symbol as 19 June. It may be assumed without too great hardihood that the synod, having been convoked for 20 May, in the absence of the emperor held meetings of a less solemn character until 14 June, when after the emperor's arrival, the sessions properly so called began, the symbol being formulated on 19 June, after which various matters - the paschal controversy, etc. - were dealt with, and the sessions came to an end 25 August. The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established. He had opened the session as honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the ecclesiastical leaders of the council. The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope's legates, Victor and Vincentius.

The emperor began by making the bishops understand that they had a greater and better business in hand than personal quarrels and interminable recriminations. Nevertheless, he had to submit to the infliction of hearing the last words of debates which had been going on previous to his arrival. Eusebius of Caesarea and his two abbreviators, Socrates and Sozomen, as well as Rufinus and Gelasius of Cyzicus, report no details of the theological discussions. Rufinus tells us only that daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his opinions were seriously discussed and the opposing arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius. (For the part played by the Eusebian third party, see EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA. For the Creed of Eusebius, see EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA, Life.) St. Athanasius assures us that the activities of the Council were nowise hampered by Constantine's presence. The emperor had by this time escaped from the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and was under that of Hosius, to whom, as well as to St. Athanasius, may be attributed a preponderant influence in the formulation of the symbol of the First Ecumenical Council, of which the following is a literal translation:

The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, who were exiled and anathematized. Arius and his writings were also branded with anathema, his books were cast into the fire, and he was exiled to Illyria. The lists of the signers have reached us in a mutilated condition, disfigured by faults of the copyists. Nevertheless, these lists may be regarded as authentic. Their study is a problem which has been repeatedly dealt with in modern times, in Germany and England, in the critical editions of H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, and O. Contz on the one hand, and C. H. Turner on the other. The lists thus constructed give respectively 220 and 218 names. With information derived from one source or another, a list of 232 or 237 fathers known to have been present may be constructed.

Other matters dealt with by this council were the controversy as to the time of celebrating Easter and the Meletian schism. The former of these two will be found treated under EASTER, Easter Controversy; the latter under MELETIUS OF LYCOPOLIS.

Of all the Acts of this Council, which, it has been maintained, were numerous, only three fragments have reached us: the creed, or symbol. given above (see also NICENE CREED); the canons; the synodal decree. In reality there never were any official acts besides these. But the accounts of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus may be considered as very important sources of historical information, as well as some data preserved by St. Athanasius, and a history of the Council of Nicaea written in Greek in the fifth century by Gelasius of Cyzicus. There has long existed a dispute as to the number of the canons of First Nicaea. ALl the collections of canons, whether in Latin or Greek, composed in the fourth and fifth centuries agree in attributing to this Council only the twenty canons, which we possess today. Of these the following is a brief résumé:

Canon i: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.

Canon ii: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.

Canon iii: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.

Canon iv: Concerning episcopal elections.

Canon v: Concerning the excommunicate.

Canon vi: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.

Canon vii: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.

Canon viii: concerns the Novatians.

Canon ix: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.

Canon x: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.

Canon xi: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.

Canon xii: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.

Canon xiii: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.

Canon xiv: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.

Canon xv: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.

Canon xvi: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.

Canon xvii: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.

Canon xviii: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.

Canon xix: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.

Canon xx: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.

The business of the Council having been finished Constantine celebrated the twentieth anniversary of his accession to the empire, and invited the bishops to a splendid repast, at the end of which each of them received rich presents. Several days later the emperor commanded that a final session should be held, at which he assisted in order to exhort the bishops to work for the maintenance of peace; he commended himself to their prayers, and authorized the fathers to return to their dioceses. The greater number hastened to take advantage of this and to bring the resolutions of the council to the knowledge of their provinces.

H. LECLERCQ

The Second Council of Nicaea

Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 787. (For an account of the controversies which occasioned this council and the circumstances in which it was convoked, see ICONOCLASM, I, II.) An attempt to hold a council at Constantinople, to deal with Iconoclasm, having been frustrated by the violence of the Iconoclastic soldiery, the papal legates left that city. When, however, they had reached Sicily on their way back to Rome, they were recalled by the Empress Irene. She replaced the mutinous troops at Constantinople with troops commanded by officers in whom she had every confidence. This accomplished, in May, 787, a new council was convoked at Nicaea in Bithynia. The pope's letters to the empress and to the patriarch (see ICONOCLASM, II) prove superabundantly that the Holy See approved the convocation of the Council. The pope afterwards wrote to Charlemagne: “Et sic synodum istam, secundum nostram ordinationem, fecerunt” (Thus they have held the synod in accordance with our directions).

The empress-regent and her son did not assist in person at the sessions, but they were represented there by two high officials: the patrician and former consul, Petronius, and the imperial chamberlain and logothete John, with whom was associated as secretary the former patriarch, Nicephorus. The acts represent as constantly at the head of the ecclesiastical members the two Roman legates, the archpriest Peter and the abbot Peter; after them come Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and then two Oriental monks and priests, John and Thomas, representatives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The operations of the council show that Tarasius, properly speaking, conducted the sessions. The monks John and Thomas professed to represent the Oriental patriarchs, though these did not know that the council had been convoked. However, there was no fraud on their part: they had been sent, not by the patriarchs, but by the monks and priests of superior rank acting sedibus impeditis, in the stead and place of the patriarchs who were prevented from acting for themselves. Necessity was their excuse. Moreover, John and Thomas did not subscribe at the Council as vicars of the patriarchs, but simply in the name of the Apostolic sees of the Orient. With the exception of these monks and the Roman legates, all the members of the Council were subjects of the Byzantine Empire. Their number, bishops as well as representatives of bishops, varies in the ancient historians between 330 and 367; Nicephorus makes a manifest mistake in speaking of only 150 members: the Acts of the Council which we still possess show not fewer than 308 bishops or representatives of bishops. To these may be added a certain number of monks, archimandrites, imperial secretaries, and clerics of Constantinople who had not the right to vote.

The first session opened in the church of St. Sophia, 24 Sept., 787. Tarasius opened the council with a short discourse: “Last year, in the beginning of the month of August, it was desired to hold, under my presidency, a council in the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople; but through the fault of several bishops whom it would be easy to count, and whose names I prefer not to mention, since everybody knows them, that council was made impossible. The sovereigns have deigned to convoke another at Nicaea, and Christ will certainly reward them for it. It is this Lord and Saviour whom the bishops must also invoke in order to pronounce subsequently an equitable judgment in a just and impartial manner.” The members then proceeded to the reading of various official documents, after which three Iconoclastic bishops who had retracted were permitted to take their seats. Seven others who had plotted to make the Council miscarry in the preceding year presented themselves and declared themselves ready to profess the Faith of the Fathers, but the assembly thereupon engaged in a long discussion concerning the admission of heretics and postponed their case to another session. On 26 September, the second session was held, during which the pope's letters to the empress and the Patriarch Tarasius were read. Tarasius declared himself in full agreement with the doctrine set forth in these letters. On 28, or 29, Sept., in the third session, some bishops who had retracted their errors were allowed to take their seats, after which various documents were read. The fourth session was held on 1 October. In it the secretaries of the council read a long series of citations from the Bible and the Fathers in favour of the veneration of images. Afterwards the dogmatic decree was presented, and was signed by all the members present, by the archimandrites of the monasteries, and by some monks; the papal legates added a declaration to the effect that they were ready to receive all who had abandoned the Iconoclastic heresy. In the fifth session on 4 October, passages form the Fathers were read which declared, or seemed to declare, against the worship of images, but the reading was not continued to the end, and the council decided in favour of the restoration and veneration of images. On 6 October, in the sixth session, the doctrines of the conciliabulum of 753 were refuted. The discussion was endless, but in the course of it several noteworthy things were said. The next session, that of 13 October, was especially important; at it was read the horos, or dogmatic decision, of the council [see IMAGES, VENERATION of (6)]. The last (eighth) was held in the Magnaura Palace, at Constantinople, in presence of the empress and her son, on 23 October. It was spent in discourses, signing of names, and acclamations.

The council promulgated twenty-two canons relating to points of discipline, which may be summarized as follows:

• Canon i: The clergy must observe “the holy canons,” which include the Apostolic, those of the six previous Ecumenical Councils, those of the particular synods which have been published at other synods, and those of the Fathers.
• Canon ii: Candidate's for a bishop's orders must know the Psalter by heart and must have read thoroughly, not cursorily, all the sacred Scriptures.
• Canon iii condemns the appointment of bishops, priests, and deacons by secular princes.
• Canon iv: Bishops are not to demand money of their clergy: any bishop who through covetousness deprives one of his clergy is himself deposed.
• Canon v is directed against those who boast of having obtained church preferment with money, and recalls the Thirtieth Apostolic Canon and the canons of Chalcedon against those who buy preferment with money.
• Canon vi: Provincial synods are to be held annually.
• Canon vii: Relics are to be placed in all churches: no church is to be consecrated without relics.
• Canon viii prescribes precautions to be taken against feigned converts from Judaism.
• Canon ix: All writings against the venerable images are to be surrendered, to be shut up with other heretical books.
• Canon x: Against clerics who leave their own dioceses without permission, and become private chaplains to great personages.
• Canon xi: Every church and every monastery must have its own oeconomus.
• Canon xii: Against bishops or abbots who convey church property to temporal lords.
• Canon xiii: Episcopal residences, monasteries and other ecclesiastical buildings converted to profane uses are to be restored their rightful ownership.
• Canon xiv: Tonsured persons not ordained lectors must not read the Epistle or Gospel in the ambo.
• Canon xv: Against pluralities of benefices.
• Canon xvi: The clergy must not wear sumptuous apparel.
• Canon xvii: Monks are not to leave their monasteries and begin building other houses of prayer without being provided with the means to finish the same.
• Canon xviii: Women are not to dwell in bishops' houses or in monasteries of men.
• Canon xix: Superiors of churches and monasteries are not to demand money of those who enter the clerical or monastic state. But the dowry brought by a novice to a religious house is to be retained by that house if the novice leaves it without any fault on the part of the superior.
• Canon xx prohibits double monasteries.
• Canon xxi: A monk or nun may not leave one convent for another.
• Canon xxii: Among the laity, persons of opposite sexes may eat together, provided they give thanks and behave with decorum. But among religious persons, those of opposite sexes may eat together only in the presence of several God-fearing men and women, except on a journey when necessity compels.

H. LECLERCQ

The Nicene Creed

As approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381) q.v., it is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations. Soon after the >Council of Nicaea new formulas of faith were composed, most of them variations of the Nicene Symbol, to meet new phases of >Arianism. There were at least four before the Council of Sardica in 341, and in that council a new form was presented and inserted in the Acts, though not accepted by the council. The Nicene Symbol, however, continued to be the only one in use among the defenders of the Faith. Gradually it came to be recognized as the proper profession of faith for candidates for baptism. Its alteration into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan formula, the one now in use, in usually ascribed to the Council of Constantinople, since the Council of Chalcedon (451), which designated this symbol as “The Creed of the Council of Constantinople of 381” had it twice read and inserted in its Acts. The historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret do not mention this, although they do record that the bishops who remained at the council after the departure of the Macedonians confirmed the Nicene faith. Hefele (II,9) admits the possibility of our present creed being a condensation of the “Tome” ( Gr. tomos), i.e. the exposition of the doctrines concerning the Trinity made by the Council of Constantinople; but he prefers the opinion of Rémi Ceillier and Tillemont tracing the new formula to the “Ancoratus” of Epiphanius written in 374. Hort, Caspari, Harnack, and others are of the opinion that the Constantinopolitan form did not originate at the Council of Constantinople, because it is not in the Acts of the council of 381, but was inserted there at a later date; because Gregory Nazianzen who was at the council mentions only the Nicene formula adverting to its incompleteness about the Holy Ghost, showing that he did not know of the Constantinopolitan form which supplies this deficiency; and because the Latin Fathers apparently know nothing of it before the middle of the fifth century.

The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:

In this form the Nicene article concerning the Holy Ghost is enlarged; several words, notably the two clauses “of the substance of the Father” and “God of God,” are omitted as also are the anathemas; ten clauses are added; and in five places the words are differently located. In general the two forms contain what is common to all the baptismal formulas in the early Church. Vossius (1577-1649) was the first to detect the similarity between the creed set forth in the “Ancoratus” and the baptismal formula of the Church at Jerusalem. Hort (1876) held that the symbol is a revision of the Jerusalem formula, in which the most important Nicene statements concerning the Holy Ghost have been inserted. The author of the revision may have been St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386, q.v.). Various hypotheses are offered to account for the tradition that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol originated with the Council of Constantinople, but none of them is satisfactory. Whatever be its origin, the fact is that the Council of Chalcedon (451) attributed it to the Council of Constantinople, and if it was not actually composed in that council, it was adopted and authorized by the Fathers assembled as a true expression of the Faith. The history of the creed is completed in the article Filioque. (See also: ARIUS; EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA)

J. WILHELM

Niche

A recess for the reception of a statue, so designed as to give it emphasis, frame it effectively, and afford some measure of protection. It hardly existed prior to the twelfth century, and is one of the chief decorative characteristics of Gothic architecture. The constant and often lavish use of sculptured images of the saints was an essential part of the great style that was so perfectly to express the Catholic Faith, and that had its beginnings in Normandy as a result of the great Cluniac reformation; and from the moment the roughly chiselled bas-relief swelled into the round and detached figure, the unerring artistic instinct of the medieval builders taught them — as it had taught the Greeks — that figure sculpture becomes architectural only when it is incorporated with the building of which it is a part, by means of surrounding architectural forms that harmonize it with the fabric itself. In Romanesque work this frame is little more than flanking shafts supporting an arch, the statue being treated as an accessory, and given place wherever a space of flat wall appeared between the columns and arches of the structural decoration. The convenience, propriety and beauty of the arrangement were immediately apparent, however, and thenceforward the development of the niche as an independent architectural form was constant and rapid. Not only did the canopied niche assimilate the statue in the architectural entity and afford it that protection from the weather so necessary in the north; it also, in conjunction with the statue itself, produced one of the richest compositions of line, light, and shade known to art. The medieval architects realized this and seized upon it with avidity, using it almost as their chief means for obtaining those spots and spaces of rich decoration that gave the final touch of perfection to their marvellous fabrics. In the thirteenth century the wall became recessed to receive the statue, the flanking shafts became independent supports for an arched and gabled canopy, while a pedestal was introduced, still further to tie the sculpture into the architecture. Later the section of the embrasure became hexagonal or octagonal, the arched canopy was cusped, the gable enriched with crockets and pinnacles, and finally in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the entire feature became almost an independent composition, the canopy being developed into a thing of marvellous complexity and richness, while it was lavished on almost every part of the building, from the doors to the spires, and within as well as without. Protestant and revolutionary iconoclasm have left outside of France few examples of niches properly filled by their original statues, but in such masterpieces of art as the cathedrals of Paris, Chartres, Amiens, and Reims, one may see in their highest perfection these unique manifestations of the subtlety and refinement of the perfect art of Catholic civilization.

RALPH ADAMS CRAM

St. Nicholas of Myra

(Or Nicholas of Bari), Bishop of Myra in Lycia, d. 6 December, 345 or 352. Though he is one of the most popular saints in the Greek as well as the Latin Church, there is scarcely anything historically certain about him except that he was Bishop of Myra in the fourth century. Some of the main points in his legend are as follows: He was born at Parara, a city of Lycia ion Asia Minor; in his youth he made a pilgrimage to Egypt and Palestine; shortly after his return he became Bishop of Myra; cast into prison during the persecution of Diocletian, he was released after the accession of Constantine, and was present at the Council of Nicaea. In 1087 Italian merchants stole his body at Myra, bringing it to Bari in Italy.

The numerous miracles St. Nicholas is said to have wrought, both before and after his death, are outgrowths of a long tradition. There is reason to doubt his presence at Nicaea, since his name is not mentioned in any of the old lists of bishops that attended this council. His cult in the Greek Church is old and especially popular in Russia. As early as the sixth century Emperor Justinian I built a church in his honour at Constantinople, and his name occurs in the liturgy ascribed to St. Chrysostom. In Italy his cult seems to have begun with the translation of his relics to Bari, but in Germany it began already under Otto II, probably because his wife Theophano was a Grecian. Bishop Reginald of Eichstaedt (d. 991) is known to have written a metric, “Vita S. Nicholai.” The course of centuries has not lessened his popularity. The following places honour him as patron: Greece, Russia, the Kingdom of Naples, Sicily, Lorraine, the Diocese of Liege; many cities in Italy, Germany, Austria, and Belgium; Campen in the Netherlands; Corfu in Greece; Freiburg in Switzerland; and Moscow in Russia. He is patron of mariners, merchants, bakers, travellers, children etc. His representations in art are as various as his alleged miracles. In Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, they have the custom of making him the secret purveyor of gifts to children on 6 December, the day on which the Church celebrates his feast; in the United States and some other countries St. Nicholas has become identified with Santa Claus who distributes gifts to children on Christmas eve. His relics are still preserved in the church of San Nicola in Bari; up to the present day an oily substance, known as Manna di S. Nicola, which is highly valued for its medicinal powers, is said to flow from them.

The traditional legends of St. Nicholas were first collected and written in Greek by Metaphrastes in the tenth century. They are printed in P.G. 116 sq.

MICHAEL OTT

Nicolaites

(Also called Nicolaitans), a sect mentioned in the Apocalypse (ii,6,15) as existing in Ephesus, Pergamus, and other cities of Asia Minor, about the character and existence of which there is little certainty. Irenaeus (Adv. haer., I, xxvi, 3; III, xi, 1) discusses them but adds nothing to the Apocalypse except that “they lead lives of unrestrained indulgence.” Tertullian refers to them, but apparently knows only what is found in St. John (De Praescrip. xxxiii; Adv. Marc., I, xxix; De Pud., xvii). Hippolytus based his narrative on Irenaeus, though he states that the deacon Nicholas was the author of the heresy and the sect (Philosph., VII, xxvi). Clement of Alexandria (Strom., III, iv) exonerates Nicholas, and attributes the doctrine of promiscuity, which the sect claimed to have derived from him, to a malicious distortion of words harmless in themselves. With the exception of the statement in Eusebius (H. E., III, xxix) that the sect was short-lived, none of the references in Epiphanius, Theodoret etc. deserve mention, as they are taken from Irenaeus. The common statement, that the Nicolaites held the antinomian heresy of Corinth, has not been proved. Another opinion, favoured by a number of authors, is that, because of the allegorical character of the Apocalypse, the reference to the Nicolaitans is merely a symbolic manner of reference, based on the identical meaning of the names, to the Bileamites or Balaamites (Apoc., ii, 14) who are mentioned just before them as professing the same doctrines.

P.J. HEALY

Noah

Noah [Heb. Nôah, “rest”; Gr. Noe; Lat. Noe], the ninth patriarch of the Sethite line, grandson of Mathusala and son of Lamech, who with his family was saved from the Deluge and thus became the second father of the human race (Genesis 5:25-9:29). The name Noah was give to him because of his father's expectation regarding him. “This same”, said Lamech on naming him, “ shall comfort us from the works and labours of our hands on [or more correctly “from”, i.e. which come from] the earth, which the Lord hath cursed.” Most commentators consider Lamech's words as an expression of a hope, or as a prophecy, that the child would in some way be instrumental in removing the curse pronounced against Adam (Genesis 3:17 sqq.). Others rather fancifully see in them a reference to Noah's future discovery of wine, which cheers the heart of man; whilst others again, with greater probability, take them as expressing merely a natural hope on the part of Lamech that his son would become the support and comfort of his parents, and enable them to enjoy rest and peace in their later years. Amid the general corruption which resulted from the marriages of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men” (Genesis 6:2 sqq.), that is of the Sethites with the Cainite women, “Noah was a just and perfect man in his generations” and “walked with God” (6:9). Hence, when God decreed to destroy men from the face of the earth, he “found grace before the Lord”. According to the common interpretation of Genesis 6:3, Noah first received divine warning of the impending destruction one hundred and twenty years before it occurred, and therefore when he was four hundred and eighty years old (cf. 7:11); he does not seem, however, to have received at this time any details as to the nature of the catastrophe. After he reached the age of five hundred years three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth, were born to him (6:10). These had grown to manhood and had taken wives, when Noah was informed of God's intention to destroy men by a flood, and received directions to build an ark in which he and his wife, his sons and their wives, and representatives, male and female, of the various kinds of animals and birds, were to be saved (6:13-21). How long before the Deluge this revelation was imparted to him, it is impossible to say; it can hardly have been more than seventy-five years (cf. 7:11), and probably was considerably less.

Noah had announced the impending judgement and had exhorted to repentance (II Peter 2:5), but no heed was given to his words (Matthew 24:37 sqq.; Luke 17:26, 27; I Peter 3:20), and, when the fatal time arrived, no one except Noah's immediate family found refuge in the ark. Seven days before the waters began to cover the earth, Noah was commanded to enter the ark with his wife, his three sons and their wives, and to take with him seven pairs of all clean, and two pairs of all unclean animals and birds (7:1-4). It has been objected that, even though the most liberal value is allowed for the cubit, the ark would have been too small to lodge at least two pairs of every species of animal and bird. But there can be no difficulty if, as is now generally admitted, the Deluge was not geographically universal (see DELUGE; ARK). After leaving the ark Noah built an altar, and taking of all clean animals and birds, offered holocausts upon it. God accepted the sacrifice, and made a covenant with Noah, and through him with all mankind, that He would not waste the earth or destroy man by another deluge. The rainbow would for all times be a sign and a reminder of this covenant. He further renewed the blessing which He had pronounced on Adam (Genesis 1:28), and confirmed the dominion over animals which He had granted to man. In virtue of this dominion man may use animals for food, but the flesh may not be eaten with the blood (8:20-9:17). Noah now gave himself to agriculture, and planted a vineyard. Being unacquainted with the effects of fermented grape-juice, he drank of it too freely and was made drunk. Cham found his father lying naked in his tent, and made a jest of his condition before his brothers; these reverently covered him with a mantle. On hearing of the occurrence Noah cursed Chanaan, as Cham's heir, and blessed Sem and Japheth. He lived three hundred and fifty years after the Deluge, and died at the age of nine hundred and fifty years (9:20-29). In the later books of Scripture Noah is represented as the model of the just man (Ecclus., 44:17; Ezech., 14:14, 20), and as an exemplar of faith (Hebrews 11:7). In the Fathers and tradition he is considered as the type and figure of the Saviour, because through him the human race was saved from destruction and reconciled with God (Ecclus., 44:17,18). Moreover, as he built the ark, the only means of salvation from the Deluge, so Christ established the Church, the only means of salvation in the spiritual order.

The Babylonian account of the Deluge in many points closely resembles that of the Bible. Four cuneiform recensions of it have been discovered, of which, however, three are only short fragments. The complete story is found in the Gilgamesh epic (Tablet xi) discovered by G. Smith among the ruins of the library of Assurbanipal in 1872. Another version is given by Berosus. In the Gilgamesh poem the hero of the story is Ut-napishtim (or Sit-napishti, as some read it, surnamed Atra-hasis “the very clever”; in two of the fragments he is simply styled Atra-hasis, which name is also found in Berosus under the Greek form Xisuthros. The story in brief is as follows: A council of the gods having decreed to destroy men by a flood, the god Ea warns Ut-napishtim, and bids him build a ship in which to save himself and the seed of all kinds of life. Ut-napishtim builds the ship (of which, according to one version, Ea traces the plan on the ground), and places in it his family, his dependents, artisans, and domestic as well as wild animals, after which he shuts the door. The storm lasts six days; on the seventh the flood begins to subside. The ship steered by the helmsman Puzur-Bel lands on Mt. Nisir. After seven days Ut-napishtim sends forth a dove and a swallow, which, finding no resting-place for their feet return to the ark, and then a raven, which feeds on dead bodies and does not return. On leaving the ship, Ut-napishtim offers a sacrifice to the gods, who smell the godly odour and gather like flies over the sacrificer. He and his wife are then admitted among the gods. The story as given by Berosus comes somewhat nearer to the Biblical narrative. Because of the striking resemblances between the two many maintain that the Biblical account is derived from the Babylonian. But the differences are so many and so important that this view must be pronounced untenable. The Scriptural story is a parallel and independent form of a common tradition.

HUMMELAUER, Comm. in Gen. (Paris, 1895), 257 sqq.; HOBERG, Die Genesis (Freiburg, 1908), 74 sqq.; SELBST, Handbuch zur bibl. Gesch. (Freiburg, 1910), 200 sqq.; SKINNER, Critic. and Exeg. Comm. on Gen. (New York, 1910), 133 sqq.; DILLMANN, Genesis, tr., I (Edinburgh, 1897), 228 sqq.; DHORME, Textes religieux assyro-babyl. (Paris, 1907), 100 sqq.; VIGOUROUX, La bible et les decouv. mod., I (6th ed., Paris, 1896), 309 sqq.; SCHRADER, Die Keilinschrift. u. das A. T. (2nd ed., Giessen, 1882), 55 sqq.; JENSEN in SCHRADER, Keilinschriftl. Bibliothek, VI, i, (Berlin 1889-), 228 sqq.; VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. vv. Ararat, Arche, and Noe; HILPRECHT, The earliest version of the Babylonian deluge story (Philadelphia, 1910).

F. BECHTEL

Use of Numbers in the Church

No attentive reader of the Old Testament can fail to notice that a certain sacredness seems to attach to particular numbers, for example, seven, forty, twelve, etc. It is not merely the frequent recurrence of these numbers, but their ritual or ceremonial use which is so significant. Take, for example, the swearing of Abraham (Gen., xxi, 28 sqq.) after setting apart (for sacrifice) seven ewe lambs, especially when we remember the etymological connexion of the word nishba, to take an oath, with sheba seven. Traces of the same mystical employment of numbers lie much upon the surface of the New Testament also, particularly in the Apocalypse. Even so early a writer as St. Irenaeus (Haer., V, xxx) does not hesitate to explain the number of the beast 666 (Apoc., xiii, 18) by the word “Lateinos” since the numerical value of its constituent [Greek] letters yields the same total (30+1+330+5+10+50+70+200=666); while sober critics of our own day are inclined to solve the mystery upon the same principles by simply substituting for Latinus the words Nero Caesar written in Hebrew characters which give the same result. Of the ultimate origin of the mystical significance attached to numbers something will be said under “Symbolism.” Suffice it to note here that although the Fathers repeatedly condemned the magical use of numbers which had descended from Babylonian sources to the Pythagoreans and Gnostics of their times, and although they denounced any system of their philosophy which rested upon an exclusively numerical basis, still they almost unanimously regarded the numbers of Holy Writ as full of mystical meaning, and they considered the interpretation of these mystical meanings as an important branch of exegesis. To illustrate the caution with which they proceeded it will be sufficient to refer to one or two notable examples. St. Irenaeus (Haer., I, viii, 5 and 12, and II, xxxiv, 4) discusses at length the Gnostic numerical interpretation of the holy name Jesus as the equivalent of 888, and he claims that by writing the name in Hebrew characters an entirely different interpretation is necessitated. Again St. Ambrose commenting upon the days of creation and the Sabbath remarks, “The number seven is good, but we do not explain it after the doctrine of Pythagoras and the other philosophers, but rather according to the manifestation and division of the grace of the Spirit; for the prophet Isaias has enumerated the principal gifts of the Holy Spirit as seven” (Letter to Horontianus). Similarly St. Augustine, replying to Tichonius the Donatist, observes that “if Tichonius had said that these mystical rules open out some of the hidden recesses of the law, instead of saying that they reveal all the mysteries of the law, he would have spoken truth” (De Doctrina Christiana, III, xlii). Many passages from St. Chrysostom and other Fathers might be cited as displaying the same caution and shoeing the reluctance of the great Christian teachers of the early centuries to push this recognition of the mystical significance of numbers to extremes.

On the other hand there can be no doubt that influenced mainly by Biblical precepts, but also in part by the prevalence of this philosophy of numbers all around them, the Fathers down to the time of Bede and even later gave much attention to the sacredness and mystical significance not only of certain numerals in themselves but also of the numerical totals given by the constituent letters with which words were written. A conspicuous example is supplied by one of the earliest of Christian documents not included in the canon of Scripture, i.e., the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, which Lightfoot is inclined to place as early as A.D. 70-79. This document appeals to Gen., xiv, 14 and xvii, 23, as mystically pointing to the name and self-oblation of the coming Messias. “Learn, therefore,” says the writer, “that Abraham who first appointed circumcision, looked forward in spirit unto Jesus when he circumcised, having received the ordinances of three letters. For the Scripture saith, And Abraham circumcised of his household eighteen males and three hundred.' What then was the knowledge given unto him? Understand ye that He saith the eighteen' first, and then after an interval three hundred.' In the [number] eighteen η stands for 10, ɩ for eight. Here thou hast Jesus ([in Greek] IESOUS). And because the cross in the [Greek TAU] was to have grace, he saith also three hundred.' So he revealeth Jesus in two letters and in the remaining one the cross” (Ep. Barnabas, ix). It will, of course, be understood that the numerical value of the Greek letters iota and eta,, the first letters of the Holy Name, is 10 and 8 18, while Tau, which stands for the form of the cross, represents 300. At a period, then, when the Church was forming her liturgy and when Christian teachers so readily saw mystical meanings underlying everything which had to do with numbers, it can hardly be doubted that a symbolical purpose must constantly have guided the repetition of acts and prayers in the ceremonial of the Holy Sacrifice and indeed in all public worship. Even in the formulae of the prayers themselves we meet unmistakable traces of this kind of symbolism. In the Gregorian Sacramentary (Muratori, “Liturgia Romana Vetus,” II, 364) we find a form of Benediction in some codices (it is contained also in the Leofric Missal), assigned to the Circumcision or Octave of the Nativity, which concludes with the following words: “Quo sic in senarii numeri perfectione in hoc saeculo vivatis, et in septenario inter beatorum spirituum aginina requiescatis quatenus in octavo resurrectione renovati; jubilaei remissione ditati, ad gaudia sine fine mansura perveniatis. Amen.”

We are fairly justified then when we read of the three-fold, five-fold, and seven-fold litanies, of the number of the repetitions of Kyrie eleison and Christe eleison, of the number of the crosses made over the oblata in the canon of the Mass, of the number of the unctions used in administering the last sacraments, or the prayers in the coronation of a king (in the ancient form in the so-called Egbert Pontifical these prayers have been carefully numbered), of the intervals assigned for the saying of Masses for the dead, of the number of the lessons or the prophecies read at certain seasons of the year, or of the absolutions pronounced over the remains of bishops and prelates, or again of the number of subdeacons that accompany the pope and of the acolytes who bear candles before him — we are justified, we say, in assigning some mystical meaning to all those things, which may not perhaps have been very closely conceived by those who instituted these ceremonies, but which nevertheless had an influence in determining their choice why the ceremony should be performed in this particular way and not otherwise. (For explanation of the mystical significance commonly attached to the use of numbers see SYMBOLISM.)

HERBERT THURSTON

Original Sin

I. Meaning II. Principal Adversaries III. Original Sin in Scripture IV. Original Sin in Tradition V. Original Sin in face of the Objections of Human Reason VI. Nature of Original Sin VII. How Voluntary

I. MEANING

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam. From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: “the deliberate sin of the First man is the cause of original sin” (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.

II. PRINCIPAL ADVERSARIES

Theodorus of Mopsuestia opened this controversy by denying that the sin of Adam was the origin of death. (See the “Excerpta Theodori”, by Marius Mercator; cf. Smith, “A Dictionary of Christian Biography”, IV, 942.) Celestius, a friend of Pelagius, was the first in the West to hold these propositions, borrowed from Theodorus: “Adam was to die in every hypothesis, whether he sinned or did not sin. His sin injured himself only and not the human race” (Mercator, “Liber Subnotationem”, preface). This, the first position held by the Pelagians, was also the first point condemned at Carthage (Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, no 101-old no. 65). Against this fundamental error Catholics cited especially Rom., v, 12, where Adam is shown as transmitting death with sin. After some time the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death- this being more easily understood as we see that parents transmit to their children hereditary diseases- but they still violently attacked the transmission of sin (St. Augustine, “Contra duas epist. Pelag.”, IV, iv, 6). And when St. Paul speaks of the transmission of sin they understood by this the transmission of death. This was their second position, condemned by the Council of Orange [Denz., n. 175 (145)], and again later on with the first by the Council of Trent [Sess. V, can. ii; Denz., n. 789 (671)]. To take the word sin to mean death was an evident falsification of the text, so the Pelagians soon abandoned the interpretation and admitted that Adam caused sin in us. They did not, however, understand by sin the hereditary stain contracted at our birth, but the sin that adults commit in imitation of Adam. This was their third position, to which is opposed the definition of Trent that sin is transmitted to all by generation (propagatione), not by imitation [Denz., n. 790 (672)]. Moreover, in the following canon are cited the words of the Council of Carthage, in which there is question of a sin contracted by generation and effaced by generation [Denz., n. 102 (66)]. The leaders of the Reformation admitted the dogma of original sin, but at present there are many Protestants imbued with Socinian doctrines whose theory is a revival of Pelagianism.

III. ORIGINAL SIN IN SCRIPTURE

The classical text is Rom., v, 12 sqq. In the preceding part the apostle treats of justification by Jesus Christ, and to put in evidence the fact of His being the one Saviour, he contrasts with this Divine Head of mankind the human head who caused its ruin. The question of original sin, therefore, comes in only incidentally. St. Paul supposes the idea that the faithful have of it from his oral instructions, and he speaks of it to make them understand the work of Redemption. This explains the brevity of the development and the obscurity of some verses. We shall now show what, in the text, is opposed to the three Pelagian positions:

1. The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death- “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men”. Here there is question of physical death. first, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom n which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wis., ii, 24: “But by the envy of the devil death came into the world”. Cf. Gen., ii, 17; iii, 3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, I Cor., xv, 21: “For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead”. Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.
2. Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin- “ for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners” (Rom., v, 19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.
3. Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam's bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Rom., v, 18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, “Contra julian.”, VI, xxiv, 75).

On this account, several recent Protestants have thus modified the Pelagian explanation: “Even without being aware of it all men imitate Adam inasmuch as they merit death as the punishment of their own sins just as Adam merited it as the punishment for his sin.” This is going farther and farther from the text of St. Paul. Adam would be no more than the term of a comparison, he would no longer have any influence or causality as regards original sin or death. Moreover, the Apostle did not affirm that all men, in imitation of Adam, are mortal on account of their actual sins; since children who die before coming to the use of reason have never committed such sins; but he expressly affirms the contrary in the fourteenth verse: “But death reigned”, not only over those who imitated Adam, but “even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam.” Adam's sin, therefore, is the sole cause of death for the entire human race. Moreover, we can discern no natural connexion between any sin and death. In order that a determined sin entail death there is need of a positive law, but before the Law of Moses there was no positive law of God appointing death as a punishment except the law given to Adam (Gen., ii, 17). It is, therefore, his disobedience only that could have merited and brought it into the world (Rom., v, 13, 14). These Protestant writers lay much stress on the last words of the twelfth verse. We know that several of the Latin Fathers understood the words “in whom all have sinned”, to mean, all have sinned in Adam. This interpretation would be an extra proof of the thesis of original sin, but it is not necessary. Modern exegesis, as well as the Greek Fathers, prefer to translate “and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned”. We accept this second translation which shows us death as an effect of sin. But of what sin? “The personal sins of each one”, answer our adversaries, “this is the natural sense of the words `all have sinned.'” It would be the natural sense if the context was not absolutely opposed to it. The words “all have sinned” of the twelfth verse, which are obscure on account of their brevity, are thus developed in the nineteenth verse: “for as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners.” There is no question here of personal sins, differing in species and number, committed by each one during his life, but of one first sin which was enough to transmit equally to all men a state of sin and the title of sinners. Similarly in the twelfth verse the words “all have sinned” must mean, “all have participated in the sin of Adam”, “all have contracted its stain”. This interpretation too removes the seeming contradiction between the twelfth verse, “all have sinned”, and the fourteenth, “who have not sinned”, for in the former there is question of original sin, in the latter of personal sin. Those who say that in both cases there is question of personal sin are unable to reconcile these two verses.

IV. ORIGINAL SIN IN TRADITION

On account of a superficial resemblance between the doctrine of original sin and and the Manichaean theory of our nature being evil, the Pelagians accused the Catholics and St. Augustine of Manichaeism. For the accusation and its answer see “Contra duas epist. Pelag.”, I, II, 4; V, 10; III, IX, 25; IV, III. In our own times this charge has been reiterated by several critics and historians of dogma who have been influenced by the fact that before his conversion St. Augustine was a Manichaean. They do not identify Manichaeism with the doctrine of original sin, but they say that St. Augustine, with the remains of his former Manichaean prejudices, created the doctrine of original sin unknown before his time. It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, “The International Critical Commentary: Romans”, 134, 137; Hastings, “A Dictionary of the Bible”, I, 841). It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.

That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine's time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. The Pelagians held that baptism was given to children, not to remit their sin, but to make them better, to give them supernatural life, to make them adoptive sons of God, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven (see St. Augustine, “De peccat. meritis”, I, xviii). The Catholics answered by citing the Nicene Creed, “Confiteor unum baptisma in remissiomen peccatorum”. They reproached the Pelagians with introducing two baptisms, one for adults to remit sins, the other for children with no such purpose. Catholics argued, too, from the ceremonies of baptism, which suppose the child to be under the power of evil, i.e., exorcisms, abjuration of Satan made by the sponsor in the name of the child [Aug., loc. cit., xxxiv, 63; Denz., n. 140 (96)].

V. ORIGINAL SIN IN FACE OF THE OBJECTIONS FROM REASON

We do not pretend to prove the existence of original sin by arguments from reason only. St. Thomas makes use of a philosophical proof which proves the existence rather of some kind of decadence than of sin, and he considers his proof as probable only, satis probabiliter probari potest (Contra Gent., IV, lii). Many Protestants and Jansenists and some Catholics hold the doctrine of original sin to be necessary in philosophy, and the only means of solving the problem of the existence of evil. This is exaggerated and impossible to prove. It suffices to show that human reason has no serious objection against this doctrine which is founded on Revelation. The objections of Rationalists usually spring from a false concept of our dogma. They attack either the transmission of a sin or the idea of an injury inflicted on his race by the first man, of a decadence of the human race. Here we shall answer only the second category of objections, the others will be considered under a later head (VII).

(1) The law of progress is opposed to the hypothesis of a decadence. Yes, if the progress was necessarily continuous, but history proves the contrary. The line representing progress has its ups and downs, there are periods of decadence and of retrogression, and such was the period, Revelation tells us, that followed the first sin. The human race, however, began to rise again little by little, for neither intelligence nor free will had been destroyed by original sin and, consequently, there still remained the possibility of material progress, whilst in the spiritual order God did not abandon man, to whom He had promised redemption. This theory of decadence has no connexion with our Revelation. The Bible, on the contrary, shows us even spiritual progress in the people it treats of; the vocation of Abraham, the law of Moses, the mission of the Prophets, the coming of the Messias, a revelation which becomes clearer and clearer, ending in the Gospel, its diffusion amongst all nations, its fruits of holiness, and the progress of the Church.

(2) It is unjust, says another objection, that from the sin of one man should result the decadence of the whole human race. This would have weight if we took this decadence in the same sense that Luther took it, i.e. human reason incapable of understanding even moral truths, free will destroyed, the very substance of man changed into evil. But according to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right, the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth. This comparison represents the doctrine of Luther which we in no way defend. The doctrine of the Church supposes no sensible or afflictive punishment in the next world for children who die with nothing but original sin on their souls, but only the privation of the sight of God [Denz., n. 1526 (1389)].

VI. NATURE OF ORIGINAL SIN

This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, “Istoria del Concilio di Trento”, vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls “justice” what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice. We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam's fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

1. Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.
2. Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).
3. The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

VII. HOW VOLUNTARY

“There can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth”, writes St. Augustine (De vera relig., xiv, 27). The Church has condemned the opposite solution given by Baius [prop. xlvi, xlvii, in Denz., n. 1046 (926)]. Original sin is not an act but, as already explained, a state, a permanent privation, and this can be voluntary indirectly- just as a drunken man is deprived of his reason and incapable of using his liberty, yet it is by his free fault that he is in this state and hence his drunkenness, his privation of reason is voluntary and can be imputed to him. But how can original sin be even indirectly voluntary for a child that has never used its personal free will? Certain Protestants hold that a child on coming to the use of reason will consent to its original sin; but in reality no one ever thought of giving this consent. Besides, even before the use of reason, sin is already in the soul, according to the data of Tradition regarding the baptism of children and the sin contracted by generation. Some theosophists and spiritists admit the pre-existence of souls that have sinned in a former life which they now forget; but apart from the absurdity of this metempsychosis, it contradicts the doctrine of original sin, it substitutes a number of particular sins for the one sin of a common father transmitting sin and death to all (cf. Rom., v, 12 sqq.). The whole Christian religion, says St. Augustine, may be summed up in the intervention of two men, the one to ruin us, the other to save us (De pecc. orig., xxiv). The right solution is to be sought in the free will of Adam in his sin, and this free will was ours: “we were all in Adam”, says St. Ambrose, cited by St. Augustine (Opus imperf., IV, civ). St. Basil attributes to us the act of the first man: “Because we did not fast (when Adam ate the forbidden fruit) we have been turned out of the garden of Paradise” (Hom. i de jejun., iv). Earlier still is the testimony of St. Irenaeus; “In the person of the first Adam we offend God, disobeying His precept” (Haeres., V, xvi, 3).

St. Thomas thus explains this moral unity of our will with the will of Adam. “An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society.....Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, I Cor., xii). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body....If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his `fault', for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam” (De Malo, iv, 1). It is this law of solidarity, admitted by common sentiment, which attributes to children a part of the shame resulting from the father's crime. It is not a personal crime, objected the Pelagians. “No”, answered St. Augustine, “ but it is paternal crime” (Op. imperf., I, cxlviii). Being a distinct person I am not strictly responsible for the crime of another, the act is not mine. Yet, as a member of the human family, I am supposed to have acted with its head who represented it with regard to the conservation or the loss of grace. I am, therefore, responsible for my privation of grace, taking responsibility in the largest sense of the word. This, however, is enough to make the state of privation of grace in a certain degree voluntary, and, therefore, “without absurdity it may be said to be voluntary” (St. Augustine, “Retract.”, I, xiii).

Thus the principal difficulties of non-believers against the transmission of sin are answered. “Free will is essentially incommunicable.” Physically, yes; morally, no; the will of the father being considered as that of his children. “It is unjust to make us responsible for an act committed before our birth.” Strictly responsible, yes; responsible in a wide sense of the word, no; the crime of a father brands his yet unborn children with shame, and entails upon them a share of his own responsibility. “Your dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam.” That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as “a moral deformity”, “a separation from God”, as “the death of the soul”, original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the “stain” which St. Thomas defines as “the privation of grace” (>I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, “takes away all that is really and properly sin”, for concupiscence which remains “is not really and properly sin”, although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v.). Considered precisely as voluntary, original sin is only the shadow of sin properly so-called. According to St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. xxv, Q. i, a. 2, ad 2um), it is not called sin in the same sense, but only in an analogous sense.

Several theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, neglecting the importance of the privation of grace in the explanation of original sin, and explaining it only by the participation we are supposed to have in the act of Adam, exaggerate this participation. They exaggerate the idea of voluntary in original sin, thinking that it is the only way to explain how it is a sin properly so-called. Their opinion, differing from that of St. Thomas, gave rise to uncalled-for and insoluble difficulties. At present it is altogether abandoned.

S. HARENT

Hosea

NAME AND COUNTRY

Hosea, or Osee (Heshea—Salvation), son of Beeri, was one of the Minor Prophets, and a subject of the Ephraimite Kingdom which he calls “the land”, whose king is for him “our king”, and the localities of which are familiar to him, while he speaks of Juda but seldom and does not even make mention of Jerusalem.

TIME OF HIS MINISTRY

According to the title of the book, Hosea prophesied during the reign of Jeroboam II in Israel, and in the time of Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, and Ezechias, kings of Juda, hence from about 750 to 725 B. C. The title, however, is not quite satisfactory and does not seem to be the original one, or, at least, to have been preserved in its primitive form. None of the historical allusions with which the prophecy is filled appears to be connected with any event later than the reign of Manahem (circa 745-735); there is nothing concerning the Syro-Ephraimite war against Juda, nor the terrible intervention of Tiglath-Pileser III (734-733). The era of the Prophet, therefore, if it is to be judged from his writings, ought to be placed about 750-735; he was perhaps contemporaneous with the closing years of Amos and certainly with the first appearance of Isaias. The reign of Jeroboam II was marked by a great and glorious external prosperity; but this prosperity contributed to make the political and religious decadence more rapid. Political dissolution was approaching. Zachary, son of Jeroboam, was assassinated after a reign of six months. His murderer, Sellum, retained the sceptre but one month, and was put to death by Manahem, who occupied the throne for ten years, 745-735. Israel was hastening to its ruin, which was to be completed by the taking of Samaria by Sargon (722).

THE BOOK OF HOSEA

It always occupies the first place among the twelve minor prophets, most probably on account of its length. In point of time Amos preceded it. The book is divided into two distinct parts: chapters 1-3, and chapters 4-14.

(a) In the first part, Hosea relates how, by order of Jahve, he wedded Gomer, a “wife of fornications”, daughter of Debelaim, in order to have of her “children of fornications”: symbols, on the one hand, of Israel, the unfaithful spouse who gave to Baal the homage due to Jahve alone; and, on the other, figures of the children of Israel, who in the eyes of Jahve, are but adulterous children. The outraged husband incites the children against their guilty mother, whom he prepares to punish: while for the children themselves is reserved a fate in keeping with their origin. The first is named Jezrahel— the reigning dynasty is about to expiate the blood shed by its ancestor Jehu in the valley of Jezrahel. The second is a daughter, Lô-Ruhamah, “disgraced” Jahve will be gracious no more to his people. The third is called Lô-Ammi, “not my people”- Jahve will no longer recognize the children of Israel as his people. However, mercy will have the last word. Hosea is commanded to receive Gomer again and to prepare her, by a temporary retirement, to renew conjugal intercourse- Israel was to prepare herself in captivity to resume with Jahve the relationship of husband and wife.

Is the marriage of Hosea historical or purely allegorical? The hypothesis most in favour at present says that the marriage is historical, and the grounds for it are, (1) the obvious sense of the narrative; (2) the absence of any symbolical sense in the words Gomer and Debelaim; (3) that the second child is a daughter. It appears to us, however, with Davidson (Hastings, “Dict. of the Bible”, II, 421 sqq.) and Van Hoonacker, that the first reason is not convincing. A careful reading of cc. i-iii discloses the fact that the action is extremely rapid, that the events are related merely in order to express a doctrine, and, moreover, they appear to take place within the single time requisite to one or two speeches. And yet, if these events are real, a large part of the Prophet's life must have been spent in these unsavoury circumstances. And again, the names of the children appear to have been bestowed just at the time that their meaning was explained to the people. This is especially the case with regard to the last child: “Call his name, Not my people: for you are not my people....” Another reason for doubting this hypothesis is that it is difficult to suppose that God ordered His Prophet to take an unfaithful wife merely with a view to her being unfaithful and bearing him adulterous children. And how are we to explain the fact that the prophet retained her notwithstanding her adultery till after the birth of the third child, and again received her after she had been in the possession of another? That the second child was a daughter may be explained by dramatic instinct, or by some other sufficiently plausible motive. There remain the names Gomer and Debelaim. Van Hoonacker proposes as possible translations: consummation (imminent ruin), doomed to terrible scourges; or, top (of perversity), addicted to the cakes of figs (oblations offered to Baal). Nestle also translates Bath Debelaim by daughter of the cakes of figs, but in the sense of a woman to be obtained at a small price (Zeitsch. fur alttest. Wissenschaft, XXIX, 233 seq.). These are but conjectures; the obscurity may be due to our ignorance. Certain it is at least that the allegorical meaning, adopted by St. Jerome, satisfies critical exigencies and is more in conformity with the moral sense. The doctrinal meaning is identical in either case and that is the only consideration of real importance.

(b) The second part of the book is the practical and detailed application of the first. Van Hoonacker divides it into three sections, each of which terminated with a promise of salvation (iv-vii, 1a...vii, 1b...xi...xii-xiv). We may accept this division if we also accept his ingenious interpretation of vi, 11-viii, 1a:- And yet Juda, I shall graft on thee a branch (of Ephraim) when i shall re-establish my people; when I shall heal Israel. In the first section he speaks almost exclusively of religious and moral corruption. The princes and especially the priests are chiefly responsible for this and it is on them that the punishment will principally fall; and as he speaks simply of the “house of the king” it would appear that the dynasty of Jehu still occupied the throne. It is different in the following chapters. In vii, 1a-viii, the political and social disorders are especially emphasized. At home there are conspiracies, regicides, anarchy, while abroad alliances with foreign powers are sought. No doubt Menahem was already reigning. And yet the religious disorders remained the principal object of the prophet's reprobation. And in spite of all, mercy ever retains its prerogatives. Jahve will gather together again some day His scattered children. In the last section it is felt that the final catastrophe is close at hand; and, nevertheless, once again, love remains victorious. The book ends with a touching exhortation to the people to turn to God who on His part promises the most tempting blessings. An epiphonema reminds at last every one that the good and the wicked shall receive the retribution each has merited.

STYLE AND TEXT

St. Jerome has described in a few words the style of our Prophet: “Osee commaticus est, et quasi per sententias loquens.” (P.L., XXVIII, 1015.) An intense emotion overpowers the Prophet at the sight of his dying country. He manifests this grief in short broken phrases with little logical sequence, but in which is revealed a tender and afflicted heart. Unfortunately the notorious obscurity of the Prophet hides many details from our view; this obscurity is also due to many allusions which we cannot grasp, and to the imperfect condition of the text. The question has been raised as to whether we possess it at least in its substantial integrity. Some critics claim to have discovered two main series of interpolations; the first, of small extent, consists of texts relative to Juda; the second, which is of far greater importance, consists of the Messianic passages which, it is said, lie outside the range of the prophet's vision. It is possible to detect several probable glosses in the first series: the second assertion is purely arbitrary. The Messianic texts have all the characteristics of Hosea's style; they are closely connected with the context and are entirely in accordance with his general doctrines.

TEACHING

It is fundamentally the same as that of Amos: the same strict Monotheism, the same ethical conception which paves the way for the Beati pauperes and the worship which must be in spirit and in truth. Only Hosea lays much stress on the idolatry which perhaps had been increased in the interval and was in any case better known to the Ephraimite Prophet than to his Judean predecessor. And Amos had in return a much more extended historical and geographical horizon. Hosea sees but the dying Israel. His characteristic point of view is the bond between Jahve and Israel. Jahve is the spouse of Israel, the bride of Jahve,- a profoundly philosophical and mystical image which appears here for the first time and which we find again in Jeremias, Ezechiel, Canticle of Canticles, Apocalypse, etc.

(a) The Ancient Alliance

Jahve has taken to Himself His spouse by redeeming her out of the bondage of Egypt. He has united Himself to her on Sinai. The bride owed fidelity and exclusive love, trust, and obedience to the spouse; but alas! how has she observed the conjugal compact? Fidelity.- She has prostituted herself to the Baals and Astartes, degrading herself to the level of the infamous practices of the Canaanite high places. She has worshipped the calf of Samaria and has given herself up to every superstition. No doubt she has also paid homage to Jahve, but a homage wholly external and carnal instead of the adoration which must be above all things internal and which He Himself exacts: “With their flocks, and with their herds they shall go to seek the Lord, and shall not find him...” (v, 6). “For I desired mercy and not sacrifice: and the knowledge of God more than holocausts” (vi, 6). Trust has failed in like manner. Costly alliances were sought with other nations as though the protection of the spouse were not sufficient:- “Ephraim hath given gifts to his lovers (viii, 9). He hath made a covenant with the Assyrians, and carried oil into Egypt” (Vulg., xii, 1). The very favours which she has received from Jahve in her ingratitude she ascribes to false gods. She said: “I will go after my lovers, that gave me my bread, and my water, my wool, and my flax” (Vulg., ii, 5). Obedience:- All the laws which govern the pact of union have been violated: “Shall I write to him [Ephraim] my manifold laws, which have been accounted as foreign” (viii, 12). It is a question here at least primarily of the Mosaic legislation. Hosea and Amos in spite of contrary opinion knew at least in substance the contents of the Pentateuch. Anarchy is therefore rife in politics and religion: “They have reigned but not by me: they have been princes, and I knew not: of their silver, and their gold they have made idols to themselves” (viii, 4). The root of all these evils is the absence of “knowledge of God” (iv-v) for which the priest especially and the princes are to blame, an absence of theoretical knowledge no doubt, but primarily of the practical knowledge which has love for its object. It is the absence of this practical knowledge chiefly that Hosea laments. The Prophet employs yet another symbol for the bond of union. He sets forth in some exquisite lines the symbol of the chosen son. Jahve has given birth to Israel by redeeming it out of the bondage of Egypt. He has borne it in his arms, has guided its first feeble steps and sustained it with bonds of love; he has reared and nourished it (xi, 1 sq.) and the only return made by Ephraim is apostasy. Such is the history of the covenant. The day of retribution is at hand; it has even dawned in anarchy, civil war, and every kind of scourge. The consummation is imminent. It would seem that repentance itself would be unable to ward it off. As later Jeremias, so now Hosea announces to his people with indescribable emotion the final ruin: Jezrahel “Disgraced”, “Not my people.” The children of Israel are about to go into exile, there they “shall sit many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without altar, and without ephod and without teraphim” (iii, 4). National authority shall come to an end and public national religion will be no more.

(b) The New Covenant

Yet the love of Jahve will change even this evil into a remedy. The unworldly princes, now separated from the people, will no longer draw them into sin. The disappearance of the external national religion will cause the idolatrous sacrifices, symbols, and oracles to disappear at the same time. And the road will be open to salvation; it will come “at the end of days”. Jahve cannot abandon forever His chosen son. At the very thought of it He is filled with compassion and his heart is stirred within him. Accordingly after having been the lion which roars against his guilty people He will roar against their enemies, and His children will come at the sound of His voice from all the lands of their exile (xi, 10 sq.). It will be, as it were, a new exodus from Egypt. Juda will be reinstated and a remnant of the tribe of Ephraim shall be joined with him (vi, 11- vii, 1a). “The children of Israel shall return and shall seek the Lord their God, and David their king” (iii, 5). The new alliance shall never be broken: it shall be contracted in justice and in righteousness, in kindness and in love, in fidelity and knowledge of God. There shall be reconciliation with nature and peace among men and with God. Prosperity and unlimited extension of the people of God shall come to pass, and the children of this new kingdom shall be called the sons of the living God. Great shall be the day of Jezrahel (the day when “God will sow”); (ch. ii), ch. i, 1-3 (Vulg., i, 10- ii, 1) ought likely to be set at the end of ch. ii. Cf. Condamin in “Revue biblique”, 1902, 386 sqq. This is an admirable sketch of the Church which Christ is to found seven and a half centuries later. The doctrine of Hosea, like that of Amos, manifests a transcendence which his historical and religious surroundings cannot explain. Digitus Dei est hic.

Among Catholic commentaries cf. especially VAN HOONACKER, Les douze petits prophetes (Paris, 1908). Among Protestant works HARPER, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea (Edinburgh, 1905), a commentary of Liberal tendencies.

JEAN CALES

Paraclete

Paraclete, Comforter (L. Consolator; Gr. parakletos), an appellation of the Holy Ghost. The Greek word which, as a designation of the Holy Ghost at least, occurs only in St. John (xiv, 16, 26; xv, 26; xvi, 7), has been variously translated “advocate”, “intercessor”, “teacher, “helper”, “comforter”. This last rendering, though at variance with the passive form of the Greek, is justified by the Hellenistic usage, a number of ancient versions, patristic and liturgical authority, and the evident needs of the Johannine context. According to St. John the mission of the Paraclete is to abide with the disciples after Jesus has withdrawn His visible presence from them; to inwardly bring home to them the teaching externally given by Christ and thus to stand as a witness to the doctrine and work of the Saviour. There is no reason for limiting to the Apostles themselves the comforting influence of the Paraclete as promised in the Gospel (Matt., x, 19; Mark, xiii, 11; Luke, xii, 11, xxi, 14) and described in Acts, ii. In the above declaration of Christ, Cardinal Manning rightly sees a new dispensation, that of the Spirit of God, the Sanctifier. The Paraclete comforts the Church by guaranteeing her inerrancy and fostering her sanctity (see CHURCH). He comforts each individual soul in many ways. Says St. Bernard (Parvi Sermones): “De Spiritu Sancto testatur Scriptura quia procedit, spirat, inhabitat, replet, glorificat. Procedendo praedestinat; spirando vocat quos praedestinavit; inhabitando justificat quos vocavit; replendo accumulat meritis quos justificavit; glorificando ditat proemiis quos accumulavit meritis”. Every salutary condition, power, and action, in fact the whole range of our salvation, comes within the Comforter's mission. Its extraordinary effects are styled gifts, fruits, beatitudes. Its ordinary working is sanctification with all it entails, habitual grace, infused virtues, adoption, and the right to the celestial inheritance. “The charity of God”, says St. Paul (Rom., v, 5), “is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is give to us.” In that passage the Paraclete is both the giver and the gift: the giver of grace (donum creatum) and the gift of the Father and the Son (donum increatum). St. Paul teaches repeatedly that the Holy Ghost dwells in us (Rom., viii, 9, 11; I Cor., iii, 16).

That indwelling of the Paraclete in the justified soul is not to be understood as though it were the exclusive work of the third Person nor as though it constituted the formalis causa of our justification. The soul, inwardly renovated by habitual grace, becomes the habitation of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity (John, xiv, 23), yet that indwelling is rightly appropriated to the third Person who is the Spirit of Love. As to the mode and explanation of the Holy Ghost's inhabitation in the soul of the just, Catholic theologians are not agreed. St. Thomas (I, Q. XLIII, a. 3) proposes the rather vague and unsatisfactory simile “sicut cognitum in cognoscente et amatum in amante”. To Oberdoffer it is an ever acting force, maintaining and unfolding habitual grace in us. Verani takes it to be merely objective presence, in the sense that the justified soul is the object of a special solicitude and choice love from the Paraclete. Forget, and in this he pretends to bring out the true thought of St. Thomas, suggests a sort of mystical and quasi-experimental union of the soul with the Paraclete, differing in degree but not in kind from the intuitive vision and beatific love of the elect. In so difficult a matter, we can only revert to the words of of St. Paul (Rom., viii, 15): “You have received the spirit of adoption whereby we cry: Abba (Father).” The mission of the Paraclete detracts nothing from the mission of Christ. In heaven Christ remains our parakletos or advocate (I John, ii, 1). In this world, He is with us even to the consummation of the world (Matt., xxviii, 20), but He is with us through His Spirit of whom He says : “I will send Him to you. He shall glorify me; because He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you” (John, xvi, 7, 14). See HOLY GHOST.

The Books of Chronicles (Paralipomenon)

(Paraleipomenon; Libri Paralipomenon), two books of the Bible containing a summary of sacred history from Adam to the end of the Captivity. The title Paralipomenon, books “of things passed over”, which, from the Septuagint, passed into the old Latin Bible and thence into the Vulgate, is commonly taken to imply that they supplement the narrative of the Books of Kings (otherwise known as I-II Sam. and I-II Kings); but this explanation is hardly supported by the contents of the books, and does not account for the present participle. The view of St. Jerome, who considers Paralipomenon as equivalent to “epitome of the Old Testament”, is probably the true one. The title would accordingly denote that many things are passed over in these books. The Hebrew title is Dibhere Hayyamim, “the acts of the days” or “annals”. In the Protestant, printed Hebrew, and many Catholic bibles, they are entitled “Books of Chronicles”.

UNITY AND PLACES IN THE CANON

The two books are really one work, and are treated as one in the Hebrew manuscripts. and in the Massoretic summary appended to the second book. The division was first made in the Septuagint for the sake of convenience, and thence was adopted into the Latin Bibles. The Hebrew text was first divided in Bomberg's edition of the rabbinical Bible (Venice, 1516-7). Moreover, there is a probability that Paralipomenon originally formed part of a larger work which included the two Books of Esdras (Esdras Nehemias). For not only is there similarity of diction and style, of spirit and method, but I Esdras begins where II Chronicles ends, the decree of Cyrus being repeated and completed.

It should be remarked, however, that these facts can be explained by simple community of authorship. In the Septuagint and Vulgate, as well as in the Protestant bibles, the Books of Paralipomenon are placed immediately after the Books of Kings. In the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible they stand at the end of the third division, or Kethubhim.

CONTENTS

The first part of I Chronicles (i-ix), which is a sort of introduction to the rest of the work, contains a series of genealogical and statistical lists, interspersed with short historical notes. It comprises: (1) the genealogy of the patriarchs from Adam to Jacob (i); (2) the genealogy of the twelve tribes (ii-viii); (3) a list of the families of Juda, Benjamin, and Levi dwelling in Jerusalem after the Exile, with the genealogy of the family of Saul repeated (ix). The second part of I Chronicles contains the history of the reign of David preceded by the account of the death of Saul (x-xxix). II Chronicles comprises the reign of Solomon (i-ix), and the reigns of the kings of Juda (x-xxxvi, 21). Part of the edict of Cyrus allowing the Jews to return and to rebuild the temple is added as a conclusion (xxxvi, 22-23). The historical part of Paralipomenon thus covers the same period as the last three Books of Kings. Hence naturally much of the matter is the same in both; often, indeed, the two narratives not only agree in the facts they relate, but describe them almost in the same words. The Books of Paralipomenon also agree with the Books of Kings in plan and general arrangement. But side by side with these agreements there are many differences. The Books of Paralipomenon narrate some events more briefly. or present them in a different manner, and omit others altogether (e.g., the adultery of David, the violation of Thamar, the murder of Amnon, and the rebellion of Absalom), while they dwell more on facts regarding the temple, its worship and its ministers, furnishing much information on these subjects which is not found in the other books. Moreover, they ignore the northern kingdom except where the history of Juda requires mention of it.

OBJECT

On comparing Paralipomenon with the Books of Kings we are forced to the conclusion that the writer's purpose was not to supplement the omissions of these latter books. The objects of his interest are the temple and its worship, and he intends primarily to write the religious history of Juda with the temple as its centre, and, as intimately connected with it, the history of the house of David. This clearly appears when we consider what he mentions and what he omits. Of Saul he narrates only his death as an introduction to the reign of David. In the history of David's reign he gives a full account of the translation of the ark to Mount Sion, of the preparations for the building of the temple, and of the levitical families and their offices; the wars and the other events of the reign he either tells briefly, or passes over altogether. Solomon's reign is almost reduced to the account of the building and the dedication of the temple. After the disruption of the kingdom the apostate tribes are hardly mentioned, while the reigns of the pious kings, Asa, Josaphat, Joas, Ezechias, and Josias, who brought about a revival of religion and showed great zeal for the temple and its worship, are specially dwelt on. Again, the additions to the narrative of the Books of Kings in most cases refer to the temple, its worship and its ministers. Nor is the decree of Cyrus allowing the rebuilding of the temple without significance. The same purpose may be noted in the genealogical section, where the tribes of Juda and Levi are given special prominence and have their genealogies continued beyond the Exile. The author, however, writes his history with a practical object in view. He wishes to urge the people to a faithful and exact adherence to the worship of God in the restored temple, and to impress upon them that thus only will the community deserve God's blessings and protection. Hence he places before them the example of the past, especially of the pious kings who were distinguished for their zeal in building the temple or in promoting the splendour of its worship. Hence, too, he takes every occasion to show that the kings, and with them the people, prospered or were delivered from great calamities because of their attachment to God's worship, or experienced misfortune because of their unfaithfulness. The frequent mention of the Levites and of their offices was probably intended to induce them to value their calling and to carry out faithfully their duties.

AUTHOR AND TIME OF COMPOSITION

The Books of Paralipomenon were undoubtedly written after the Restoration. For the genealogy of the house of David is carried beyond Zorobabel (I Chronicles, iii, 19-24), and the very decree of Cyrus allowing the return is cited. Moreover, the value of the sums collected by David for the building of the temple is expressed in darics (I Chronicles, xxix, 7, Heb.), which were not current in Palestine till the time of the Persian domination. The peculiarities of style and diction also point to a time later than the Captivity. The older writers generally attributed the authorship to Esdras. Most modern non-Catholic scholars attribute the work to an unknown writer and place its date between 300 and 250 B. C. The main reasons for this late date are that the descendants of Zorobabel are given to the sixth (in the Septuagint and the Vulgate to the eleventh) generation, and that in II Esdras (xii, 10, 11, 22) the list of the high-priests extends to Jeddoa, who, according to Josephus, held the pontificate in the time of Alexander the Great. These lists, however, show signs of having been brought up to date by a later hand and cannot, therefore, be considered as decisive. On the other hand, a writer living in Greek times would not be likely to express the value of ancient money in darics. Moreover, a work written for the purpose mentioned above would be more in place in the time immediately following the Restoration, while the position and character of Esdras would point him out as its author. Hence most Catholic authors still adhere to Esdrine authorship, and place the time of composition at the end of the fifth or at the beginning of the fourth century B. C.

HISTORICAL VALUE

The reliability of the Books of Paralipomenon as a historical work has been severely attacked by such critics as de Wette, Wellhausen etc. The author is accused of exaggeration, of misrepresenting facts, and even of appealing to imaginary documents. This harsh judgment has been considerably mitigated by more recent writers of the same school, who, while admitting errors, absolve the author of intentional misrepresentation. The objections urged against the books cannot be examined here in detail; a few general remarks in vindication of their truthfulness must suffice. In the first place, the books have suffered at the hands of copyists; textual errors in names and in numbers, which latter originally were only indicated by letters, are especially numerous. Gross exaggerations, such as the slaying of 7000 charioteers (I Chronicles, xix, 18) as against 700 in II Kings (x, 18) and the impossibly large armies mentioned in II Chronicles (xiii, 3), are plainly to be attributed to this cause. In the next place, if the sections common to Paralipomenon and the Books of Kings are compared, substantial agreement is found to exist between them. If the author, then, reproduces his sources with substantial accuracy in the cases where his statements can be controlled by comparing them with those of another writer who has used the same documents, there is no reason to suspect that he acted differently in the case of other sources. His custom of referring his readers to the documents from which he has drawn his information should leave no doubt on the subject. In the third place, the omission of the facts not to the credit of the pious kings (e.g. the adultery of David) is due to the object which the author has in view, and proves no more against his truthfulness than the omission of the history of the northern tribes. He did not intend to write a full history of the kings of Juda, but a history for the purpose of edification. Hence, in speaking of the kings whom he proposes as models, he naturally omits details which are not edifying. Such a presentation, while one-sided, is no more untruthful than a panegyric in which the foibles of the subject are passed over. The picture is correct as far as it goes, only it is not complete.

F. BECHTEL

Patriarch

The word patriarch as applied to Biblical personages comes from the Septuagint version, where it is used in a broad sense, including religious and civil officials (e. g. I Par., xxiv, 31; xxvii, 22). In the more restricted sense and common usage it is applied to the antediluvian fathers of the human race, and more particularly to the three great progenitors of Israel: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the New Testament the term is extended also to the sons of Jacob (Acts vii, 8-9) and to King David (ibid., ii, 29). For an account of these later patriarchs see articles ABRAHAM; ISAAC; JACOB; etc. The earlier patriarchs comprise the antediluvian group, and those who are placed between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. Of the former the Book of Genesis gives a twofold list. The first (Gen., iv, 17-18, passage assigned by critics the so-called “J” document) starts with Cain and gives as his descendants Henoch, Irad, Maviael, Mathusael, and Lamech. The other list (Gen., v, 3-31, ascribed to the priestly writer, “P”) is far more elaborate, and is accompanied by minute chronological indications. It begins with Seth and, strange to say, it ends likewise with Lamech. The intervening names are Enos, Cainan, Malaleel, Jared, Henoch, and Mathusala.

The fact that both lists end with Lamech, who is doubtless the same person, and that some of the names common to both are strikingly similar, makes it probable that the second list is an amplification of the first, embodying material furnished by a divergent tradition. Nor should this seem surprising when we consider the many discrepancies exhibited by the twofold genealogy of the Saviour in the First and Third Gospels. The human personages set forth in these lists occupy a place held by the mythical demi-gods in the story of the prehistoric beginnings of other early nations, and it may well be that the chief value of the inspired account given of them is didactic, destined in the mind of the sacred writer to inculcate the great truth of monotheism which is so distinctive a feature of the Old Testament writings. Be that as it may, the acceptance of this general view helps greatly to simplify another difficult problem connected with the Biblical account of the early patriarchs, viz. their enormous longevity. The earlier account (Gen., iv, 17-18) gives only the names of the patriarchs there mentioned, with the incidental indication that the city built by Cain was called after his son Henoch. The later narrative (Gen., v, 3-31) gives a definite chronology for the whole period. It states the age at which each patriarch begot his first-born son, the number of years he lived after that event, together with the sum total of the years of his life. Nearly all of the antediluvian fathers are represented as living to the age of 900 or thereabouts, Mathusala, the oldest, reaching 969.

These figures have always constituted a most difficult problem for commentators and Bible readers; and those who defend the strict historical character of the passages in question have put forward various explanations, none of which are considered convincing by modern Biblical scholars. Thus it has been conjectured that the years mentioned in this connexion were not of ordinary duration but of one or more months. There is, however, no warrant for this assumption in the Scripture itself, where the word year has a constant signification, and is always clearly distinguished from the minor periods. It has also been suggested that the ages given are not those of individuals, but signify epochs of antediluvian history, and that each is named after its most illustrious representative. The hypothesis may be ingenious, but even a superficial reading of the text suffices to show that such was not the meaning of the sacred writer. Nor does it help the case much to point out a few exceptional instances of persons who in modern times are alleged to have lived to the age of 150 or even 180. For even admitting these as facts, and that in primitive times men lived longer than at present (an assumption for which we find no warrant in historic times), it is still a long way from 180 to 900.

Another argument to corroborate the historical accuracy of the Biblical account has been deduced from the fact that the legends of many people assert the great longevity of their early ancestors, a circumstance which is said to imply an original tradition to that effect. Thus the first seven Egyptian kings are said to have reigned for a period of 12,300 years, making an average of about 1757 years for each, and Josephus, who is preoccupied with a desire to justify the Biblical narrative, quotes Ephorus and Nicolaus as relating “that the ancients lived a thousand years”. He adds, however, “But as to these matters, let every one look upon them as he thinks fit”. (Antiq., I, iii, in fine). On the other hand, it is maintained that as a matter of fact there is no trustworthy historic or scientific evidence indicating that the average span of human life was greater in primitive than in modern times. In this connexion it is customary to cite Gen., vi, 3, where God is represented as decreeing by way of punishment of the universal corruption which was the occasion of the Flood, that henceforth the days of man “shall be a hundred and twenty years”. This is taken as indicating a point at which the physical deterioration of the race resulted in a marked decrease in longevity. But apart from the critical considerations bearing on this passage, it is strange to note further on (Gen., xi) that the ages of the subsequent patriarchs were by no means limited to 120 years. Sem lived to the age of 600. Arphaxad 338 (Massoretic text 408), Sale 433, Heber 464 etc.

The one ground on which the accuracy of all these figures can be defended is the a priori reason that being contained in the Bible, they must of a necessity be historically correct, and this position is maintained by the older commentators generally. Most modern scholars, on the other hand, are agreed in considering the genealogical and chronological lists of Gen., v, and xi, to be mainly artificial, and this view seems to be confirmed, they say, by a comparison of the figures as they stand in the Hebrew original and in the ancient versions. The Vulgate is in agreement with the former (with the exception of Arphaxad) , showing that no substantial alteration of the figures has been made in the Hebrew at least since the end of the fourth century A. D.

But when we compare the Massoretic text with the Samaritan version and the Septuagint, we are confronted by many and strange discrepancies which can hardly be the result of mere accident. Thus for instance, with regard to the antediluvian patriarchs, while the Samaritan version agrees in the main with the Massoretic text, the age at which Jared begot his first-born is set down as 62 instead of the Hebrew 162. Mathusala, likewise, who according to the Hebrew begot his first-born at the age of 187, was only 67 according to the Samaritan; and though the Hebrew places the same event in the case of Lamech when he was 182, the Samaritan gives him only 53. Similar discrepancies exist between the two texts as regards the total number of years that these patriarchs lived, viz. Jared, Heb. 962, Sam. 847; Mathusala, Heb. 969, Sam. 720; Lamech, Heb. 777, Sam. 653. Comparing the Massoretic text with the Septuagint, we find that in the latter the birth of the first-born in the case of Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Malaleel, and Henoch was at the respective ages of 230, 205, 190, 170, 165, and 165, as against 130, 105, 90, 70, 65, and 65 as stated in the Hebrew, and the same systematic difference of 100 years in the period before the birth of the first-born appears likewise in the lives of the postdiluvian patriarchs, Arphaxad, Sale, Heber, Phaleg, Reu, and Sarug. For this list, however, the Samaritan agrees with the Septuagint as against the Massoretic text.

As regards the list of the antediluvians, the Hebrew and Septuagint agree as to the sum total of each patriarch's life, since the Greek version reduces regularly by a hundred years the period between the birth of the first-born and the patriarch's death. These accumulated differences result in a wide divergence when the duration of the entire patriarchal period is considered. Thus the number of years which elapsed from the beginning down to the death of Lamech is, according to the Hebrew, 1651, while the Samaritan gives 1307, and the Septuagint 2227. These are but a few of the peculiarities exhibited by the comparison of the perplexing genealogical lists. That the divergences are for the most part intentional seems to be a necessary inference from their systematic regularity, and the implied manipulation of the figures by the early translators goes far to make probable the more or less artificial character of these primitive chronologies as a whole.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

Pelagius and Pelagianism

Pelagianism received its name from Pelagius and designates a heresy of the fifth century, which denied original sin as well as Christian grace.

Life and Writings of Pelagius

Apart from the chief episodes of the Pelagian controversy, little or nothing is known about the personal career of Pelagius. It is only after he bade a lasting farewell to Rome in A. D. 411 that the sources become more abundant; but from 418 on history is again silent about his person. As St. Augustine (De peccat. orig., xxiv) testifies that he lived in Rome “for a very long time”, we may presume that he resided there at least since the reign of Pope Anastasius (398-401). But about his long life prior to the year 400 and above all about his youth, we are left wholly in the dark. Even the country of his birth is disputed. While the most trustworthy witnesses, such as Augustine, Orosius, Prosper, and Marius Mercator, are quite explicit in assigning Britain as his native country, as is apparent from his cognomen of Brito or Britannicus, Jerome (Praef. in Jerem., lib. I and III) ridicules him as a “Scot” (loc. cit., “habet enim progeniem Scoticae gentis de Britannorum vicinia”), who being “stuffed with Scottish porridge” (Scotorum pultibus proegravatus) suffers from a weak memory. Rightly arguing that the “Scots” of those days were really the Irish, H. Zimmer (“Pelagius in Irland”, p.20, Berlin, 1901) has advanced weighty reasons for the hypothesis that the true home of Pelagius must be sought in Ireland, and that he journeyed through the southwest of Britain to Rome. Tall in stature and portly in appearance (Jerome, loc. cit., “grandis et corpulentus”), Pelagius was highly educated, spoke and wrote Latin as well as Greek with great fluency and was well versed in theology. Though a monk and consequently devoted to practical asceticism, he never was a cleric; for both Orosius and Pope Zosimus simply call him a “layman”. In Rome itself he enjoyed the reputation of austerity, while St. Augustine called him even a “saintly man”, vir sanctus: with St. Paulinus of Nola (405) and other prominent bishops, he kept up an edifying correspondence, which he used later for his personal defence.

During his sojourn in Rome he composed several works: “De fide Trinitatis libri III”, now lost, but extolled by Gennadius as “indispensable reading matter for students”; “Eclogarum ex divinis Scripturis liber unus”, in the main collection of Bible passages based on Cyprian's “Testimoniorum libri III”, of which St. Augustine has preserved a number of fragments; “Commentarii in epistolas S. Pauli”, elaborated no doubt before the destruction of Rome by Alaric (410) and known to St. Augustine in 412. Zimmer (loc. cit.) deserves credit for having rediscovered in this commentary on St. Paul the original work of Pelagius, which had, in the course of time, been attributed to St. Jerome (P. L., XXX, 645-902). A closer examination of this work, so suddenly become famous, brought to light the fact that it contained the fundamental ideas which the Church afterwards condemned as “Pelagian heresy”. In it Pelagius denied the primitive state in paradise and original sin (cf. P. L., XXX, 678, “Insaniunt, qui de Adam per traducem asserunt ad nos venire peccatum”), insisted on the naturalness of concupiscence and the death of the body, and ascribed the actual existence and universality of sin to the bad example which Adam set by his first sin. As all his ideas were chiefly rooted in the old, pagan philosophy, especially in the popular system of the Stoics, rather than in Christianity, he regarded the moral strength of man's will (liberum arbitrium), when steeled by asceticism, as sufficient in itself to desire and to attain the loftiest ideal of virtue. The value of Christ's redemption was, in his opinion, limited mainly to instruction (doctrina) and example (exemplum), which the Saviour threw into the balance as a counter-weight against Adam's wicked example, so that nature retains the ability to conquer sin and to gain eternal life even without the aid of grace. By justification we are indeed cleansed of our personal sins through faith alone (loc. cit., 663, “per solam fidem justificat Deus impium convertendum”), but this pardon (gratia remissionis) implies no interior renovation of sanctification of the soul. How far the sola-fides doctrine “had no stouter champion before Luther than Pelagius” and whether, in particular, the Protestant conception of fiducial faith dawned upon him many centuries before Luther, as Loofs (“Realencyklopädies fur protest. Theologie”, XV, 753, Leipzig, 1904) assumes, probably needs more careful investigation. For the rest, Pelagius would have announced nothing new by this doctrine, since the Antinomists of the early Apostolic Church were already familiar with “justification by faith alone” (cf. JUSTIFICATION); on the other hand, Luther's boast of having been the first to proclaim the doctrine of abiding faith, might well arouse opposition. However, Pelagius insists expressly (loc. cit. 812), “Ceterum sine operibus fidei, non legis, mortua est fides”. But the commentary on St. Paul is silent on one chief point of doctrine, i.e. the significance of infant baptism, which supposed that the faithful were even then clearly conscious of the existence of original sin in children.

To explain psychologically Pelagius's whole line of thought, it does not suffice to go back to the ideal of the wise man, which he fashioned after the ethical principles of the Stoics and upon which his vision was centred. We must also take into account that his intimacy with the Greeks developed in him, though unknown to himself, a one-sidedness, which at first sight appears pardonable. The gravest error into which he and the rest of the Pelagians fell, was that they did not submit to the doctrinal decisions of the Church. While the Latins had emphasized the guilt rather than its punishment, as the chief characteristic of original sin, the Greeks on the other hand (even Chrysostom) laid greater stress on the punishment than on the guilt. Theodore of Mopsuestia went even so far as to deny the possibility of original guilt and consequently the penal character of the death of the body. Besides, at that time, the doctrine of Christian grace was everywhere vague and undefined; even the West was convinced of nothing more than that some sort of assistance was necessary to salvation and was given gratuitously, while the nature of this assistance was but little understood. In the East, moreover, as an offset to widespread fatalism, the moral power and freedom of the will were at times very strongly or even too strongly insisted on assisting grace being spoken of more frequently than preventing grace (see GRACE). It was due to the intervention of St. Augustine and the Church, that greater clearness was gradually reached in the disputed questions and that the first impulse was given towards a more careful development of the dogmas of original sin and grace (cf. Mausbach, “Die Ethnik des hl. Augustinus”, II, 1 sqq., Freiburg, 1909).

Pelagius and Caelestius (411-415)

Of far-reaching influence upon the further progress of Pelagianism was the friendship which Pelagius contracted in Rome with Caelestius, a lawyer of noble (probably Italian) descent. A eunuch by birth, but endowed with no mean talents, Caelestius had been won over to asceticism by his enthusiasm for the monastic life, and in the capacity of a lay-monk he endeavoured to convert the practical maxims learnt from Pelagius, into theoretical principles, which successfully propagated in Rome. St. Augustine, while charging Pelagius with mysteriousness, mendacity, and shrewdness, calls Caelestius (De peccat. orig., xv) not only “incredibly loquacious”, but also open-hearted, obstinate, and free in social intercourse. Even if their secret or open intrigues did not escape notice, still the two friends were not molested by the official Roman circles. But matters changed when in 411 they left the hospitable soil of the metropolis, which had been sacked by Alaric (410), and set sail for North Africa. When they landed on the coast near Hippo, Augustine, the bishop of that city, was absent, being fully occupied in settling the Donatist disputes in Africa. Later, he met Pelagius in Carthage several times, without, however, coming into closer contact with him. After a brief sojourn in North Africa, Pelagius travelled on to Palestine, while Caelestius tried to have himself made a presbyter in Carthage. But this plan was frustrated by the deacon Paulinus of Milan, who submitted to the bishop, Aurelius, a memorial in which six theses of Caelestius - perhaps literal extracts from his lost work “Contra traducem peccati” - were branded as heretical. These theses ran as follows:

1. Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
2. Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
3. Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
4. The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
5. The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
6. Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.

On account of these doctrines, which clearly contain the quintessence of Pelagianism, Caelestius was summoned to appear before a synod at Carthage (411); but he refused to retract them, alleging that the inheritance of Adam's sin was an open question and hence its denial was no heresy. As a result he was not only excluded from ordination, but his six theses were condemned. He declared his intention of appealing to the pope in Rome, but without executing his design went to Ephesus in Asia Minor, where he was ordained a priest.

Meanwhile the Pelagian ideas had infected a wide area, especially around Carthage, so that Augustine and other bishops were compelled to take a resolute stand against them in sermons and private conversations. Urged by his friend Marcellinus, who “daily endured the most annoying debates with the erring brethren”, St. Augustine in 412 wrote the famous works: “De peccatorum meritis et remissione libri III” (P. L., XLIV, 109 sqq.) and “De spiritu et litera” (ibid., 201 sqq.), in which he positively established the existence of original sin, the necessity of infant baptism, the impossibility of a life without sin, and the necessity of interior grace (spiritus) in opposition to the exterior grace of the law (litera). When in 414 disquieting rumours arrived from Sicily and the so-called “Definitiones Caelestii” (reconstructed in Garnier, “Marii Mercatoris Opera”, I, 384 sqq., Paris, 1673), said to be the work of Caelestius, were sent to him, he at once (414 or 415) published the rejoinder, “De perfectione justitiae hominis” (P. L., XLIV, 291 sqq.), in which he again demolished the illusion of the possibility of complete freedom from sin. Out of charity and in order to win back the erring the more effectually, Augustine, in all these writings, never mentioned the two authors of the heresy by name.

Meanwhile Pelagius, who was sojourning in Palestine, did not remain idle; to a noble Roman virgin, named Demetrias, who at Alaric's coming had fled to Carthage, he wrote a letter which is still extant (in P. L., XXX, 15-45) and in which he again inculcated his Stoic principles of the unlimited energy of nature. Moreover, he published in 415 a work, now lost, “De natura”, in which he attempted to prove his doctrine from authorities, appealing not only to the writings of Hilary and Ambrose, but also to the earlier works of Jerome and Augustine, both of whom were still alive. The latter answered at once (415) by his treatise “De natura et gratia” (P. L., XLIV, 247 sqq.). Jerome, however, to whom Augustine's pupil Orosius, a Spanish priest, personally explained the danger of the new heresy, and who had been chagrined by the severity with which Pelagius had criticized his commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, thought the time ripe to enter the lists; this he did by his letter to Ctesiphon (Ep. cxxliii) and by his graceful “Dialogus contra Pelagianos” (P. L., XXIII, 495 sqq.). He was assisted by Orosius, who, forthwith accused Pelagius in Jerusalem of heresy. Thereupon, Bishop John of Jerusalem “dearly loved” (St. Augustine, “Ep. clxxix”) Pelagius and had him at the time as his guest. He convoked in July, 415, a diocesan council for the investigation of the charge. The proceedings were hampered by the fact that Orosius, the accusing party, did not understand Greek and had engaged a poor interpreter, while the defendant Pelagius was quite able to defend himself in Greek and uphold his orthodoxy. However, according to the personal account (written at the close of 415) of Orosius (Liber apolog. contra Pelagium, P. L., XXXI, 1173), the contesting parties at last agreed to leave the final judgment on all questions to the Latins, since both Pelagius and his adversaries were Latins, and to invoke the decision of Innocent I; meanwhile silence was imposed on both parties.

But Pelagius was granted only a short respite. For in the very same year, the Gallic bishops, Heros of Arles and Lazarus of Aix, who, after the defeat of the usurper Constantine (411), had resigned their bishoprics and gone to Palestine, brought the matter before Bishop Eulogius of Caesarea, with the result that the latter summoned Pelagius in December, 415, before a synod of fourteen bishops, held in Diospolis, the ancient Lydda. But fortune again favoured the heresiarch. About the proceedings and the issue we are exceptionally well informed through the account of St. Augustine, “De gestis Pelagii” (P. L., XLIV, 319 sqq.), written in 417 and based on the acts of the synod. Pelagius punctually obeyed the summons, but the principal complainants, Heros and Lazarus, failed to make their appearance, one of them being prevented by ill-health. And as Orosius, too, derided and persecuted by Bishop John of Jerusalem, had departed, Pelagius met no personal plaintiff, while he found at the same time a skillful advocate in the deacon Anianus of Celeda (cf. Hieronym., “Ep. cxliii”, ed. Vallarsi, I, 1067). The principal points of the petition were translated by an interpreter into Greek and read only in an extract. Pelagius, having won the good-will of the assembly by reading to them some private letters of prominent bishops — among them one of Augustine (Ep. cxlvi) - began to explain away and disprove the various accusations. Thus from the charge that he made the possibility of a sinless life solely dependent on free will, he exonerated himself by saying that, on the contrary, he required the help of God (adjutorium Dei) for it, though by this he meant nothing else than the grace of creation (gratia creationis). Of other doctrines with which he had been charged, he said that, formulated as they were in the complaint, they did not originate from him, but from Caelestius, and that he also repudiated them. After the hearing there was nothing left for the synod but to discharge the defendant and to announce him as worthy of communion with the Church. The Orient had now spoken twice and had found nothing to blame in Pelagius, because he had hidden his real sentiments from his judges.

Continuation and End of Controversy (415-418)

The new acquittal of Pelagius did not fail to cause excitement and alarm in North Africa, whither Orosius had hastened in 416 with letters from Bishops Heros and Lazarus. To parry the blow, something decisive had to be done. In autumn, 416, 67 bishops from Proconsular Africa assembled in a synod at Carthage, which was presided over by Aurelius, while fifty-nine bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Numidia, to which the See of Hippo, St. Augustine's see belonged, held a synod in Mileve. In both places the doctrines of Pelagius and Caelestius were again rejected as contradictory to the Catholic faith. However, in order to secure for their decisions “the authority of the Apostolic See”, both synods wrote to Innocent I, requesting his supreme sanction. And in order to impress upon him more strongly the seriousness of the situation, five bishops (Augustine, Aurelius, Alypius, Evodius, and Possidius) forwarded to him a joint letter, in which they detailed the doctrine of original sin, infant baptism, and Christian grace (St. Augustine, “Epp. clxxv-vii”). In three separate epistles, dated 27 Jan., 417, the pope answered the synodal letters of Carthage and Mileve as well as that of the five bishops (Jaffé, “Regest.”, 2nd ed., nn. 321-323, Leipzig, 1885). Starting from the principle that the resolutions of provincial synods have no binding force until they are confirmed by the supreme authority of the Apostolic See, the pope developed the Catholic teaching on original sin and grace, and excluded Pelagius and Caelestius, who were reported to have rejected these doctrines, form communion with the Church until they should come to their senses (donec resipiscant). In Africa, where the decision was received with unfeigned joy, the whole controversy was now regarded as closed, and Augustine, on 23 September, 417, announced from the pulpit (Serm., cxxxi, 10 in P. L., XXXVIII, 734), “Jam de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem apostolicam, inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est”. (Two synods having written to the Apostolic See about this matter; the replies have come back; the question is settled.) But he was mistaken; the matter was not yet settled.

Innocent I died on 12 March, 417, and Zosimus, a Greek by birth, succeeded him. Before his tribunal the whole Pelagian question was now opened once more and discussed in all its bearings. The occasion for this was the statements which both Pelagius and Caelestius submitted to the Roman See in order to justify themselves. Though the previous decisions of Innocent I had removed all doubts about the matter itself, yet the question of the persons involved was undecided, viz. Did Pelagius and Caelestius really teach the theses condemned as heretical? Zosimus' sense of justice forbade him to punish anyone with excommunication before he was duly convicted of his error. And if the steps recently taken by the two defendants were considered, the doubts which might arise on this point were not wholly groundless. In 416 Pelagius had published a new work, now lost, “De libero arbitrio libri IV”, which in its phraseology seemed to verge towards the Augustinian conception of grace and infant baptism, even if in principle it did not abandon the author's earlier standpoint. Speaking of Christian grace, he admitted not only a Divine revelation, but also a sort of interior grace, viz. an illumination of the mind (through sermons, reading of the Bible, etc.), adding, however, that the latter served not to make salutary works possible, but only to facilitate their performance. As to infant baptism he granted that it ought to be administered in the same form as in the case of adults, not in order to cleanse the children from a real original guilt, but to secure to them entrance into the “kingdom of God”. Unbaptized children, he thought, would after their death be excluded from the “kingdom of God”, but not from “eternal life”. This work, together with a still extant confession of faith, which bears witness to his childlike obedience, Pelagius sent to Rome, humbly begging at the same time that chance inaccuracies might be corrected by him who “holds the faith and see of Peter”. All this was addressed to Innocent I, of whose death Pelagius had not yet heard. Caelestius, also, who meanwhile had changed his residence from Ephesus to Constantinople, but had been banished thence by the anti-Pelagian Bishop Atticus, took active steps toward his own rehabilitation. In 417 he went to Rome in person and laid at the feet of Zosimus a detailed confession of faith (Fragments, P. L., XLV, 1718), in which he affirmed his belief in all doctrines, “from the Trinity of one God to the resurrection of the dead” (cf. St. Augustine, “De peccato orig.”, xxiii).

Highly pleased with this Catholic faith and obedience, Zosimus sent two different letters (P. L., XLV, 1719 sqq.) to the African bishops, saying that in the case of Caelestius Bishops Heros and Lazarus had proceeded without due circumspection, and that Pelagius too, as was proved by his recent confession of faith, had not swerved from the Catholic truth. As to Caelestius, who was then in Rome, the pope charged the Africans either to revise their former sentence or to convict him of heresy in his own (the pope's) presence within two months. The papal command struck Africa like a bomb-shell. In great haste a synod was convened at Carthage in November, 417, and writing to Zosimus, they urgently begged him not to rescind the sentence which his predecessor, Innocent I, had pronounced against Pelagius and Caelestius, until both had confessed the necessity of interior grace for all salutary thoughts, words, and deeds. At last Zosimus came to a halt. By a rescript of 21 March, 418, he assured them that he had not yet pronounced definitively, but that he was transmitting to Africa all documents bearing on Pelagianism in order to pave the way for a new, joint investigation. Pursuant to the papal command, there was held on 1 May, 418, in the presence of 200 bishops, the famous Council of Carthage, which again branded Pelagianism as a heresy in eight (or nine) canons (Denzinger, “Enchir.”, 10th ed., 1908, 101-8). Owing to their importance they may be summarized:

1. Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
2. New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3. Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4. The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5. Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
6. Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7. The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, “Forgive us our trespasses”, not only to others, but also to themselves.
8. The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
9. Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a “middle place” (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the “kingdom of heaven” and from “eternal life”.

These clearly worded canons, which (except the last-named) afterwards came to be articles of faith binding on the universal Church, gave the death blow to Pelagianism; sooner or later it would bleed to death.

Meanwhile, urged by the Africans (probably through a certain Valerian, who as comes held an influential position in Ravenna), the secular power also took a hand in the dispute, the Emperor Honorius, by rescript of 30 April, 418, from Ravenna, banishing all Pelagians from the cities of Italy. Whether Caelestius evaded the hearing before Zosimus, to which he was now bound, “by fleeing from Rome” (St. Augustine, “Contra duas epist. Pelag.”, II, 5), or whether he was one of the first to fall a victim to the imperial decree of exile, cannot be satisfactorily settled from the sources. With regard to his later life, we are told that in 421 he again haunted Rome or its vicinity, but was expelled a second time by an imperial rescript (cf. P. L., XLV, 1750). It is further related that in 425 his petition for an audience with Celestine I was answered by a third banishment (cf. P. L., LI, 271). He then sought refuge in the orient, where we shall meet him later. Pelagius could not have been included in the imperial decree of exile from Rome. For at that time he undoubtedly resided in the Orient, since, as late as the summer of 418, he communicated with Pinianus and his wife Melania, who lived in Palestine (cf. Card. Rampolla, “Santa Melania giuniore”, Rome, 1905). But this is the last information we have about him; he probably died in the orient. Having received the Acts of the Council of Carthage, Zosimus sent to all the bishops of the world his famous “Epistola tractoria” (418) of which unfortunately only fragments have come down to us. This papal encyclical, a lengthy document, gives a minute account of the entire “causa Caelestii et Pelagii”, from whose works it quotes abundantly, and categorically demands the condemnation of Pelagianism as a heresy. The assertion that every bishop of the world was obliged to confirm this circular by his own signature, cannot be proved, it is more probable that the bishops were required to transmit to Rome a written agreement; if a bishop refused to sign, he was deposed from his office and banished. A second and harsher rescript, issued by the emperor on 9 June, 419, and addressed to Bishop Aurelius of Carthage (P. L., XLV, 1731), gave additional force to this measure. Augustine's triumph was complete. In 418, drawing the balance, as it were, of the whole controversy, he wrote against the heresiarchs his last great work, “De gratia Christi et de peccato originali” (P. L., XLIV, 359 sqq.).

The Disputes of St. Augustine with Julian of Eclanum (419-428)

Through the vigorous measures adopted in 418, Pelagianism was indeed condemned, but not crushed. Among the eighteen bishops of Italy who were exiled on account of their refusal to sign the papal decree, Julian, Bishop of Eclanum, a city of Apulia now deserted, was the first to protest against the “Tractoria” of Zosimus. Highly educated and skilled in philosophy and dialectics, he assumed the leadership among the Pelagians. But to fight for Pelagianism now meant to fight against Augustine. The literary feud set in at once. It was probably Julian himself who denounced St. Augustine as damnator nupitarum to the influential comes Valerian in Ravenna, a nobleman, who was very happily married. To meet the accusation, Augustine wrote, at the beginning of 419, an apology, “De nuptiis et concupiscentia libri II” (P. L., XLIV, 413 sqq.) and addressed it to Valerian. Immediately after (419 or 420), Julian published a reply which attacked the first book of Augustine's work and bore the title , “Libri IV ad Turbantium”. But Augustine refuted it in his famous rejoinder, written in 421 or 422, “Contra Iulianum libri VI” (P. L., XLIV, 640 sqq.). When two Pelagian circulars, written by Julian and scourging the “Manichaean views” of the Antipelagians, fell into his hands, he attacked them energetically (420 or 421) in a work, dedicated to Boniface I, “Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum libri IV” (P. L., XLIV, 549 sqq.). Being driven from Rome, Julian had found (not later than 421) a place of refuge in Cilicia with Theodore of Mopsuestia. Here he employed his leisure in elaborating an extensive work, “Libri VIII ad Florum”, which was wholly devoted to refuting the second book of Augustine's “De nuptiis et concupiscentia”. Though composed shortly after 421, it did not come to the notice of St. Augustine until 427. The latter's reply, which quotes Julian's argumentations sentence for sentence and refutes them, was completed only as far as the sixth book, whence it is cited in patristic literature as “Opus imperfectum contra Iulianum” (P. L., XLV, 1049 sqq.). A comprehensive account of Pelagianism, which brings out into strong relief the diametrically opposed views of the author, was furnished by Augustine in 428 in the final chapter of his work, “De haeresibus” (P. L., XLII, 21 sqq.). Augustine's last writings published before his death (430) were no longer aimed against Pelagianism but against Semipelagianism.

After the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia (428), Julian of Eclanum left the hospitable city of Cilicia and in 429 we meet him unexpectedly in company with his fellow exiles Bishops Florus, Orontius, and Fabius, and the Court of the Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, who willingly supported the fugitives. It was here, too, in 429, that Caelestius emerged again as the protégé of the patriarch; this is his last appearance in history; for from now on all trace of him is lost. But the exiled bishops did not long enjoy the protection of Nestorius. When Marius Mercator, a layman and friend of St. Augustine, who was then present in Constantinople, heard of the machinations of the Pelagians in the imperial city, he composed towards the end of 429 his “Commonitorium super nomine Caelestii” (P. L., XLVIII, 63 sqq.), in which he exposed the shameful life and the heretical character of Nestorius' wards. The result was that the Emperor Theodosius II decreed their banishment in 430. When the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) repeated the condemnation pronounced by the West (cf. Mansi, “Concil. collect.”, IV, 1337), Pelagianism was crushed in the East. According to the trustworthy report of Prosper of Aquitaine (“Chronic.” ad a. 439, in P. L., LI, 598), Julian of Eclanum, feigning repentance, tried to regain possession of his former bishopric, a plan which Sixtus III (432-40) courageously frustrated. The year of his death is uncertain. He seems to have died in Italy between 441 and 445 during the reign of Valentinian III.

Last Traces of Pelagianism (429-529)

After the Council of Ephesus (431), Pelagianism no more disturbed the Greek Church, so that the Greek historians of the fifth century do not even mention either the controversy of the names of the heresiarchs. But the heresy continued to smoulder in the West and died our very slowly. The main centres were Gaul and Britain. About Gaul we are told that a synod, held probably at Troyes in 429, was compelled to take steps against the Pelagians. It also sent Bishops Germanus of Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes to Britain to fight the rampant heresy, which received powerful support from two pupils of Pelagius, Agricola and Fastidius (cf. Caspari, “Letters, Treatises and Sermons from the two last Centuries of Ecclesiastical Antiquity”, pp. 1-167, Christiana, 1891). Almost a century later, Wales was the centre of Pelagian intrigues. For the saintly Archbishop David of Menevia participated in 519 in the Synod of Brefy, which directed its attacks against the Pelagians residing there, and after he was made Primate of Cambria, he himself convened a synod against them. In Ireland also Pelagius's “Commentary on St. Paul”, described in the beginning of this article, was in use long afterwards, as is proved by many Irish quotations from it. Even in Italy traces can be found, not only in the Diocese of Aquileia (cf. Garnier, “Opera Marii Mercat.”, I, 319 sqq., Paris, 1673), but also in Middle Italy; for the so-called “Liber Praedestinatus”, written about 440 perhaps in Rome itself, bears not so much the stamp of Semipelagianism as of genuine Pelagianism (cf. von Schubert, “Der sog. Praedestinatus, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pelagianismus”, Leipzig, 1903). A more detailed account of this work will be found under the article PREDESTINARIANISM. It was not until the Second Synod of Orange (529) that Pelagianism breathed its last in the West, though that convention aimed its decisions primarily against Semipelagianism (q. v.).

JOSEPH POHLE
Aeterna non caduca

St. Peter

The life of St. Peter may be conveniently considered under the following heads:

• I. Until the Ascension of Christ
• II. St. Peter in Jerusalem and Palestine after the Ascension
• III. Missionary Journeys in the East; The Council of the Apostles
• IV. Activity and Death in Rome; Burial-place
• V. Feasts of St. Peter
• VI. Representations of St. Peter

I. UNTIL THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST

St. Peter's true and original name was Simon, sometimes occurring in the form Symeon. (Acts, xv, 14; II Pet., i, 1). He was the son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (John, i, 42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth, the position of which cannot be established with certainty, although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town. Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matt., viii, 14; Luke, iv, 38) at the beginning of Christ's public ministry (about A. D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter's wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxi) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke, v, 3). Like so many of his Jewish contemporaries, he was attracted by the Baptist's preaching of penance and was, with his brother Andrew, among John's associates in Bethania on the eastern bank of the Jordan. When, after the High Council had sent envoys for the second time to the Baptist, the latter pointed to Jesus who was passing, saying, “ Behold the Lamb of God “, Andrew and another disciple followed the Saviour to his residence and remained with Him one day.

Later, meeting his brother. Simon, Andrew said “We have found the Messias”, and brought him to Jesus, who, looking upon him, said: “ Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter”. Already, at this first meeting, the Saviour foretold the change of Simon's name to Cephas (Kephas; Aramaic Kipha, rock), which is translated Petros (Lat., Petrus) a proof that Christ had already special views with regard to Simon. Later, probably at the time of his definitive call to the Apostolate with the eleven other Apostles, Jesus actually gave Simon the name of Cephas (Petrus), after which he was usually called Peter, especially by Christ on the solemn occasion after Peter's profession of faith (Matt., xvi, 18; cf. below). The Evangelists often combine the two names, while St. Paul uses the name Cephas. After the first meeting Peter with the other early disciples remained with Jesus for some time, accompanying Him to Galilee (Marriage at Cana), Judaea, and Jerusalem, and through Samaria back to Galilee (John, ii-iv). Here Peter resumed his occupation of fisherman for a short time, but soon received the definitive call of the Saviour to become one of His permanent disciples. Peter and Andrew were engaged at their calling when Jesus met and addressed them: “Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men”. On the same occasion the sons of Zebedee were called (Matt., iv, 18-22; Mark, i, 16-20; Luke, v, 1-11; it is here assumed that Luke refers to the same occasion as the other Evangelists). Thenceforth Peter remained always in the immediate neighbourhood of Our Lord. After preaching the Sermon on the Mount and curing the son of the centurion in Capharnaum, Jesus came to Peter's house and cured his wife's mother, who was sick of a fever (Matt., viii, 14-15; Mark, i, 29-31). A little later Christ chose His Twelve Apostles as His constant associates in preaching the kingdom of God.

Among the Twelve Peter soon became conspicuous. Though of irresolute character, be clings with the greatest fidelity, firmness of faith, and inward love to the Saviour; rash alike in word and act, he is full of zeal and enthusiasm, though momentarily easily accessible to external influences and intimidated by difficulties. The more prominent the Apostles become in the Evangelical narrative, the more conspicuous does Peter appear as the first among them. In the list of the Twelve on the occasion of their solemn call to the Apostolate, not only does Peter stand always at their head, but the surname Petrus given him by Christ is especially emphasized (Matt., x, 2): “ Duodecim autem Apostolorum nomina haec: Primus Simon qui dicitur Petrus . . . “; Mark, iii, 14-16: “ Et fecit ut essent duodecim cum illo, et ut mitteret eos praedicare . . . et imposuit Simoni nomen Petrus “; Luke, vi, 13-14: “Et cum dies factus esset, vocavit discipulos suos, et elegit duodecim ex ipsis (quos et Apostolos nominavit): Simonem, quem cognominavit Petrum . . . “ On various occasions Peter speaks in the name of the other Apostles (Matt., xv, 15; xix 27; Luke, xii, 41, etc.). When Christ's words are addressed to all the Apostles, Peter answers in their name (e. g., Matt., xvi, 16). Frequently the Saviour turns specially to Peter (Matt., xxvi, 40; Luke, xxii, 31, etc.).

Very characteristic is the expression of true fidelity to Jesus, which Peter addressed to Him in the name of the other Apostles. Christ, after He had spoken of the mystery of the reception of His Body and Blood (John, vi, 22 sqq.) and many of His disciples had left Him, asked the Twelve if they too should leave Him; Peter's answer comes immediately: “Lord to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Holy One of God” (Vulg. “thou art the Christ, the Son of God”). Christ Himself unmistakably accords Peter a special precedence and the first place among the Apostles, and designates him for such on various occasions. Peter was one of the three Apostles (with James and John) who were with Christ on certain special occasions the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Mark, v, 37; Luke, viii, 51); the Transfiguration of Christ (Matt., xvii, 1; Mark, ix, 1; Luke, ix, 28), the Agony in the Garden of Gethsemani (Matt. xxvi, 37; Mark, xiv, 33). On several occasions also Christ favoured him above all the others; He enters Peter's boat on Lake Genesareth to preach to the multitude on the shore (Luke, v, 3); when He: was miraculously walking upon the waters, He called Peter to come to Him across the lake (Matt., xiv, 28 sqq.); He sent him to the lake to catch the fish in whose mouth Peter found the stater to pay as tribute (Matt., xvii, 24 sqq.).

In especially solemn fashion Christ accentuated Peter's precedence among the Apostles, when, after Peter had recognized Him as the Messias, He promised that he would be head of His flock. Jesus was then dwelling with His Apostles in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, engaged on His work of salvation. As Christ's coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of the Messias, many different views concerning Him were current. While journeying along with His Apostles, Jesus asks them: “ Whom do men say that the Son of man is? “ The Apostles answered: “ Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets”. Jesus said to them: “But whom do you say that I am?” Simon said: “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God “. And Jesus answering said to him: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ (Matt., xvi, 13-20; Mark, viii, 27-30; Luke, ix, 18-21).

By the word “rock” the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for “Peter” and “rock”. His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words “bind” and “loose” are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops. Entirely inconsistent and in itself untenable is the position of Protestants who (like Schnitzer in recent times) assert that the primacy of the Roman bishops cannot be deduced from the precedence which Peter held among the Apostles. Just as the essential activity of the Twelve Apostles in building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear with their deaths, so surely did the Apostolic Primacy of Peter not completely vanish. As intended by Christ, it must have continued its existence and development in a form appropriate to the ecclesiastical organism, just as the office of the Apostles continued in an appropriate form. Objections have been raised against the genuineness of the wording of the passage, but the unanimous testimony of the manuscripts, the parallel passages in the other Gospels, and the fixed belief of pre-Constantine literature furnish the surest proofs of the genuineness and untampered state of the text of Matthew (cf. “ Stimmen aus MariaLaach”, I, 1896,129 sqq.; “Theologie und Glaube”, II, 1910,842 sqq.).

In spite of his firm faith in Jesus, Peter had so far no clear knowledge of the mission and work of the Saviour. The sufferings of Christ especially, as contradictory to his worldly conception of the Messias, were inconceivable to him, and his erroneous conception occasionally elicited a sharp reproof from Jesus (Matt., xvi, 21-23, Mark, viii, 31-33). Peter's irresolute character, which continued notwithstanding his enthusiastic fidelity to his Master, was clearly revealed in connexion with the Passion of Christ. The Saviour had already told him that Satan had desired him that he might sift him as wheat. But Christ had prayed for him that his faith fail not, and, being once converted, he confirms his brethren (Luke, xxii, 31-32) . Peter's assurance that he was ready to accompany his Master to prison and to death, elicited Christ's prediction that Peter should deny Him (Matt., xxvi, 30-35; Mark, xiv, 26-31; Luke, xxii, 31-34; John, xiii,3338). When Christ proceeded to wash the feet of His disciples before the Last Supper, and came first to Peter, the latter at first protested, but, on Christ's declaring that otherwise he should have no part with Him, immediately said: “Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head” (John, xiii, 1-10). In the Garden of Gethsemani Peter had to submit to the Saviour's reproach that he had slept like the others, while his Master suffered deadly anguish (Mark, xiv 37). At the seizing of Jesus, Peter in an outburst of anger wished to defend his Master by force, but was forbidden to do so. He at first took to flight with the other Apostles (John, xviii, 10-11; Matt., xxvi, 56); then turning he followed his captured Lord to the courtyard of the High Priest, and there denied Christ, asserting explicitly and swearing that he knew Him not (Matt., xxvi, 58-75; Mark, xiv, 54-72; Luke, xxii, 54-62; John, xviii, 15-27). This denial was of course due, not to a lapse of interior faith in Christ, but to exterior fear and cowardice. His sorrow was thus so much the greater, when, after his Master had turned His gaze towards him, he clearly recognized what he had done. In spite of this weakness, his position as head of the Apostles was later confirmed by Jesus, and his precedence was not less conspicuous after the Resurrection than before.

The women, who were the first to find Christ's tomb empty, received from the angel a special message for Peter (Mark, xvi, 7). To him alone of the Apostles did Christ appear on the first day after the Resurrection (Luke, xxiv, 34; I Cor., xv, 5). But, most important of all, when He appeared at the Lake of Genesareth, Christ renewed to Peter His special commission to feed and defend His flock, after Peter had thrice affirmed his special love for his Master (John, xxi, 15-17). In conclusion Christ foretold the violent death Peter would have to suffer, and thus invited him to follow Him in a special manner (ibid., 20-23). Thus was Peter called and trained for the Apostleship and clothed with the primacy of the Apostles, which he exercised in a most unequivocal manner after Christ's Ascension into Heaven.

II. ST. PETER IN JERUSALEM AND PALESTINE AFTER THE ASCENSION

Our information concerning the earliest Apostolic activity of St. Peter in Jerusalem, Judaea, and the districts stretching northwards as far as Syria is derived mainly from the first portion of the Acts of the Apostles, and is confirmed by parallel statements incidentally in the Epistles of St. Paul. Among the crowd of Apostles and disciples who, after Christ's Ascension into Heaven from Mount Olivet, returned to Jerusalem to await the fulfilment of His promise to send the Holy Ghost, Peter is immediately conspicuous as the leader of all, and is henceforth constantly recognized as the head of the original Christian community in Jerusalem. He takes the initiative in the appointment to the Apostolic College of another witness of the life, death and resurrection of Christ to replace Judas (Acts, i, 15-26). After the descent of the Holy Ghost on the feast of Pentecost, Peter standing at the head of the Apostles delivers the first public sermon to proclaim the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and wins a large number of Jews as converts to the Christian community (ibid. ii, 14-41). First of the Apostles he worked a public miracle, when with John he went up into the temple and cured the lame man at the Beautiful Gate. To the people crowding in amazement about the two Apostles, he preaches a long sermon in the Porch of Solomon, and brings new increase to the flock of believers (ibid., iii, 1-iv, 4).

In the subsequent examinations of the two Apostles before the Jewish High Council, Peter defends in undismayed and impressive fashion the cause of Jesus and the obligation and liberty of the Apostles to preach the Gospel (ibid., iv, 5-21). When Ananias and Sapphira attempt to deceive the Apostles and the people Peter appears as judge of their action, and God executes the sentence of punishment passed by the Apostle by causing the sudden death of the two guilty parties (ibid., v, 1-11). By numerous miracles God confirms the Apostolic activity of Christ's confessors, and here also there is special mention of Peter, since it is recorded that the inhabitants of Jerusalem and neighbouring towns carried their sick in their beds into the streets so that the shadow of Peter might fall on them and they might be thereby healed (ibid., v 12-16). The ever-increasing number of the faithful caused the Jewish supreme council to adopt new measures against the Apostles, but “Peter and the Apostles “ answer that they “ ought to obey God rather than men” (ibid., v, 29 sqq.). Not only in Jerusalem itself did Peter labour in fulfilling the mission entrusted to him by his Master. He also retained connexion with the other Christian communities in Palestine, and preached the Gospel both there and in the lands situated farther north. When Philip the Deacon had won a large number of believers in Samaria, Peter and John were deputed to proceed thither from Jerusalem to organize the community and to invoke the Holy Ghost to descend upon the faithful. Peter appears a second time as judge, in the case of the magician Simon, who had wished to purchase from the Apostles the power that he also could invoke the Holy Ghost (ibid., viii, 14-25). On their way back to Jerusalem, the two Apostles preached the joyous tidings of the Kingdom of God. Subsequently, after Paul's departure from Jerusalem and conversion before Damascus, the Christian communities in Palestine were left at peace by the Jewish council.

Peter now undertook an extensive missionary tour, which brought him to the maritime cities, Lydda Joppe, and Caesarea. In Lydda he cured the palsied Eneas, in Joppe he raised Tabitha (Dorcas) from the dead; and at Caesarea, instructed by a vision which he had in Joppe, he baptized and received into the Church the first non-Jewish Christians, the centurion Cornelius and his kinsmen (ibid., ix, 31-x, 48). On Peter's return to Jerusalem a little later, the strict Jewish Christians, who regarded the complete observance of the Jewish law as binding on all, asked him why he had entered and eaten in the house of the uncircumcised. Peter tells of his vision and defends his action, which was ratified by the Apostles and the faithful in Jerusalem (ibid., xi, 1-18)

A confirmation of the position accorded to Peter by Luke, in the Acts, is afforded by the testimony of St. Paul (Gal., i, 18-20). After his conversion and three years' residence in Arabia, Paul came to Jerusalem “to see Peter”. Here the Apostle of the Gentiles clearly designates Peter as the authorized head of the Apostles and of the early Christian Church. Peter's long residence in Jerusalem and Palestine soon came to an end. Herod Agrippa I began (A. D. 42-44) a new persecution of the Church in Jerusalem; after the execution of James, the son of Zebedee, this ruler had Peter cast into prison, intending to have him also executed after the Jewish Pasch was over. Peter, however, was freed in a miraculous manner, and, proceeding to the house of the mother of John Mark, where many of the faithful were assembled for prayer, informed them of his liberation from the hands of Herod, commissioned them to communicate the fact to James and the brethren, and then left Jerusalem to go to “another place” (Acts, xii, 1-18). Concerning St. Peter's subsequent activity we receive no further connected information from the extant sources, although we possess short notices of certain individual episodes of his later life.

III. MISSIONARY JOURNEYS IN THE EAST; COUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES

St. Luke does not tell us whither Peter went after his liberation from the prison in Jerusalem. From incidental statements we know that he subsequently made extensive missionary tours in the East, although we are given no clue to the chronology of his journeys. It is certain that he remained for a time at Antioch; he may even have returned thither several times. The Christian community of Antioch was founded by Christianized Jews who had been driven from Jerusalem by the persecution (ibid., xi, 19 sqq.). Peter's residence among them is proved by the episode concerning the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law even by Christianized pagans, related by St. Paul (Gal., ii, 11-21). The chief Apostles in Jerusalem—the “ pillars “, Peter, James, and John—had unreservedly approved St. Paul's Apostolate to the Gentiles, while they themselves intended to labour principally among the Jews. While Paul was dwelling in Antioch (the date cannot be accurately determined), St. Peter came thither and mingled freely with the non-Jewish Christians of the community, frequenting their houses and sharing their meals. But when the Christianized Jews arrived in Jerusalem, Peter, fearing lest these rigid observers of the Jewish ceremonial law should be scandalized thereat, and his influence with the Jewish Christians be imperilled, avoided thenceforth eating with the uncircumcised.

His conduct made a great impression on the other Jewish Christians at Antioch, so that even Barnabas, St. Paul's companion, now avoided eating with the Christianized pagans. As this action was entirely opposed to the principles and practice of Paul, and might lead to confusion among the converted pagans, this Apostle addressed a public reproach to St. Peter, because his conduct seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept circumcision and the Jewish law. The whole incident is another proof of the authoritative position of St. Peter in the early Church, since his example and conduct was regarded as decisive. But Paul, who rightly saw the inconsistency in the conduct of Peter and the Jewish Christians, did not hesitate to defend the immunity of converted pagans from the Jewish Law. Concerning Peter's subsequent attitude on this question St. Paul gives us no explicit information. But it is highly probable that Peter ratified the contention of the Apostles of the Gentiles, and thenceforth conducted himself towards the Christianized pagans as at first. As the principal opponents of his views in this connexion, Paul names and combats in all his writings only the extreme Jewish Christians coming “from James” (i. e., from Jerusalem). While the date of this occurrence, whether before or after the Council of the Apostles, cannot be determined, it probably took place after the council (see below). The later tradition, which existed as early as the end of the second century (Origen, “Hom. vi in Lucam”; Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, III, xxxvi), that Peter founded the Church of Antioch, indicates the fact that he laboured a long period there, and also perhaps that he dwelt there towards the end of his life and then appointed Evodrius, the first of the line of Antiochian bishops, head of the community. This latter view would best explain the tradition referring the foundation of the Church of Antioch to St. Peter.

It is also probable that Peter pursued his Apostolic labours in various districts of Asia Minor for it can scarcely be supposed that the entire period between his liberation from prison and the Council of the Apostles was spent uninterruptedly in one city, whether Antioch, Rome, or elsewhere. And, since he subsequently addressed the first of his Epistles to the faithful in the Provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia, one may reasonably assume that he had laboured personally at least in certain cities of these provinces, devoting himself chiefly to the Diaspora. The Epistle, however, is of a general character, and gives little indication of personal relations with the persons to whom it is addressed. The tradition related by Bishop Dionysius of Corinth (in Eusebius, “ Hist. Eccl. “, II, xxviii) in his letter to the Roman Church under Pope Soter (165-74), that Peter had (like Paul) dwelt in Corinth and planted the Church there, cannot be entirely rejected. Even though the tradition should receive no support from the existence of the “ party of Cephas”, which Paul mentions among the other divisions of the Church of Corinth (I Cor., i, 12; iii, 22), still Peter's sojourn in Corinth (even in connexion with the planting and government of the Church by Paul) is not impossible. That St. Peter undertook various Apostolic journeys (doubtless about this time, especially when he was no longer permanently residing in Jerusalem) is clearly established by the general remark of St. Paul in I Cor., ix, 5, concerning the “rest of the apostles, and the brethren [cousins] of the Lord, and Cephas”, who were travelling around in the exercise of their Apostleship.

Peter returned occasionally to the original Christian Church of Jerusalem, the guidance of which was entrusted to St. James, the relative of Jesus, after the departure of the Prince of the Apostles (A. D. 42-44). The last mention of St. Peter in the Acts (xv, 1-29; cf. Gal., ii, 1-10) occurs in the report of the Council of the Apostles on the occasion of such a passing visit. In consequence of the trouble caused by extreme Jewish Christians to Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, the Church of this city sent these two Apostles with other envoys to Jerusalem to secure a definitive decision concerning the obligations of the converted pagans (see JUDAIZERS). In addition to James, Peter and John were then (about A. D. 50-51) in Jerusalem. In the discussion and decision of this important question, Peter naturally exercised a decisive influence. When a great divergence of views had manifested itself in the assembly, Peter spoke the deciding word. Long before, in accordance with God's testimony, he had announced the Gospels to the heathen (conversion of Cornelius and his household); why, therefore, attempt to place the Jewish yoke on the necks of converted pagans? After Paul and Barnabas had related how God had wrought among the Gentiles by them, James, the chief representative of the Jewish Christians, adopted Peter's view and in agreement therewith made proposals which were expressed in an encyclical to the converted pagans.

The occurrences in Caesarea and Antioch and the debate at the Council of Jerusalem show clearly Peter's attitude towards the converts from paganism. Like the other eleven original Apostles, he regarded himself as called to preach the Faith in Jesus first among the Jews (Acts, x, 42), so that the chosen people of God might share in the salvation in Christ, promised to them primarily and issuing from their midst. The vision at Joppe and the effusion of the Holy Ghost over the converted pagan Cornelius and his kinsmen determined Peter to admit these forthwith into the community of the faithful, without imposing on them the Jewish Law. During his Apostolic journeys outside Palestine, he recognized in practice the equality of Gentile and Jewish converts, as his original conduct at Antioch proves. His aloofness from the Gentile converts, out of consideration for the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, was by no means an official recognition of the views of the extreme Judaizers, who were so opposed to St. Paul. This is established clearly and incontestably by his attitude at the Council of Jerusalem. Between Peter and Paul there was no dogmatic difference in their conception of salvation for Jewish and Gentile Christians. The recognition of Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles (Gal., ii, 1-9) was entirely sincere, and excludes all question of a fundamental divergence of views. St. Peter and the other Apostles recognized the converts from paganism as Christian brothers on an equal footing; Jewish and Gentile Christians formed a single Kingdom of Christ. If therefore Peter devoted the preponderating portion of his Apostolic activity to the Jews, this arose chiefly from practical considerations, and from the position of Israel as the Chosen People. Baur's hypothesis of opposing currents of “Petrinism” and “Paulinism” in the early Church is absolutely untenable, and is today entirely rejected by Protestants.

IV. ACTIVITY AND DEATH IN ROME; BURIAL PLACE

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands. That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ's prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not— “And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John, xxi, 18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter. St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: “ The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (v, 13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Apoc., xvii, 5; xviii, 10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).

From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i. e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, i). In connexion with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle. Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A. D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): “Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles—St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory “. He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom “among us” (en hemin, i. e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chap. Iv). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.

In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive” (Ad. Rom., iv). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there. Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to. the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says: “You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom” (In Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xxviii). Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” (Adv. haer., III, iii; cf. III, i). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.

In his “ Hypotyposes” (Eusebius, “ Hist. Eccl. “, IV, xiv), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: “After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above). Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In “De Praescriptione”, xxxv, he says: “If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John” (scil. the Baptist) . In “Scorpiace “, xv, he also speaks of Peter's crucifixion. “The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (“On Baptism”, ch. v) that there is “no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Adv. Marc., IV, v).

The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his “Dialogue with Proclus” (in Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xxviii) directed against the Montanists: “But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church”. By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to “the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there” (i. e. at Rome). There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment (“Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat”, ed. Preuschen, Tubingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter's death in Rome. The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome (Lipsius, “Acta Apostolorum apocrypha”, I, Leipzig, 1891, pp. 1 sqq., 78 sqq., 118 sqq., cf. Idem, “Die apokryphen Apostelgeschlchten und Apostellegenden ', II, i, Brunswick, 1887, pp. 84 sqq.).

In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure. It was asserted that the tradition concerning Peter's residence in Rome first originated in Ebionite circles, and formed part of the Legend of Simon the Magician, in which Paul is opposed by Peter as a false Apostle under Simon; just as this fight was transplanted to Rome, 80 also sprang up at an early date the legend of Peter's activity in that capital (thus in Baur, “Paulus”, 2nd ed., 245 sqq., followed by Hase and especially Lipsius, “ Die quellen der romischen Petrussage”, Kiel, 1872). But this hypothesis is proved fundamentally untenable by the whole character and purely local importance of Ebionitism, and is directly refuted by the above genuine and entirely independent testimonies, which are at least as ancient. It has moreover been now entirely abandoned by serious Protestant historians (cf., e. g., Harnack's remarks in “ Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur “, II, i, 244, n. 2) . A more recent attempt was made by Erbes (Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., 1901, pp. 1 sqq., 161 sqq.) to demonstrate that St. Peter was martyred at Jerusalem. He appeals to the apocryphal Acts of St. Peter, in which two Romans, Albinus and Agrippa, are mentioned as persecutors of the Apostles. These he identifies with the Albinus, Procurator of Judaea, and successor of Festus and Agrippa II, Prince of Galilee, and thence conciudes that Peter was condemned to death and sacrificed by this procurator at Jerusalem. The untenableness of this hypothesis becomes immediately apparent from the mere fact that our earliest definite testimony concerning Peter's death in Rome far antedates the apocryphal Acts; besides, never throughout the whole range of Christian antiquity has any city other than Rome been designated the place of martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul.

Although the fact of St. Peter's activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn. The narratives contained in the apocryphal literature of the second century concerning the supposed strife between Peter and Simon Magus belong to the domain of legend. From the already mentioned statements regarding the origin of the Gospel of St. Mark we may conclude that Peter laboured for a long period in Rome. This conclusion is confirmed by the unanimous voice of tradition which, as early as the second half of the second century, designates the Prince of the Apostles the. founder of the Roman Church. It is widely held that Peter paid a first visit to Rome after he had been miraculously liberated from the prison in Jerusalem; that, by “another place”, Luke meant Rome, but omitted the name for special reasons. It is not impossible that Peter made a missionary journey to Rome about this time (after 42 A. D.), but such a journey cannot be established with certainty. At any rate, we cannot appeal in support of this theory to the chronological notices in Eusebius and Jerome, since, although these notices extend back to the chronicles of the third century, they are not old traditions, but the result of calculations on the basis of episcopal lists. Into the Roman list of bishops dating from the second century, there was introduced in the third century (as we learn from Eusebius and the “Chronograph of 354”) the notice of a twenty-five years' pontificate for St. Peter, but we are unable to trace its origin. This entry consequently affords no ground for the hypothesis of a first visit by St. Peter to Rome after his liberation from prison (about 42). We can therefore admit only the possibility of such an early visit to the capital.

The task of determining the year of St. Peter's death is attended with similar difficulties. In the fourth century, and even in the chronicles of the third, we find two different entries. In the “Chronicle” of Eusebius the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of Peter and Paul (67-68); this date, accepted by Jerome, is that generally held The year 67 is also supported by the statement, also accepted by Eusebius and Jerome, that Peter came to Rome under the Emperor Claudius (according to Jerome, in 42), and by the above-mentioned tradition of the twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter (cf. Bartolini, “ Sopra l'anno 67 se fosse quello del martirio dei gloriosi Apostoli “, Rome, 1868) . A different statement is furnished by the “ Chronograph of 354 “ (ed. Duchesne, “Liber Pontificalis”, I, 1 sqq.). This refers St. Peter's arrival in Rome to the year 30, and his death and that of St. Paul to 55.

Duchesne has shown that the dates in the “Chronograph” were inserted in a list of the popes which contains only their names and the duration of their pontificates, and then, on the chronological supposition that the year of Christ's death was 29, the year 30 was inserted as the beginning of Peter's pontificate, and his death referred to 55, on the basis of the twenty-five years' pontificate (op. cit., introd., vi sqq.). This date has however been recently defended by Kellner (“Jesus von Nazareth u. seine Apostel im Rahmen der Zeitgeschichte”, Ratisbon, 1908; “Tradition geschichtl. Bearbeitung u. Legende in der Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters”, Bonn, 1909). Other historians have accepted the year 65 (e. g., Bianchini, in his edition of the “Liber Pontilicalis” in P. L.. CXXVII. 435 sqq.) or 66 (e. g. Foggini, “De romani b. Petri itinere et episcopatu”, Florence, 1741; also Tillemont). Harnack endeavoured to establish the year 64 (i . e . the beginning of the Neronian persecution) as that of Peter's death (“Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. bis Eusebius”, pt. II, “Die Chronologie”, I, 240 sqq.). This date, which had been already supported by Cave, du Pin, and Wieseler, has been accepted by Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l'eglise, I, 64). Erbes refers St. Peter's death to 22 Feb., 63, St. Paul's to 64 (“Texte u. Untersuchungen”, new series, IV, i, Leipzig, 1900, “Die Todestage der Apostel Petrus u. Paulus u. ihre rom. Denkmaeler”). The date of Peter's death is thus not yet decided; the period between July, 64 (outbreak of the Neronian persecution), and the beginning of 68 (on 9 July Nero fled from Rome and committed suicide) must be left open for the date of his death. The day of his martyrdom is also unknown; 29 June, the accepted day of his feast since the fourth century, cannot be proved to be the day of his death (see below).

Concerning the manner of Peter's death, we possess a tradition—attested to by Tertullian at the end of the second century (see above) and by Origen (in Eusebius, “ Hist. Eccl.”, II, i)—that he suffered crucifixion. Origen says: “Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer”. As the place of execution may be accepted with great probability the Neronian Gardens on the Vatican, since there, according to Tacitus, were enacted in general the gruesome scenes of the Neronian persecution; and in this district, in the vicinity of the Via Cornelia and at the foot of the Vatican Hills, the Prince of the Apostles found his burialplace. Of this grave (since the word tropaion was, as already remarked, rightly understood of the tomb) Caius already speaks in the third century. For a time the remains of Peter lay with those of Paul in a vault on the Appian Way at the place ad Catacumbas, where the Church of St. Sebastian (which on its erection in the fourth century was dedicated to the two Apostles) now stands. The remains had probably been brought thither at the beginning of the Valerian persecution in 258, to protect them from the threatened desecration when the Christian burial-places were confiscated. They were later restored to their former resting-place, and Constantine the Great had a magnificent basilica erected over the grave of St. Peter at the foot of the Vatican Hill. This basilica was replaced by the present St. Peter's in the sixteenth century. The vault with the altar built above it (confessio) has been since the fourth century the most highly venerated martyr's shrine in the West. In the substructure of the altar, over the vault which contained the sarcophagus with the remains of St. Peter, a cavity was made. This was closed by a small door in front of the altar. By opening this door the pilgrim could enjoy the great privilege of kneeling directly over the sarcophagus of the Apostle. Keys of this door were given as previous souvenirs (cf. (Gregory of Tours, “De gloria martyrum”, I, xxviii).

The memory of St. Peter is also closely associated with the Catacomb of St. Priscilla on the Via Salaria. According to a tradition, current in later Christian antiquity, St. Peter here instructed the faithful and administered baptism. This tradition seems to have been based on still earlier monumental testimonies. The catacomb is situated under the garden of a villa of the ancient Christian and senatorial family, the Acilii Glabriones, and its foundation extends back to the end of the first century; and since Acilius Glabrio (q. v. ), consul in 91, was condemned to death under Domitian as a Christian, it is quite possible that the Christian faith of the family extended back to Apostolic times, and that the Prince of the Apostles had been given hospitable reception in their house during his residence at Rome. The relations between Peter and Pudens whose house stood on the site of the present titular church of Pudens (now Santa Pudentiana) seem to rest rather on a legend.

Concerning the Epistles of St. Peter, see PETER, EPISTLES OF SAINT; concerning the various apocrypha bearing the name of Peter, especially the Apocalypse and the Gospel of St. Peter, see APOCRYPHA. The apocryphal sermon of Peter (kerygma), dating from the second half of the second century, was probably a collection of supposed sermons by the Apostle; several fragments are preserved by Clement of Alexandria (cf. Dobschuts, “Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht” in “Texte u. Untersuchungen”, XI, i, Leipzig, 1893).

V. FEASTS OF ST. PETER

As early as the fourth century a feast was celebrated in memory of Sts. Peter and Paul on the same day, although the day was not the same in the East as in Rome. The Syrian Martyrology of the end of the fourth century, which is an excerpt from a Greek catalogue of saints from Asia Minor, gives the following feasts in connexion with Christmas (25 Dec.): 26 Dec., St. Stephen; 27 Dec., Sts. James and John; 28 Dec., Sts. Peter and Paul. In St. Gregory of Nyssa's panegyric on St. Basil we are also informed that these feasts of the Apostles and St. Stephen follow immediately after Christmas. The Armenians celebrated the feast also on 27 Dec.; the Nestorians on the second Friday after the Epiphany. It is evident that 28 (27) Dec. was (like 26 Dec. for St. Stephen) arbitrarily selected, no tradition concerning the date of the saints' death being forthcoming. The chief feast of Sts. Peter and Paul was kept in Rome on 29 June as early as the third or fourth century. The list of feasts of the martyrs in the Chronograph of Philocalus appends this notice to the date— “III. Kal. Jul. Petri in Catacumbas et Pauli Ostiense Tusco et Basso Cose.” (=the year 258) . The “ Martyrologium Hieronyminanum” has, in the Berne MS., the following notice for 29 June: “Romae via Aurelia natale sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, Petri in Vaticano, Pauli in via Ostiensi, utrumque in catacumbas, passi sub Nerone, Basso et Tusco consulibus” (ed. de Rossi—Duchesne, 84).

The date 258 in the notices shows that from this year the memory of the two Apostles was celebrated on 29 June in the Via Appia ad Catacumbas (near San Sebastiano fuori le mura), because on this date the remains of the Apostles were translated thither (see above). Later, perhaps on the building of the church over the graves on the Vatican and in the Via Ostiensis, the remains were restored to their former resting-place: Peter's to the Vatican Basilica and Paul's to the church on the Via Ostiensis. In the place Ad Catacumbas a church was also built as early as the fourth century in honour of the two Apostles. From 258 their principal feast was kept on 29 June, on which date solemn Divine Service was held in the above-mentioned three churches from ancient times (Duchesne, “Origines du culte chretien”, 5th ed., Paris, 1909, 271 sqq., 283 sqq.; Urbain, “Ein Martyrologium der christl. Gemeinde zu Rom an Anfang des 5. Jahrh.”, Leipzig, 1901, 169 sqq.; Kellner, “Heortologie”, 3rd ed., Freiburg, 1911, 210 sqq.). Legend sought to explain the temporary occupation by the Apostles of the grave Ad Catacumbas by supposing that, shortly after their death, the Oriental Christians wished to steal their bodies and bring them to the East. This whole story is evidently A product of popular legend. (Concerning the Feast of the Chair of Peter, see CHAIR OF PETER.)

A third Roman feast of the Apostles takes place on 1 August: the feast of St. Peter's Chains. This feast was originally the dedication feast of the church of the Apostle, erected on the Esquiline Hill in the fourth century. A titular priest of the church, Philippus, was papal legate at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The church was rebuilt by Sixtus III (43240) at the expense of the Byzantine imperial family. Either the solemn consecration took place on 1 August, or this was the day of dedication of the earlier church. Perhaps this day was selected to replace the heathen festivities which took place on 1 August. In this church, which is still standing (S. Pietro in Vincoli), were probably preserved from the fourth century St. Peter's chains, which were greatly venerated, small filings from the chains being regarded as precious relics. The church thus early received the name. in Vinculis, and the feast of 1 August became the the feast of St. Peter's Chains (Duchesne, op. cit., 286 sqq.; Kellner, loc. cit., 216 sqq.). The memory of both Peter and Paul was later associated also with two places of ancient Rome: the Via Sacra, outside the Forum, where the magician Simon was said to have been hurled down at the prayer of Peter and the prison Tullianum, or Carcer Mamertinus, where the Apostles were supposed to have been kept until their execution. At both these places, also, shrines of the Apostles were erected, and that of the Mamertine Prison still remains in almost its original form from the early Roman time. These local commemorations of the Apostles are based on legends, and no special celebrations are held in the two churches. It is, however, not impossible that Peter and Paul were actually confined in the chief prison in Rome at the fort of the Capitol, of which the present Carcer Mamertinus is a remnant.

VI. REPRESENTATIONS OF ST. PETER

The oldest extant is the bronze medallion with the heads of the Apostles; this dates from the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, and is preserved in the Christian Museum of the Vatican Library. Peter has a strong, roundish head, prominent jaw-bones, a receding forehead, thick, curly hair and beard. (See illustration in CATACOMBS.) The features are so individual that it partakes of the nature of a portrait. This type is also found in two representations of St. Peter in a chamber of the Catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus, dating from the second half of the third century (Wilpert, “Die Malerein der Katakomben Rom”, plates 94 and 96). In the paintings of the catacombs Sts. Peter and Paul frequently appear as interceders and advocates for. the dead in the representations of the Last Judgment (Wilpert, 390 sqq.), and as introducing an Orante (a praying figure representing the dead) into Paradise.

In the numerous representations of Christ in the midst of His Apostles, which occur in the paintings of the catacombs and carved on sarcophagi, Peter and Paul always occupy the places of honour on the right and left of the Saviour. In the mosaics of the Roman basilicas, dating from the fourth to the ninth centuries, Christ appears as the central figure, with Sts. Peter and Paul on His right and left, and besides these the saints especially venerated in the particular church. On sarcophagi and other memorials appear scenes from the life of St. Peter: his walking on Lake Genesareth, when Christ summoned him from the boat; the prophecy of his denial; the washing of his feet; the raising of Tabitha from the dead; the capture of Peter and the conducting of him to the place of execution. On two gilt glasses he is represented as Moses drawing water from the rock with his staff; the name Peter under the scene shows that he is regarded as the guide of the people of God in the New Testament.

Particularly frequent in the period between the fourth and sixth centuries is the scene of the delivery of the Law to Peter, which occurs on various kinds of monuments. Christ hands St. Peter a folded or open scroll, on which is often the inscription Lex Domini (Law of the Lord) or Dominus legem dat (The Lord gives the law). In the mausoleum of Constantina at Rome (S. Costanza, in the Via Nomentana) this scene is given as a pendant to the delivery of the Law to Moses. In representations on fifth-century sarcophagi the Lord presents to Peter (instead of the scroll) the keys. In carvings of the fourth century Peter often bears a staff in his hand (after the fifth century, a cross with a long shaft, carried by the Apostle on his shoulder), as a kind of sceptre indicative of Peter's office. From the end of the sixth century this is replaced by the keys (usually two, but sometimes three), which henceforth became the attribute of Peter. Even the renowned and greatly venerated bronze statue in St. Peter's possesses them; this, the best known representation of the Apostle, dates from the last period of Christian antiquity (Grisar, “Analecta romana”, I, Rome, 1899, 627 sqq.).

BIRKS Studies of the Life and character of St. Peter (LONDON, 1887), TAYLOR, Peter the Apostle, new ed. by BURNET AND ISBISTER (London, 1900); BARNES, St. Peter in Rome and his Tomb on the Vatican Hill (London, 1900): LIGHTFOOT, Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed., pt. 1, VII. (London, 1890), 481sq., St. Peter in Rome; FOUARD Les origines de l'Eglise: St. Pierre et Les premières années du christianisme (3rd ed., Paris 1893); FILLION, Saint Pierre (2nd ed Paris, 1906); collection Les Saints; RAMBAUD, Histoire de St. Pierre apôtre (Bordeaux, 1900); GUIRAUD, La venue de St Pierre à Rome in Questions d'hist. et d'archéol. chrét. (Paris, 1906); FOGGINI, De romano D. Petr; itinere et episcopatu (Florence, 1741); RINIERI, S. Pietro in Roma ed i primi papi secundo i piu vetusti cataloghi della chiesa Romana (Turin, 19O9); PAGANI, Il cristianesimo in Roma prima dei gloriosi apostoli Pietro a Paolo, e sulle diverse venute de' principi degli apostoli in Roma (Rome, 1906); POLIDORI, Apostolato di S. Pietro in Roma in Civiltà Cattolica, series 18, IX (Rome, 1903), 141 sq.; MARUCCHI, Le memorie degli apostoli Pietro e Paolo in Roma (2nd ed., Rome, 1903); LECLER, De Romano S. Petri episcopatu (Louvain, 1888); SCHMID, Petrus in Rome oder Aufenthalt, Episkopat und Tod in Rom (Breslau, 1889); KNELLER, St. Petrus, Bischof von Rom in Zeitschrift f. kath. Theol., XXVI (1902), 33 sq., 225sq.; MARQUARDT, Simon Petrus als Mittel und Ausgangspunkt der christlichen Urkirche (Kempten, 1906); GRISAR, Le tombe apostoliche al Vaticano ed alla via Ostiense in Analecta Romana, I (Rome, 1899), sq.

J. P. KIRSCH

Plagues of Egypt

Ten calamities inflicted on the Egyptians to overcome Pharao's obstinacy and force him to let the Israelites to leave Egypt (Ex., vii, 8-xii, 30 ; Ps. lxxvii, 42-51 ; civ, 26-36). Moses's notification of God's will to Pharao only produced an aggravation of the condition of the Israelites, and the wonder of changing Aaron's rod into a serpent, which was wrought in proof of Moses's Divine mission, made no impression, as it was imitated by the Egyptian magicians (Ex., v; vii, 8-13). A series of afflictions, culminating in the destruction of all the first-born of Egypt, was required before Pharao yielded. Of the ten plagues seven were produced through the agency of Moses an Aaron or of Moses alone, and three, namely the fourth, fifth, and tenth, by the direct action of God Himself. The interval of time within which they occurred cannot be stated with certainty. The last four must have followed in close succession between the beginning of March and the first days of April. For when the hail fell barley was in the ear and flax in bud, which in Lower Egypt happens about March, and the Israelites left on the 14th of Nisan, which falls in the latter part of March or the early part of April. The first six seem also to have succeeded one another at short intervals, but the interval, if any, between them and the last four is uncertain. The Scriptural account produces the impression that the ten plagues were a series of blows in quick succession, and this is what the case would seem to have required. The scene of the interviews of Moses and Aaron with Pharao was Tanis or Soan in Lower Egypt (Ps. lxxvii, 12, 43).

In the first plague, the water of the river and of all the canals and pools of Egypt was turned to blood and became corrupted, so that the Egyptians could not drink it, and even the fishes died (Ex., vii, 14-25). Commentators are divided as to whether the water was really changed into blood, or whether only a phenomenon was produced similar to the red discoloration of the Nile during its annual rise, which gave the water the appearance of blood. The latter view is now commonly accepted. It should be noted, however, that the red discoloration is not usual in Lower Egypt, and that, when so discoloured, the water is not unfit to drink, though it is during the first, or green, stage of the rise. Besides, the change did not take place during the inundation (cf. Ex., vii, 15). The second plague came seven days later. Aaron stretched his hand upon the waters and there appeared an immense number of frogs, which covered the land and penetrated into the land to the great discomfort of the inhabitants. Pharao now promised to let the Israelites go to sacrifice in the desert if the frogs were removed, but broke his promise when this was done. The third plague consisted of swarms of gnats which tormented man and beast. The magicians who in some way had imitated the first two wonders could not imitate this, and were forced to exclaim “This is the finger of God”. The fourth was a pest of flies. Pharao now agreed to allow the Israelites a three days' journey into the desert, but when at the prayer of Moses the flies were taken away, he failed to keep his promise. The fifth was a murrain or cattle-pest, which killed the beasts of the Egyptians, while sparing those of the Israelites. The sixth consisted in boils which broke out both on men and beasts. The seventh was a fearful hailstorm. “The hail destroyed through all the land of Egypt all things that were in the field, both man and beast: and the hail smote every herb of the field, and it broke every tree of the country. Only in the land of Gessen, where the children of Israel were, the hail fell not.” The frightened king again promised and again became obstinate when the storm was stopped. At the threat of an unheard of plague of locusts (the eighth) the servants of Pharao interceded with him and he consented to let the men go, but refused to grant more. Moses therefore stretched forth his rod, and a south wind brought innumerable locusts which devoured what the hailstorm had left. The ninth plague was a horrible darkness which for three days covered all Egypt except the land of Gessen. The immediate cause of this plague was probably the hamsin, a south or south-west wind charged with sand and dust, which blows about the spring equinox and at times produces darkness rivalling that of the worst London fogs. As Pharao, though willing to allow the departure, insisted that the flocks should be left behind, the final and most painful blow (the tenth) was struck — the destruction in one night of all the first-born of Egypt.

As the plagues of Egypt find parallels in natural phenomena of the country, many consider them as merely natural occurrences. The last evidently does not admit of a natural explanation, since a pestilence does not select its victims according to method. The others, howsoever natural they may be at times, must in this instance be considered miraculous by reason of the manner in which they were produced. They belong to the class of miracles which the theologians call preternatural. For not to mention that they were of extraordinary intensity, and that the first occurred at an unusual time and place and with unusual effects, they happened at the exact time and in the exact manner predicted. Most of them were produced at Moses's command, and ceased at his prayer, in one case at the time set by Pharao himself. Purely natural phenomena, it is clear, do not occur under such conditions. Moreover, the ordinary phenomena, which were well known to the Egyptians, would not have produced such a deep impression on Pharao and his court.

VIGOUROUX, La Bible et les découv. mod., II (Paris, 1889), 285 sqq.; HUMMELAUER, Comment. in Exod. et Levit. ( Paris, 1897), 83 sqq.; SELBST, Handbuch zur biblisch. Geschichte (Freiburg, 1910), 405 sqq.

F. BECHTEL

Blessed Oliver Plunket

Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, born at Loughcrew near Oldcastle, County Meath, Ireland, 1629; died 11 July, 1681. His is the brightest name in the Irish Church throughout the whole period of persecution. He was connected by birth with the families which had just then been ennobled, the Earls of Roscommon and Fingall, as well as with Lords Louth and Dunsany. Till his sixteenth year, his education was attended to by Patrick Plunket, Abbot of St. Mary's, Dublin, brother of the first Earl of Fingall, afterwards bishop, successively, of Ardagh and Meath. He witnessed the first triumphs of the Irish Confederates, and, as an aspirant to the priesthood, set out for Rome in 1645, under the care of Father Scarampo, of the Roman Oratory. As a student of the Irish College of Rome, which some twenty years before had been founded by Cardinal Ludovisi, his record was particularly brilliant. The Rector, in after years, attested that he “devoted himself with such ardour to philosophy, theology, and mathematics, that in the Roman College of the Society of Jesus he was justly ranked amongst the foremost in talent, diligence, and progress in his studies, and he pursued with abundant fruit the course of civil and canon law at the Roman Sapienza, and everywhere, at all times, was a model of gentleness, integrity, and piety”. Promoted to the priesthood in 1654, Dr. Plunket was deputed by the Irish bishops to act as their representative in Rome. Throughout the period of the Cromwellian usurpation and the first years of Charles II's reign he most effectually pleaded the cause of the suffering Church, whilst at the same time he discharged the duties of theological professor at the College of Propaganda. In the Congregation of Propaganda, 9 July, 1669, he was appointed to the primatial see of Armagh, and was consecrated, 30 Nov., at Ghent, in Belgium, by the Bishop of Ghent, assisted by the Bishop of Ferns and another bishop. The pallium was granted him in Consistory 28 July, 1670.

Dr. Plunket lingered for some time in London, using his influence ti mitigate the rigour of the administration of the anti-Catholic laws in Ireland, and it was only in the middle of March, 1670, that he entered on his apostolate in Armagh. From the very outset he was most zealous in the exercise of the sacred ministry. Within three months he had administered the Sacrament of Confirmation to about 10,000 of the faithful, some of them being sixty years old, and, writing to Rome in December, 1673, he was able to announce that “during the past four years”, he had confirmed no fewer that 48,655 people. To bring this sacrament within the reach of the suffering faithful he had to undergo the severest hardships, often with no other food than a little oaten bread; he had to seek out their abodes on the mountains and in the woods, and as a rule, it was under the broad canopy of heaven that the Sacrament was administered, both flock and pastor being exposed to the wind and rain. He made extraordinary efforts to bring the blessings of education within the reach of the Catholic youth. In effecting this during the short interval of peace that marked the beginning of his episcopate his efforts were most successful. He often refers in his letters to the high school which he opened at Drogheda, at this time the second city in the kingdom. He invited Jesuit Fathers from Rome to take charge of it, and very soon it had one hundred and fifty boys on the roll, of whom no fewer than forty were sons of the Protestant gentry. He held frequent ordinations, celebrated two Provincial Synods, and was untiring in rooting out abuses and promoting piety.

One incident of his episcopate merits special mention: there was a considerable number of so-called Tories scattered through the province of Ulster, most of whom had been despoiled of their property under the Act of Settlement. They banded themselves together in the shelter of the mountain fastnesses and, as outlaws, lived by the plunder of those around them. Anyone who sheltered them incurred the penalty of death from the Government, anyone who refused them such shelter met with death at their hands. Dr. Plunket, with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, went in search of them, not without great risk, and reasoning with them in a kind and paternal manner induced them to renounce their career of plundering. He moreover obtained pardons for them so that they were ble to transfer themselves to other countries, and thus peace was restored throughout the whole province. The contemporary Archbishop of Cashel, Dr. Brennan, who was the constant companion of Dr. Plunket, in a few words sketches the fruitful zeal of the primate: “During the twelve years of his residence here he proved himself vigilant, zealous, and indefatigable, nor do we find, within the memory of those of the present century, that any primate or metropolitan visited his diocese and province with such solicitude and pastoral zeal as he did, — benefitting, as far as was in his power, the needy; wherefore he was applauded and honoured by both clergy and people”.

The storm of persecution burst with renewed fury on the Irish Church in 1673; the schools were scattered, the chapels were closed. Dr. Plunket, however, would not forsake his flock. His palace thenceforward was some thatched hut in a remote part of his diocese. As a rule, in company with the Archbishop of Cashel, he lay concealed in the woods or on the mountains, and with such scanty shelter that through the roof they could at night count the stars of the sky. He tells their hardship in one of his letters: “The snow fell heavily, mixed with hailstones, which were very large and hard. A cutting north wind blew in our faces, and snow and hail beat so dreadfully in our eyes that up to the present we have scarcely been able to see with them. Often we were in danger in the valleys of being lost and suffocated in the snow, till at length we arrived at the house of a reduced gentleman who had nothing to lose. But, for our misfortune, he had a stranger in his house by whom we did not wish to be recognized, hence we were placed in a garret without chimney, and without fire, where we have been for the past eight days. May it redound to the glory of God, the salvation of our souls, and of the flock entrusted to our charge”.

Writs for the arrest of Dr. Plunket were repeatedly issued by the Government. At length he wwas seized and cast into prison in Dublin Castle, 6 Dec., 1679, and a whole host of perjured informers were at hand to swear his life away. In Ireland the character of those witnesses was well known and no jury would listen to their perjured tales, but in London it was not so, and accordingly his trial was transferred to London. In fact, the Shaftesbury Conspiracy against the Catholics in England could not be sustained without the supposition that a rebellion was being organized in Ireland. The primate would, of course, be at the head of such a rebellion. His visits to the Tories of Ulster were now set forth as part and parcel of such a rebellion. A French or Spanish fleet was chartered by him to land an army at Carlingford Bay, and other such accusations were laid to his charge. But there was no secret as to the fact that his being a Catholic bishop was his real crime. Lord Brougham in “Lives of the Chief Justices of England” brands Chief Justice Pemberton, who presided at the trial of Dr. Plunket, as betraying the cause of justice and bringing disgrace on the English Bar. This Chief Justice set forth from the bench that there could be no greater crime than to endeavour to propagate the Catholic Faith, “than which (he declared) there is not anything more displeasing to God or more pernicious to mankind in the world”. Sentence of death was pronounced as a matter of course, to which the primate replied in a joyous and emphatic voice: : “Deo Gratias”.

On Friday, 11 July (old style the 1st), 1681, Dr. Plunket, surrounded by a numerous guard of military, was led to Tyburn for execution. Vast crowds assembled along the route and at Tyburn. As Dr. Brennan, Archbishop of Cashel, in an official letter to Propaganda, attests, all were edified and filled with admiration, “because he displayed such a serenity of countenance, such a tranquillity of mind and elevation of soul, that he seemed rather a spouse hastening to the nuptial feast, than a culprit led forth to the scaffold”. From the scaffold he delivered a discourse worthy of an apostle and martyr. An eye-witness of the execution declared that by his discourse and by his heroism in death he gave more glory to religion than he could have won for it by many years of a fruitful apostolate. His remains were gathered with loving care and interred apart in St. Giles' churchyard. In the first months of 1684 they were transferred to the Benedictine monastery at Lambspring in Germany, whence after 200 years they were with due veneration translated and enshrined in St. Gregory's College, Downside, England. The head, in excellent preservation, was from the first enshrined apart, and since 1722 has been in the care of the Dominican Nuns at their Siena Convent at Drogheda, Ireland. Pilgrims come from all parts of Ireland and from distant countries to venerate this relic of the glorious martyr, and many miracles are recorded.

The name of Archbishop Plunket appears on the list of the 264 heroic servants of God who shed their blood for the Catholic Faith in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which was officially submitted for approval to the Holy See, and for which the Decree was signed by Leo XIII 9 Dec., 1886, authorizing their Cause of Beatification to be submitted to the Congregation of Rites. The Blessed Oliver Plunket's martyrdom closed the long series of deaths for the faith, at Tyburn. The very next day after his execution, the bubble of conspiracy burst. Lord Shaftesbury, the chief instigator of the persecution, was consigned to the Tower, and his chief perjured witness Titus Oates was thrown into gaol. For a few years the blessings of comparative peace were restored to the Church of Ireland.

Writings

The Martyr's discourse at Tyburn was repeatedly printed and translated into other languages. Dr. Plunket published in 1672 a small octavo of fifty-six pages with the title “Jus Primatiale”; or the Ancient Pre-eminence of the See of Armagh above all other archbishoprics in the kingdom of Ireland, asserted by “O.A.T.H.P.”, which initials represent “Oliverus Armacanus Totius Hiberniae Primas”, i.e. “Oliver of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland”.

PATRICK FRANCIS CARDINAL MORAN

St. Polycarp

Martyr (A.D. 69-155)

Our chief sources of information concerning St. Polycarp are: (1) the Epistles of St. Ignatius; (2) St. Polycarp's own Epistle to the Philippians; (3) sundry passages in St. Irenaeus; (4) the Letter of the Smyrnaeans recounting the martyrdom of St. Polycarp.

The Epistles of St. Ignatius

Four out of the seven genuine epistles of St. Ignatius were written from Smyrna. In two of these -Magnesians and Ephesians- he speaks of Polycarp. The seventh Epistle was addressed to Polycarp. It contains little or nothing of historical interest in connexion with St. Polycarp. In the opening words St. Ignatius gives glory to God “that it hath been vouchsafed to me to see thy face”. It seems hardly safe to infer, with Pearson and Lightfoot, from these words that the two had never met before.

The Epistle of St. Polycarp to the Philippians

The Epistle of St. Polycarp was a reply to one from the Philippians, in which they had asked St. Polycarp to address them some words of exhortation; to forward by his own messenger a letter addressed by them to the Church of Antioch; and to send them any epistles of St. Ignatius which he might have. The second request should be noted. St. Ignatius had asked the Churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia to send a messenger to congratulate the Church of Antioch on the restoration of peace; presumably, therefore, when at Philippi, he gave similar instructions to the Philippians. This is one of the many respects in which there is such complete harmony between the situations revealed in the Epistles of St. Ignatius and the Epistle of St. Polycarp, that it is hardly possible to impugn the genuineness of the former without in some way trying to destroy the credit of the latter, which happens to be one of the best attested documents of antiquity. In consequence some extremists, anti-episcopalians in the seventeenth century, and members of the Tubingen School in the nineteenth, boldly rejected the Epistle of Polycarp. Others tried to make out that the passages which told most in favour of the Ignatian epistles were interpolations.

These theories possess no interest now that the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles has practically ceased to be questioned. The only point raised which had any show of plausibility (it was sometimes used against the genuineness, and sometimes against the early date of St. Polycarp's Epistle) was based on a passage in which it might at first sight seem that Marcion was denounced: “For every one who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is a devil, and whosoever perverteth the oracles of the Lord (to serve) his own lusts, and saith there is neither resurrection nor judgment, this man is a first-born of Satan.” St. Polycarp wrote his epistle before he had heard of St. Ignatius' martyrdom. Now, supposing the passage just quoted to have been aimed at Marcion (whom, on one occasion, as we shall presently see, St. Polycarp called to his face “the first-born of Satan”), the choice lies between rejecting the epistle as spurious on account of the anachronism, or bringing down its date, and the date of St. Ignatius' martyrdom to A.D. 130-140 when Marcion was prominent. Harnack seems at one time to have adopted the latter alternative; but he now admits that there need be no reference to Marcion at all in the passage in question (Chronologie, I, 387-8). Lightfoot thought a negative could be proved. Marcion, according to him, cannot be referred to because nothing is said about his characteristic errors, e.g., the distinction between the God of the Old and the God of the New Testament; and because the antinomianism ascribed to “the first-born of Satan” is inapplicable to the austere Marcion (Lightfoot, St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, I, 585; all references to Lightfoot (L), unless otherwise stated, will be to this work).

When Lightfoot wrote it was necessary to vindicate the authenticity of the Ignatian epistles and that of St. Polycarp. If the former were forgeries, the latter, which supports - it might almost be said presupposes- them, must be a forgery from the same hand. But a comparison between Ignatius and Polycarp shows that this is an impossible hypothesis. The former lays every stress upon episcopacy, the latter does not even mention it. The former is full of emphatic declarations of the doctrine of the Incarnation, the two natures of Christ, etc. In the latter these matters are hardly touched upon. “The divergence between the two writers as regards Scriptural quotations is equally remarkable. Though the seven Ignatian letters are many times longer than Polycarp's Epistle, the quotations in the latter are incomparably more numerous, as well as more precise, than in the former. The obligations to the New Testament are wholly different in character in the two cases. The Ignatian letters do, indeed, show a considerable knowledge of the writings included in our Canon of the New Testament; but this knowledge betrays itself in casual words and phrases, stray metaphors, epigrammatic adaptations, and isolated coincidences of thought...On the other hand in Polycarp's Epistle sentence after sentence is frequently made up of passages from the Evangelical and Apostolic writings...But this divergence forms only part of a broader and still more decisive contrast, affecting the whole style and character of the two writings. The profuseness of quotations in Polycarp's Epistle arises from a want of originality...On the other hand the letters of Ignatius have a marked individuality. Of all early Christian writings they are pre-eminent in this respect” (op.cit., 595-97).

Various passages in St. Irenaeus

In St. Irenaeus, Polycarp comes before us preeminently as a link with the past. Irenaeus mentions him four times: (a) in connection with Papias; (b) in his letter to Florinus; (c) in his letter to Pope Victor; (d) at the end of the celebrated appeal to the potior principalitas of the Roman Church.

In connection with Papias

From “Adv. Haer.”, V,xxxiil, we learn that Papias was “a hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp”.

In his letter to Florinus

Florinus was a Roman presbyter who lapsed into heresy. St. Irenaeus wrote him a letter of remonstrance (a long extract from which is preserved by Eusebius, II, E., V,xx), in which he recalled their common recollections of Polycarp. “These opinions...Florinus are not of sound judgment...I saw thee when I was still a boy in Lower Asia in company with Polycarp, while thou wast faring prosperously in the royal court, and endeavouring to stand well with him. For I distincly remember the incidents of that time better than events of recent occurrence...I can describe the very place in which the Blessed Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed...his personal appearance...and how he would describe his intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words...I can testify in the sight of God, that if the blessed and apostolic elder had heard anything of this kind, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and said after his wont, 'O good God, for what times hast thou kept me that I should endure such things?'...This can be shown from the letters which he wrote to the neighbouring Churches for their confirmmation etc.”. Lightfoot (op.cit., 448) will not fix the date of the time when St. Irenaeus and Florinus were fellow-pupils of St. Polycarp more definitely than somewhere between 135 and 150. There are in fact no data to go upon.

In his letter to Pope Victor

The visit of St. Polycarp to Rome is described by St. Irenaeus in a letter to Pope Victor written under the following circumstances. The Asiatic Christians differed from the rest of the Church in their manner of observing Easter. While the other Churches kept the feast on a Sunday, the Asiatics celebrated it on the 14th of Nisan, whatever day of the week this might fall on. Pope Victor tried to establish uniformity, and when the Asaitic Churches refused to comply, excommunicated them. St. Irenaeus remonstrated with him in a letter, part of which is preserved by Eusebius (H. E., V, xxiv), in which he particularly contrasted the moderation displayed in regard to Polycarp by Pope Anicetus with the conduct of Victor. “Among these (Victor's predecessors) were the presbyters before Soter. They neither observed it (14th Nisan) themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet, though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed....And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp...nor Polycarp Anicetus.... But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace”, etc.

There is a difficulty connected with this visit of Polycarp to Rome. According to the Chronicle of Eusebius in St. Jerome's version (the Armenian version is quite untrustworthy) the date of Anicetus' accession was A.D. 156-57. Now the probable date of St. Polycarp's martyrdom is February, 155. The fact of the visit to Rome is too well attested to be called into question. We must, therefore, either give up the date of martyrdom, or suppose that Eusebius post-dated by a year or two the accession of Anicetus. There is nothing unreasonable in this latter hypothesis, in view of the uncertainty which so generally prevails in chronological matters (for the date of the accession of Anicetus see Lightfoot, “St. Clement I”, 343).

In his famous passage on the Roman Church

We now come to the passage in St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III,3) which brings out in fullest relief St. Polycarp's position as a link with the past. Just as St. John's long life lengthened out the Apostolic Age, so did the four score and six years of Polycarp extend the sub-Apostolic Age, during which it was possible to learn by word of mouth what the Apostles taught from those who had been their hearers. In Rome the Apostolic Age ended about A.D. 67 with the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the sub-Apostolic Age about a quarter of a century later when St. Clement, “who had seen the blessed Apostles”, died. In Asia the Apostolic Age lingered on till St. John died about A.D. 100; and the sub-Apostolic Age till 155, when St. Polycarp was martyred. In the third book of his treatise “Against Heresies”, St. Irenaeus makes his celebrated appeal to the “successions” of the bishops in all the Churches. He is arguing against heretics who professed to have a kind of esoteric tradition derived from the Apostles. To whom, demands St. Irenaeus, would the Apostles be more likely to commit hidden mysteries than to the bishops to whom they entrusted their churches? In order then to know what the Apostles taught, we must have recourse to the “successions” of bishops throughout the world. But as time and space would fail if we tried to enumerate them all one by one, let the Roman Church speak for the rest. Their agreement with her is a manifest fact by reason of the position which she holds among them (“for with this Church on account of its potior principalitas the whole Church, that is, the faithful from every quarter, must needs agree”, etc.).

Then follows the list of the Roman bishops down to Eleutherius, the twelfth from the Apostles, the ninth from Clement, “who had both seen and conversed with the blessed Apostles”. From the Roman Church, representing all the churches, the writer then passes on to two Churches, that of Smyrna, in which, in the person of Polycarp, the sub-Apostolic Age had been carried down to a time still within living memory, and the Church of Ephesus, where, in the person of St. John, the Apostolic Age had been prolonged till “the time of Trajan”. Of Polycarp he says, “he was not only taught by the Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, but also received his appointment in Asia from the Apostles as Bishop in the Church of Smyrna”. He then goes on to speak of his own personal acquaintance with Polycarp, his martyrdom, and his visit to Rome, where he converted many heretics. He then continues, “there are those who heard him tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, when he went to take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed away from the room without bathing, with the words 'Let us flee lest the room should fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within'. Yea, and Polycarp himself, also, when on one occasion Marcion confronted him and said 'Recognise us', replied, 'Ay, ay, I recognise the first-born of Satan' “.

The Smyrnaean letter describing St. Polycarp's martyrdom

Polycarp's martyrdom is described in a letter from the Church of Smyrna, to the Church of Philomelium “and to all the brotherhoods of the holy and universal Church”, etc. The letter begins with an account of the persecution and the heroism of the martyrs. Conspicuous among them was one Germanicus, who encouraged the rest, and when exposed to the wild beasts, incited them to slay him. His death stirred the fury of the multitude, and the cry was raised “Away with the atheists; let search be made for Polycarp”. But there was one Quintus, who of his own accord had given himself up to the persecutors. When he saw the wild beasts he lost heart and apostatized. “Wherefore”, comment the writers of the epistle, “we praise not those who deliver themselves up, since the Gospel does not so teach us”. Polycarp was persuaded by his friends to leave the city and conceal himself in a farm-house. Here he spent his time in prayer, “and while praying he falleth into a trance three days before his apprehension; and he saw his pillow burning with fire. And he turned and said unto those that were with him, 'it must needs be that I shall be burned alive' “. When his pursuers were on his track he went to another farm-house. Finding him gone they put two slave boys to the torture, and one of them betrayed his place of concealment. Herod, head of the police, sent a body of men to arrest him on Friday evening. Escape was still possible, but the old man refused to flee, saying, “the will of God be done”. He came down to meet his pursuers, conversed affably with them, and ordered food to be set before them. While they were eating he prayed, “remembering all, high and low, who at any time had come in his way, and the Catholic Church throughout the world”. Then he was led away.

Herod and Herod's father, Nicetas, met him and took him into their carriage, where they tried to prevail upon him to save his life. Finding they could not persuade him, they pushed him out of the carriage with such haste that he bruised his shin. He followed on foot till they came to the Stadium, where a great crowd had assembled, having heard the news of his apprehension. “As Polycarp entered into the Stadium a voice came to him from heaven: 'Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man'. And no one saw the speaker, but those of our people who were present heard the voice.” It was to the proconsul, when he urged him to curse Christ, that Polycarp made his celebrated reply: “Fourscore and six years have I served Him, and he has done me no harm. How then can I curse my King that saved me.” When the proconsul had done with the prisoner it was too late to throw him to the beasts, for the sports were closed. It was decided, therefore, to burn him alive. The crowd took it upon itself to collect fuel, “the Jews more especially assisting in this with zeal, as is their wont” (cf. the Martyrdom of Pionius). The fire, “like the sail of a vessel filled by the wind, made a wall round the body” of the martyr, leaving it unscathed. The executioner was ordered to stab him, thereupon, “there came forth a quantity of blood so that it extinguished the fire”. (The story of the dove issuing from the body probably arose out of a textual corruption. See Lightfoot, Funk, Zahn. It may also have been an interpolation by the pseudo-Pionius.)

The officials, urged thereto by the Jews, burned the body lest the Christians “should abandon the worship of the Crucified One, and begin to worship this man”. The bones of the martyr were collected by the Christians, and interred in a suitable place. “Now the blessed Polycarp was martyred on the second day of the month of Xanthicus, on the seventh day before the Kalends of March, on a great Sabbath at the eighth hour. He was apprehended by Herodes...in the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus etc.” This subscription gives the following facts: the martyrdom took place on a Saturday which fell on 23 February. Now there are two possible years for this, 155 and 166. The choice depends upon which of the two Quadratus was proconsul of Asia. By means of the chronological data supplied by the rhetorician Aelius Aristides in certain autobiographical details which he furnishes, Waddington who is followed by Lightfoot (“St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp”, I, 646 sq.), arrived at the conclusion that Quadratus was proconsul in 154-55 (the proconsul's year of office began in May). Schmid, a full account of whose system will be found in Harnack's “Chronologie”, arguing from the same data, came to the conclusion that Quadratus' proconsulship fell in 165-66.

For some time it seemed as if Schmid's system was likely to prevail, but it has failed on two points:

• Aristides tells us that he was born when Jupiter was in Leo. This happened both in 117 and 129. Schmid's system requires the later of these two dates, but the date has been found to be impossible. Aristides was fifty-three years and six months old when a certain Macrinus was governor of Asia. “Now Egger (in the Austrian 'Jahreshefte', Nov., 1906) has published an inscription recording the career of Macrinus, which was erected to him while he was governing Asia, and he pointed out that as the birth of Aristides was either in 117 or 129, the government of Macrinus must have been either in 170-171, or 182-183, and he has shown that the later date is impossible”. (Ramsay in “The Expository Times”, Jan., 1907.)
• Aristides mentions a Julianus who was proconsul of Asia nine years before Quadratus. Now there was a Claudius Julianus, who is proved by epigraphic and numismatic evidence to have been proconsul of Asia in 145. Schmid produced a Salvius Julianus who was consul in 148 and might, therefore, have been the Proconsul of Asia named by Aristides. But an inscription discovered in Africa giving the whole career of Salvius Julianus disposes of Schmid's hypothesis. The result of the new evidence is that Salvius Julianus never governed Asia, for he was proconsul of Africa, and it was not permitted that the same person should hold both of these high offices. The rule is well known; and the objection is final and insurmountable (Ramsay, “Expos. Times”, Feb., 1904. Ramsay refers to an article by Mommsen, “Savigny Zeitschrift fur Rechtgeschichte”, xxiii, 54). Schmid's system, therefore, disappears, and Waddington's, in spite of some very real difficulties (Quadratus' proconsulship shows a tendency to slip a year out of place), is in possession. The possibitity of course remains that the subscription was tampered with by a later hand. But 155 must be approximately correct if St. Polycarp was appointed bishop by St. John.

There is a life of St. Polycarp by pseudo-Pionius, compiled probably in the middle of the fourth century. It is “altogether valueless as a contribution to our knowledge of Polycarp. It does not, so far as we know, rest on any tradition, early or late, and may probably be regarded as a fiction of the author's own brain” (Lightfoot, op.cit., iii, 431). The postscript to the letter to the Smyrneans: “This account Gaius copied from the papers of Irenaeus...and I, Socrates, wrote it down in Corinth...and I, Pionius again wrote it down”, etc. probably came from the pseudo-Pionius. The very copious extracts from the Letter of the Smyrneans given by Eusebius are a guarantee of the fidelity of the text in the MSS. that have come down.

F.J.BACCHUS

The Pope

(Ecclesial Latin papa from Gr. papas, a variant of pappas father, in classical Latin pappas — Juvenal, “Satires” 6:633).

The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, >section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth. Besides the bishopric of the Roman Diocese, certain other dignities are held by the pope as well as the supreme and universal pastorate: he is Archbishop of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy and the adjacent islands, and sole Patriarch of the Western Church. The Church's doctrine as to the pope was authoritatively declared in the First Vatican Council in the Constitution “Pastor Aeternus”. The four chapters of that Constitution deal respectively with the office of Supreme Head conferred on St. Peter, the perpetuity of this office in the person of the Roman pontiff, the pope's jurisdiction over the faithful, and his supreme authority to define in all questions of faith and morals. This last point has been sufficiently discussed in the article INFALLIBILITY, and will be only incidentally touched on here.

The present article is divided as follows:

• I. Institution of a Supreme Head by Christ
• II. Primacy of the Roman See
• III. Nature and Extent of the Papal Power
• IV. Jurisdictional Rights and Prerogatives of the Pope
• V. Primacy of Honour: Titles and Insignia
• VI. Election of the Popes
• VII. Chronological List of the Popes

I. INSTITUTION OF A SUPREME HEAD BY CHRIST

The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:. “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27). He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself: “Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church.” The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term “rock” as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church (see CHURCH, THE, I).

Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter. The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Osee 8:1; 9:15; 1 Cor. 3:9-17, Eph. 2:20-2; 1 Tim. 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; I Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house. He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation. It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isiah 28:16) and Christ's own words (Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. He is therefore assigning to Peter, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular manner.

In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna: “And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.” In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place. Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to “bind” and to “loose” — words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification. The meaning of this passage does not seem to have been challenged by any writer until the rise of the sixteenth-century heresies. Since then a great variety of interpretations have been put forward by Protestant controversialists. These agree in little save in the rejection of the plain sense of Christ's words. Recent Anglican controversy tends to the view that the reward promised to St. Peter consisted in the prominent part taken by him in the initial activities of the Church, but that he was never more than primus inter pares among the Apostles (see Lightfoot, “Apost. Fathers”, II, 480; Gore, “Roman Cath. Claims”, v; Puller, “Primitive Saints, etc.”, lect. 3). It is manifest that this is quite insufficient as an explanation of the terms of Christ's promise. For a more detailed consideration of the passage the following works may be consulted: Knabenbauer, “In Matt.”, ad loc; Passaglia, “ De Praerog. B. Petri.”, II, iii-x; Palmieri “De Rom. Pont.”, 225-78.

The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock — the sheep and the lambs alike — in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, “Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep” indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Sept.): “Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron”. The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: “Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these” ? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God's flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd. The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom: “He saith to him, 'Feed my sheep'. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren.... If anyone should say 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?', I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world” [”Hom. 88 (87) in Joan.”, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2]. Even certain Protestant commentators (e.g. Hengstenberg and recently Weizsäcker) frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. On the other hand Dr. Gore (op. cit., 79) and Mr. Puller (op. cit., 119), relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria (“In Joan.” 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.

The position of St. Peter after the Ascension, as shown in the Acts of the Apostles, realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the chief of the Apostolic band — not primus inter pares, but the undisputed head of the Church (see CHURCH, THE, III). If then Christ, as we have seen, established His Church as a society subordinated to a single supreme head, it follows from the very nature of the case that this office is perpetual, and cannot have been a mere transitory feature of ecclesiastical life. For the Church must endure to the end the very same organization which Christ established. But in an organized society it is precisely the constitution which is the essential feature. A change in constitution transforms it into a society of a different kind. If then the Church should adopt a constitution other than Christ gave it, it would no longer be His handiwork. It would no longer be the Divine kingdom established by Him. As a society it would have passed through essential modifications, and thereby would have become a human, not a Divine institution. None who believe that Christ came on earth to found a Church, an organized society destined to endure for ever, can admit the possibility of a change in the organization given to it by its Founder. The same conclusion also follows from a consideration of the end which, by Christ's declaration, the supremacy of Peter was intended to effect. He was to give the Church strength to resist her foes, so that the gates of hell should not prevail against her. The contest with the powers of evil does not belong to the Apostolic age alone. It is a permanent feature of the Church's life. Hence, throughout the centuries the office of Peter must be realized in the Church, in order that she may prevail in her age-long struggle. Thus an analysis of Christ's words shows us that the perpetuity of the office of supreme head is to be reckoned among the truths revealed in Scripture. His promise to Peter conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but established a permanent office in the Church. And in this sense, as will appear in the next section, His words were understood by Latin and Greek Fathers alike.

II. PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE

We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts:

• (a) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and
• (b) that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship.

(a) that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome

It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there (Harnack, “Chronol.”, I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city e. g. Lightfoot, “Clement of Rome”, II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703. It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain. In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when references to it become frequent, and work backwards from this point. In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to “the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter” (Ep 55:8; cf. 59:14). Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Ep. 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor. In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (De Pud. 21) mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop. About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the “Liberian Catalogue” — “Clement of Rome”, 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops.

We have moreover a poem, “Adversus Marcionem”, written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus “the chair on which he himself had sat” (P.L., II 1077). These witnesses bring us to the beginning of the third century. In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate. Irenaeus, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Adv. haer. 1:27:1, and 3:4:3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop (Lightfoot was undoubtedly wrong in supposing that there was any doubt as to the correctness of the reading in the first of these passages. See “Zeitschrift für kath. Theol.”, 1902. In 3:4:3, the Latin version, it is true, gives “octavus”; but the Greek text as cited by Eusebius reads enatos. Irenaeus we know visited Rome in 177. At this date, scarcely more than a century after the death of St. Peter, he may well have come in contact with men whose fathers had themselves spoken to the Apostle. The tradition thus supported must be regarded as beyond all legitimate doubt. Lightfoot's suggestion (Clement 1:64), maintained as certain by Mr. Puller, that it had its origin in the Clementine romance, has proved singularly unfortunate. For it is now recognized that this work belongs not to the second, but to the fourth century. Nor is there the slightest ground for the assertion that the language of Irenaeus, 3:3:3, implies that Peter and Paul enjoyed a divided episcopate at Rome — an arrangement utterly unknown to the Church at any period. He does, it is true, speak of the two Apostles as together handing on the episcopate to Linus. But this expression is explained by the purpose of his argument, which is to vindicate against the Gnostics the validity of the doctrine taught in the Roman Church. Hence he is naturally led to lay stress on the fact that that Church inherited the teaching of both the great Apostles. Epiphanius (“Haer.” 27:6) would indeed seem to suggest the divided episcopate; but he has apparently merely misunderstood the words of Irenaeus.

(b) that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship

History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries. The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his “Epistle to the Corinthians”, written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. “If any man”, he says, “should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger” (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them “render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit”. The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as” the first step towards papal domination (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.

A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as “presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes] The expression, as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic writers, “pre-eminent in works of love”. The same century gives us the witness of St. Irenaeus — a man who stands in the closest connexion with the age of the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had been appointed. Bishop of Smyrna by St. John. In his work “Adversus Haereses” (3:3:2) he brings against the Gnostic sects of his day the argument that their doctrines have no support in the Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved by the Churches, which could trace the succession of their bishops back to the Twelve. He writes: “ Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree — that is the faithful everywhere — in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio]”. He then proceeds to enumerate the Roman succession from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles, who then occupied the see. Non-Catholic writers have sought to rob the passage of its importance by translating the word convenire “to resort to”, and thus understanding it to mean no more than that the faithful from every side (undique) resorted to Rome, so that thus the stream of doctrine in that Church was kept immune from error. Such a rendering, however, is excluded by the construction of the argument, which is based entirely on the contention that the Roman doctrine is pure by reason of its derivation from the two great Apostolic founders of the Church, Sts. Peter and Paul. The frequent visits made to Rome by members of other Christian Churches could contribute nothing to this. On the other hand the traditional rendering is postulated by the context, and, though the object of innumerable attacks, none other possessing any real degree of probability has been suggested in its place (see Dom. J. Chapman in “Revue Benedictine”, 1895, p. 48).

During the pontificate of St. Victor (189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the supremacy of the Roman See in regard to other Churches. A difference of practice between the Churches of Asia Minor and the rest of the Christian world in regard to the day of the Paschal festival led the pope to take action. There is some ground for supposing that the Montanist heretics maintained the Asiatic (or Quartodeciman) practice to be the true one: in this case it would be undesirable that any body of Catholic Christians should appear to support them. But, under any circumstances, such a diversity in the ecclesiastical life of different countries may well have constituted a regrettable feature in the Church, whose very purpose it was to bear witness by her unity to the oneness of God (John 17:21). Victor bade the Asiatic Churches conform to the custom of the remainder of the Church, but was met with determined resistance by Polycrates of Ephesus, who claimed that their custom derived from St. John himself. Victor replied by an excommunication. St. Irenaeus, however, intervened, exhorting Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account of a point which was not a matter of faith. He assumes that the nope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so. Similarly the resistance of the Asiatic bishops involved no denial of the supremacy of Rome. It indicates solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing his power in bidding them renounce a custom for which they had Apostolic authority. It was indeed inevitable that, as the Church spread and developed, new problems should present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. St. Victor, seeing that more harm than good would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty.

Not many years since a new and important piece of evidence was brought to light in Asia Minor dating from this period. The sepulchral inscription of Abercius, Bishop of Hieropolis (d. about 200), contains an account of his travels couched in allegorical language (see ABERCIUS, INSCRIPTION OF). He speaks thus of the Roman Church: “To Rome He [Christ] sent me to contemplate majesty: and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled.” It is difficult not to recognize in this description a testimony to the supreme position of the Roman See. Tertullian's bitter polemic, “De Pudicitia” (about 220), was called forth by an exercise of papal prerogative. Pope Callistus had decided that the rigid discipline which had hitherto prevailed in many Churches must be in u large measure relaxed. Tertullian, now lapsed into heresy, fiercely attacks “the peremptory edict”, which “the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops”, has sent forth. The words are intended as sarcasm: but none the less they indicate clearly the position of authority claimed by Rome. And the opposition comes, not from a Catholic bishop, but from a Montanist heretic.

The views of St. Cyprian (d. 258) in regard to papal authority have given rise to much discussion (see CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, SAINT). He undoubtedly entertained exaggerated views as to the independence of individual bishops, which eventually led him into serious conflict with Rome. Yet on the fundamental principle his position is clear. He attributed an effective primacy to the pope as the successor of Peter. He makes communion with the See of Rome essential to Catholic communion, speaking of it as “the principal Church whence episcopal unity had its rise” (ad Petri cathedram et ad ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est). The force of this expression becomes clear when viewed in the light of his doctrine as to the unity of the Church. This was he teaches, established by Christ when He founded His Church upon Peter. By this act the unity of the Apostolic college was ensured through the unity of the foundation. The bishops through all time form a similar college, and are bound in a like indivisible unity. Of this unity the Chair of Peter is the source. It fulfils the very office as principle of union which Peter fulfilled in his lifetime. Hence to communicate with an antipope such as Novatian would be schism (Ep. 68:1). He holds, also, that the pope has authority to depose an heretical bishop. When Marcian of Arles fell into heresy, Cyprian, at the request of the bishops of the province, wrote to urge Pope Stephen “to send letters by which, Marcian having been excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place” (Ep. 68:3). It is manifest that one who regarded the Roman See in this light believed that the pope possessed a real and effective Primacy. At the same time it is not to be denied that his views as to the right of the pope to interfere in the government of a diocese already subject to a legitimate and orthodox bishop were inadequate. In the rebaptism controversy his language in regard to St. Stephen was bitter and intemperate. His error on this point does not, however, detract from the fact that he admitted a primacy, not merely of honour but of jurisdiction. Nor should his mistake occasion too much surprise. It is as true in the Church as in merely human institutions that the full implications of a general principle are only realized gradually. The claim to apply it in a particular case is often contested at first, though later ages may wonder that such opposition was possible.

Contemporary with St. Cyprian was St. Dionysius of Alexandria. Two incidents bearing on the present question are related of him. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 7:9) gives us a letter addressed by him to St. Xystus II regarding the case of a man who, as it appeared, had been invalidly baptized by heretics, but who for many years had been frequenting the sacraments of the Church. In it he says that he needs St. Xystus's advice and begs for his decision (gnomen), that he may not fall into error (dedios me hara sphallomai). Again, some years later, the same patriarch occasioned anxiety to some of the brethren by making use of some expressions which appeared hardly compatible with a full belief in the Divinity of Christ. They promptly had recourse to the Holy See and accused him to his namesake, St. Dionysius of Rome, of heretical leanings. The pope replied by laying down authoritatively the true doctrine on the subject. Both events are instructive as showing us how Rome was recognized by the second see in Christendom as empowered to speak with authority on matters of doctrine. (St. Athanasius, “De sententia Dionysii” in P. G., XXV, 500). Equally noteworthy is the action of Emperor Aurelian in 270. A synod of bishops had condemned Paul of Samosata, Patriarch of Alexandria, on a charge of heresy, and had elected Domnus bishop in his place. Paul refused to withdraw, and appeal was made to the civil power. The emperor decreed that he who was acknowledged by the bishops of Italy and the Bishop of Rome, must be recognized as rightful occupant of the see. The incident proves that even the pagans themselves knew well that communion with the Roman See was the essential mark of all Christian Churches. That the imperial Government was well aware of the position of the pope among Christians derives additional confirmation from the saying of St. Cyprian that Decius would have sooner heard of the proclamation of a rival emperor than of the election of a new pope to fill the place of the martyred Fabian (Ep. 55:9).

The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles. It was not of course exercised in the same way as in later times. The Church was as yet in her infancy: and it would be irrational to look for a fully developed procedure governing the relations of the supreme pontiff to the bishops of other sees. To establish such a system was the work of time, and it was only gradually embodied in the canons. There would, moreover, be little call for frequent intervention when the Apostolic tradition was still fresh and vigorous in every part of Christendom. Hence the papal prerogatives came into play but rarely. But when the Faith was threatened, or the vital welfare of souls demanded action, then Rome intervened. Such were the causes which led to the intervention of St. Dionysius, St. Stephen, St. Callistus, St. Victor, and St. Clement, and their claim to supremacy as the occupants of the Chair of Peter was not disputed. In view of the purposes with which, and with which alone, these early popes employed their supreme power, the contention, so stoutly maintained by Protestant controversialists, that the Roman primacy had its origin in papal ambition, disappears. The motive which inspired these men was not earthly ambition, but zeal for the Faith and the consciousness that to them had been committed the responsibility of its guardianship. The controversialists in question even claim that they are justified in refusing to admit as evidence for the papal primacy any pronouncement emanating from a Roman source, on the ground that, where the personal interests of anyone are concerned, his statements should not be admitted as evidence (cf., for example, Puller, op. cit., 99, note). Such an objection is utterly fallacious. We are dealing here, not with the statements of an individual, but with the tradition of a Church — of that Church which, even from the earliest times, was known for the purity of its doctrine, and which had had for its founders and instructors the two chief Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. That tradition, moreover, is absolutely unbroken, as the pronouncements of the long series of popes bear witness. Nor does it stand alone. The utterances, in which the popes assert their claims to the obedience of all Christian Churches, form part and parcel of a great body of testimony to the Petrine privileges, issuing not merely from the Western Fathers but from those of Greece, Syria, and Egypt. The claim to reject the evidence which comes to us from Rome may be skilful as a piece of special pleading, but it can claim no other value. The first to employ this argument were some of the Gallicans. But it is deservedly repudiated as fallacious and unworthy by Bossuet in his “Defensio cleri gallicani” (II, 1. XI, c. vi).

The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmatically defined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution “Pastor Aeternus”:

• “If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be anathema.”
• “If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universal Church: OF that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. — let him be anathema” (Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion”, nn. 1823, 1825).

A question may be raised as to the precise dogmatic value of the clause of the second canon in which it is asserted that the Roman pontiff is Peter's successor. The truth is infallibly defined. But the Church has authority to define not merely those truths which form part of the original deposit of revelation, but also such as are necessarily connected with this deposit. The former are held fide divina, the latter fide infallibili. Although Christ established the perpetual office of supreme head, Scripture does not tell us that He fixed the law according to which the headship should descend. Granting that He left this to Peter to determine, it is plain that the Apostle need not have attached the primacy to his own see: he might have attached it to another. Some have thought that the law establishing the succession in the Roman episcopate became known to the Apostolic Church as an historic fact. In this case the dogma that the Roman pontiff is at all times the Church's chief pastor would be the conclusion from two premises — the revealed truth that the Church must ever have a supreme head, and the historic fact that St. Peter attached that office to the Roman See. This conclusion, while necessarily connected with revelation, is not part of revelation, and is accepted fide infallibili. According to other theologians the proposition in question is part of the deposit of faith itself. In this case the Apostles must have known the law determining the succession to the Bishop of Rome, not merely on human testimony, but also by Divine revelation, and they must have taught it as a revealed truth to their disciples. It is this view which is commonly adopted. The definition of the First Vatican to the effect that the successor of St. Peter is ever to be found in the Roman pontiff is almost universally held to be a truth revealed by the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and by them transmitted to the Church.

III. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PAPAL POWER

This section is divided as follows :

1. the pope's universal coercive jurisdiction
2. the pope's immediate and ordinary jurisdiction in regard of all the faithful, whether singly or collectively
3. the right of entertaining appeals in all ecclesiastical causes.

The relation of the pope's authority to that of ecumenical councils, and to the civil power, are discussed in separate articles (see COUNCILS, GENERAL; CIVIL ALLEGIANCE).

(1) The Pope's Universal Coercive Jurisdiction Not only did Christ constitute St. Peter head of the Church, but in the words, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed in heaven,” He indicated the scope of this headship. The expressions binding and loosing here employed are derived from the current terminology of the Rabbinic schools. A doctor who declared a thing to be prohibited by the law was said to bind, for thereby he imposed an obligation on the conscience. He who declared it to be lawful was said to loose). In this way the terms had come respectively to signify official commands and permissions in general. The words of Christ, therefore, as understood by His hearers, conveyed the promise to St. Peter of legislative authority within the kingdom over which He had just set him, and legislative authority carries with it as its necessary accompaniment judicial authority. Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose”; nothing is withheld. Further, Peter's authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. The sentences which he gives are to be forthwith ratified in heaven. They do not need the antecedent approval of any other tribunal. He is independent of all save the Master who appointed him. The words as to the power of binding and loosing are, therefore, elucidatory of the promise of the keys which immediately precedes. They explain in what sense Peter is governor and head of Christ's kingdom, the Church, by promising him legislative and judicial authority in the fullest sense. In other words, Peter and his successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offences against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to pardon sin. For sin is a breach of the laws of the supernatural kingdom, and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges. The gift of this particular power, however, is not expressed with full clearness in this passage. It needed Christ's words (John 20:23) to remove all ambiguity. Further, since the Church is the kingdom of the truth, so that an essential note in all her members is the act of submission by which they accept the doctrine of Christ in its entirety, supreme power in this kingdom carries with it a supreme magisterium — authority to declare that doctrine and to prescribe a rule of faith obligatory on all. Here, too, Peter is subordinated to none save his Master alone; he is the supreme teacher as he is the supreme ruler. However, the tremendous powers thus conferred are limited in their scope by their reference to the ends of the kingdom and to them only. The authority of Peter and his successors does not extend beyond this sphere. With matters that are altogether extrinsic to the Church they are not concerned.

Protestant controversialists contend strenuously that the words, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc.”, confer no special prerogative on Peter, since precisely the same gift, they allege, is conferred on all the Apostles (Matthew 18:18). It is, of course, the case that in that passage the same words are used in regard of all the Twelve. Yet there is a manifest difference between the gift to Peter and that bestowed on the others. In his case the gift is connected with the power of the keys, and this power, as we have seen, signified the supreme authority over the whole kingdom. That gift was not bestowed on the other eleven: and the gift Christ bestowed on them in Matthew 18:18, was received by them as members of the kingdom, and as subject to the authority of him who should be Christ's vicegerent on earth. There is in fact a striking parallelism between Matthew 16:19, and the words employed in reference to Christ Himself in Apocalypse 3:7: “He that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth.” In both cases the second clause declares the meaning of the first, and the power signified in the first clause by the metaphor of the keys is supreme. It is worthy of note that to no one else save to Christ and His chosen vicegerent does Holy Scripture attribute the power of the keys.

Certain patristic passages are further adduced by non-Catholics as adverse to the meaning given by the Church to Matthew 16:19. St. Augustine in several places tells us that Peter received the keys as representing the Church — e. g. “In Joan.”, tr. 1:12: “Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non facit hoc Ecclesia . . .; si hoc ergo in Ecclesia fit, Petrus quando claves accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit' (If this was said to Peter alone, the Church cannot exercise this power . . .; if this power is exercised in the Church, then when Peter received the keys, he signified the Holy Church); cf. tr. 124:5; Serm. 295. It is argued that, according to Augustine, the power denoted by the keys resides primarily not in Peter, but in the whole Church. Christ's gift to His people was merely bestowed on Peter as representing the whole body of the faithful. The right to forgive sins, to exclude from communion, to exercise any other acts of authority, is really the prerogative of the whole Christian congregation. If the minister performs these acts he does so as delegate of the people. The argument, which was formerly employed by Gallican controversialists (cf. Febronius, “De statu eccl.”, 1:76), however, rests on a misunderstanding of the passages. Augustine is controverting the Novatian heretics, who affirmed that the power to remit sins was a purely Personal gift to Peter alone, and had disappeared with him. He therefore asserts that Peter received it that it might remain for ever in the Church and be used for its benefit. It is in that sense alone that he says that Peter represented the Church. There is no foundation whatever for saying that he desired to affirm that the Church was the true recipient of the power conferred. Such a view would be contrary to the whole patristic tradition, and is expressly reprobated in the First Vatican Decree, cap. 1.

It appears from what has been said that, when the popes legislate for the faithful, when they try offenders by juridical process, and enforce their sentences by censures and excommunications, they are employing powers conceded to them by Christ. Their authority to exercise jurisdiction in this way is not founded on the grant of any civil ruler. Indeed the Church has claimed and exercised these powers from the very first. When the Apostles, after the Council of Jerusalem, sent out their decree as vested with Divine authority (Acts 15:28), they were imposing a law on the faithful. When St. Paul bids Timothy not receive an accusation against a presbyter unless it be supported by two or three witnesses, he clearly supposes him to be empowered to judge him in foro externo. This claim to exercise coercive jurisdiction has, as might be expected been denied by various heterodox writers. Thus Marsilius Patavinus (Defensor Pacis 2:4), Antonius de Dominis (De rep. eccl. 4:6-7, 9), Richer (De eccl. et pol. potestate, 11-12), and later the Synod of Pistoia, all alike maintained that coercive jurisdiction of every kind belongs to the civil power alone, and sought to restrict the Church to the use of moral means. This error has always been condemned by the Holy See. Thus, in the Bull “Auctorem Fidei”, Pius VI makes the following pronouncement regarding one of the Pistoian propositions: “[The aforesaid proposition] in respect of its insinuation that the Church does not possess authority to exact subjection to her decrees otherwise than by means dependent on persuasion: so far as this signifies that the Church 'has not received from God power, not merely to direct by counsel and persuasion but further to command by laws, and to coerce and compel the delinquent and contumacious by external and salutary penalties' [from the brief 'Ad assiduas' (1755) of Benedict XIV], leads to a system already condemned as heretical. “ Nor may it be held that the pope's laws must exclusively concern spiritual objects, and their penalties be exclusively of a spiritual character. The Church is a perfect society (see CHURCH XIII). She is not dependent on the permission of the State for her existence, but holds her charter from God. As a perfect society she has a right to all those means which are necessary for the attaining of her end. These, however, will include far more than spiritual objects and spiritual penalties alone: for the Church requires certain material possessions, such, for example, as churches, schools, seminaries, together with the endowments necessary for their sustentation. The administration and the due protection of these goods will require legislation other than what is limited to the spiritual sphere. A large body of canon law must inevitably be formed to determine the conditions of their management. Indeed, there is a fallacy in the assertion that the Church is a spiritual society; it is spiritual as regards the ultimate end to which all its activities are directed, but not as regards its present constitution nor as regards the means at its disposal. The question has been raised whether it be lawful for the Church, not merely to sentence a delinquent to physical penalties, but itself to inflict these penalties. As to this, it is sufficient to note that the right of the Church to invoke the aid of the civil power to execute her sentences is expressly asserted by Boniface VIII in the Bull “Unam Sanctam” This declaration, even if it be not one of those portions of the Bull in which the pope is defining a point of faith, is so clearly connected with the parts expressly stated to possess such character that it is held by theologians to be theologically certain (Palmieri, “De Romano Pontifice”, thes. 21). The question is of theoretical, rather than of practical importance, since civil Governments have long ceased to own the obligation of enforcing the decisions of any ecclesiastical authority. This indeed became inevitable when large sections of the population ceased to be Catholic. The state of things supposed could only exist when a whole nation was thoroughly Catholic in spirit, and the force of papal decisions was recognized by all as binding in conscience.

(2) The Pope's Immediate and Ordinary Jurisdiction

In the Constitution “Pastor Aeternus”, cap. 3, the pope is declared to possess ordinary, immediate, and episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful: “We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character” (Enchir., n. 1827). It is further added that this authority extends to all alike, both pastors and faithful, whether singly or collectively. An ordinary jurisdiction is one which is exercised by the holder, not by reason of any delegation, but in virtue of the office which he himself holds. All who acknowledge in the pope any primacy of jurisdiction acknowledge that jurisdiction to be ordinary. This point, therefore, does not call for discussion. That the papal authority is likewise immediate has, however, been called in question. Jurisdiction is immediate when its possessor stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he is charged. If, on the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the proximate superiors, and not with the subjects save through their intervention, his power is not Immediate but mediate. That the pope's jurisdiction is not thus restricted appears from the analysis already given of Christ's words to St. Peter. It has been shown that He conferred on him a primacy over the Church, which is universal in its scope, extending to all the Church's members, and which needs the support of no other power. A primacy such as this manifestly gives to him and to his successors a direct authority over all the faithful. This is also implied in the words of the pastoral commission, “ Feed my sheep “. The shepherd exercises immediate authority over all the sheep of his flock. Every member of the Church has been thus committed to Peter and those who follow him. This immediate authority has been always claimed by the Holy See. It was, however, denied by Febronius (op. cit., 7:7). That writer contended that the duty of the pope was to exercise a general oversight over the Church and to direct the bishops by his counsel; in case of necessity, where the legitimate pastor was guilty of grave wrong, he could pronounce sentence of excommunication against him and proceed against him according to the canons, but he could not on his own authority depose him (op. cit., 2:4:9). The Febronian doctrines, though devoid of any historical foundation, yet, through their appeal to the spirit of nationalism, exerted a powerful influence for harm on Catholic life in Germany during the eighteenth and part of the nineteenth century. Thus it was imperative that the error should be definitively condemned. That the pope's power is truly episcopal needs no proof. It follows from the fact that he enjoys an ordinary pastoral authority, both legislative and judicial, and immediate in relation to its subjects. Moreover, since this power regards the pastors as well as the faithful, the pope is rightly termed Pastor pastorum, and Episcopus episcoporum.

It is frequently objected by writers of the Anglican school that, by declaring the pope to possess an immediate episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful, the First Vatican Council destroyed the authority of the diocesan episcopate. It is further pointed out that St. Gregory the Great expressly repudiated this title (Ep. 7:27; 8:30). To this it is replied that no difficulty is involved in the exercise of immediate jurisdiction over the same subjects by two rulers, provided only that these rulers stand in subordination, the one to the other. We constantly see the system at work. In an army the regimental officer and the general both possess immediate authority over the soldiers; yet no one maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled. The objection lacks all weight. The First Vatican Council says most justly (cap. iii): “This power of the supreme pontiff in no way derogates from the ordinary immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, in virtue of which the bishops, who, appointed by the Holy Spirit [Acts 20:28], have succeeded to the place of the Apostles as true pastors, feed and rule their several flocks, each the one which has been assigned to him: that power is rather maintained, confirmed and defended by the supreme pastor” (Enchir., n. 1828). It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the First Vatican Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Ep. 5:21). No one, he maintains, has a right so to term himself universal bishop as to usurp that apostolically constituted power. But he was himself a strenuous asserter of that immediate jurisdiction over all the faithful which is signified by this title as used in the First Vatican Decree. Thus he reverses (Ep. 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Ep. 9:12). The title of universal bishop occurs as early as the eighth century; and in 1413 the faculty of Paris rejected the proposition of John Hus that the pope was not universal bishop (Natalis Alexander, 'Hist. eccl.”, saec. XV and XVI, c. ii, art. 3, n. 6)

(3) The Right of Entertaining Appeals in All Ecclesiastical Causes

The Council goes on to affirm that the pope is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that to him appeal may be made in all ecclesiastical causes. The right of appeal follows as a necessary corollary from the doctrine of the primacy. If the pope really possesses a supreme jurisdiction over the Church, every other authority, whether episcopal or synodal, being subject to him, there must of necessity be an appeal to him from all inferior tribunals. This question, however, has been the subject of much controversy. The Gallican divines de Marca and Quesnel, and in Germany Febronius, sought to show that the right of appeal to the pope was a mere concession derived from ecclesiastical canons, and that the influence of the pseudo-Isidorean decretals had led to many unjustifiable exaggerations in the papal claims. The arguments of these writers are at the present day employed by frankly anti-Catholic controversialists with a view to showing that the whole primacy is a merely human institution. It is contended that the right of appeal was first granted at Sardica (343), and that each step of its subsequent development can be traced. History, however, renders it abundantly clear that the right of appeal had been known from primitive times, and that the purpose of the Sardican canons was merely to give conciliar ratification to an already existing usage. It will be convenient to speak first of the Sardican question, and then to examine the evidence as regards previous practice.

In the years immediately preceding Sardica, St. Athanasius had appealed to Rome against the decision of the Council of Tyre (335). Pope Julius had annulled the action of that council, and had restored Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra to their sees. The Eusebians, however, had contested his right to call a conciliar decision in question. The fathers who met at Sardica, and who included the most eminent of the orthodox party from East and West alike, desired by their decrees to affirm this right, and to establish a canonical mode of procedure for such appeals. The principal provisions of the canons which deal with this matter are:

• that a bishop condemned by the bishops of his province may appeal to the pope either on his own initiative or through his judges;
• that if the pope entertains the appeal he shall appoint a court of second instance drawn from the bishops of the neighbouring provinces; he may, if he thinks fit, send judges to sit with the bishops.

There is nothing whatever to suggest that new privileges are being conferred. St. Julius had recently, not merely exercised the right of hearing appeals in the most formal manner, but had severely censured the Eusebians for neglecting to respect the supreme judicial rights of the Roman See: “for”, he writes, “if they [Athanasius and Marcellus] really did some wrong, as you say, the judgment ought to have been given according to the ecclesiastical canon and not thus.... Do you not know that this has been the custom first to write to us, and then for that which is just to be defined from hence?” (Athanasius, “Apol.” 35) . Nor is there the smallest ground for the assertion that the pope's action is hedged in within narrow limits, on the ground that no more is permitted than that he should order a re-hearing to take place on the spot. The fathers in no way disputed the pope's right to hear the case at Rome. But their object was to deprive the Eusebians of the facile excuse that it was idle for appeals to be carried to Rome, since there the requisite evidence could not be forthcoming. They therefore provided a canonical procedure which should not be open to that objection.

Having thus shown that there is no ground for the assertion that the right of appeal was first granted at Sardica, we may now consider the evidence for its existence in earlier times. The records of the second century are so scanty as to throw but little light on the subject. Yet it would seem that Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla appealed to Rome against the decision of the Phrygian bishops. Tertullian (Con. Prax. 1), tells us that the pope at first acknowledged the genuineness of their prophecies, and that thus “he was giving peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia”, when further information led him to recall the letters of peace which he had issued. The fact that the pope's decision had weight to decide the whole question of their orthodoxy is sufficiently significant. But in St Cyprian's correspondence we find clear and unmistakable evidence of a system of appeals. Basilides and Martial, the bishops of Leon and Merida in Spain, had in the persecution accepted certificates of idolatry. They confessed their guilt, and were in consequence deposed, other bishops being appointed to the sees. In the hope of having themselves reinstated they appealed to Rome, and succeeded, by misrepresenting the facts, in imposing on St. Stephen, who ordered their restoration. It has been objected to the evidence drawn from this incident, that St. Cyprian did not acknowledge the validity of the papal decision, but exhorted the people of Leon and Merida to hold fast to the sentence of deposition (Ep. 67:6). But the objection misses the point of St. Cyprian's letter. In the case in question there was no room for a legitimate appeal, since the two bishops had confessed. An acquittal obtained after spontaneous confession could not be valid. It has further been urged that, in the case of Fortunatus (Ep. 59:10), Cyprian denies his right of appeal to Rome, and asserts the sufficiency of the African tribunal. But here too the objection rests upon a misunderstanding. Fortunatus had procured consecration as Bishop of Carthage from a heretical bishop, and St. Cyprian asserts the competency of the local synod in his case on the ground that he is no true bishop — a mere pseudo-episcopus. Juridically considered he is merely an insubordinate presbyter, and he must submit himself to his own bishop. At that period the established custom denied the right of appeal to the inferior clergy. On the other hand, the action of Fortunatus indicates that he based his claim to bring the question of his status before the pope on the ground that he was a legitimate bishop. Privatus of Lambese, the heretical consecrator of Fortunatus who had previously been himself condemned by a synod of ninety bishops (Ep. 59:10), had appealed to Rome without success (Ep. 36:4).

The difficulties at Carthage which led to the Donatist schism provide us with another instance. When the seventy Numidian bishops, who had condemned Caecilian, invoked the aid of the emperor, the latter referred them to Rome, that the case might be decided by Pope Miltiades (313). St. Augustine makes frequent mention of the circumstances, and indicates plainly that he holds it to have been Caecilian's undoubted right to claim a trial before the pope. He says that Secundus should never have dared to condemn Caecilian when he declined to submit his case to the African bishops, since he had the right “to reserve his whole case to the judgment of other colleagues, especially to that of Apostolical Churches” (Ep. 43:7). A little later (367) a council, held at Tyana in Asia Minor, restored to his see Eustathius, bishop of that city, on no other ground than that of a successful appeal to Rome. St. Basil (Ep. 263:3) tells us that they did not know what test of orthodoxy Liberius had required. He brought a letter from the pope demanding his restoration, and this was accepted as decisive by the council It should be observed that there can be no question here of the pope employing prerogatives conferred on him at Sardica, for he did not follow the procedure there indicated. Indeed there is no good reason to believe that the Sardican procedure ever came into use in either East or West. In 378 the appellate jurisdiction of the pope received civil sanction from Emperor Gratian. Any charge against a metropolitan was to come before the pope himself or a court of bishops nominated by him, while all (Western) bishops had the right of appeal from - their provincial synod to the pope (Mansi, III, 624). Similarly Valentinian III in 445 assigned to the pope the right of evoking to Rome any cause he should think fit (Cod. Theod. Novell., tit. 24, De episcoporum ordin.). These ordinances were not, however, in any sense the source of the pope's jurisdiction, which rested on Divine institution; they were civil sanctions enabling the pope to avail himself of the civil machinery of the empire in discharging the duties of his office. What Pope Nicholas I said of the synodal declarations regarding the privileges of the Holy See holds good here also: “Ista privilegia huic sanctae Ecclesiae a Christo donata, a synodis non donata, sed jam solummodo venerata et celebrata” (These privileges bestowed by Christ on this Holy Church have not been granted her by synods, but merely proclaimed and honoured by them) (“Ep. ad Michaelem Imp.” in P. L., CXIX, 948).

Much has been made by anti-Catholic writers of the famous letter “Optaremus”, addressed in 426 by the African bishops to Pope St. Celestine at the close of the incident relating to the priest Apiarius. As the point is discussed in a special article (APIARIUS OF SICCA), a brief reference will suffice here. Protestant controversialists maintain that in this letter the African bishops positively repudiate the claim of Rome to an appellate jurisdiction, the repudiation being consequent on the fact that they had in 419 satisfied themselves that Pope Zosimus was mistaken in claiming the authority of Nicaea for the Sardican canons. This is an error. The letter, it is true, urges with some display of irritation that it would be both more reasonable and more in harmony with the fifth Nicene canon regarding the inferior clergy and the laity, if even episcopal cases were left to the decision of the African synod. The pope's authority is nowhere denied, but the sufficiency of the local tribunals is asserted. Indeed the right of the pope to deal with episcopal cases was freely acknowledged by the African Church even after it had been shown that the Sardican canons did not emanate from Nicaea. Antony, Bishop of Fussala, prosecuted an appeal to Rome against St. Augustine in 423, the appeal being supported by the Primate of Numidia (Ep. ccix). Moreover, St. Augustine in his letter to Pope Celestine on this subject urges that previous popes have dealt with similar cases in the same manner, sometimes by independent decisions and sometimes by confirmation of the decisions locally given (ipsa sede apostolica judicante vel aliorum judicata firmante), and that he could cite examples either from ancient or from more recent times (Ep. 209:8). These facts appear to be absolutely conclusive as to the traditional African practice. That the letter “Optaremus” did not result in any change is evinced by a letter of St. Leo's in 446, directing what is to be done in the case of a certain Lupicinus who had appealed to him (Ep. 12:13). It is occasionally argued that if the pope really possessed jure divino a supreme jurisdiction, the African bishops would neither have raised any question in 419 as to whether the alleged canons were authentic, nor again have in 426 requested the pope to take the Nicene canon as the norm of his action. Those who reason in this way fail to see that, where canons have been established prescribing the mode of procedure to be followed in the Church, right reason demands that the supreme authority should not alter them except for some grave cause, and, as long as they remain the recognized law of the Church should observe them. The pope as God's vicar must govern according to reason, not arbitrarily nor capriciously. This, however, is a very different thing from saying, as did the Gallican divines, that the pope is subject to the canons. He is not subject to them, because he is competent to modify or to annul them when he holds this to be best for the Church.

IV. JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS AND PREROGATIVES OF THE POPE

In virtue of his office as supreme teacher and ruler of the faithful, the chief control of every department of the Church's life belongs to the pope. In this section the rights and duties which thus fall to his lot will be briefly enumerated. It will appear that, in regard to a considerable number of points, not merely the supreme control, but the whole exercise of power is reserved to the Holy See, and is only granted to others by express delegation. This system of reservation is possible, since the pope is the universal source. of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence it rests with him to determine in what measure he will confer jurisdiction on bishops and other prelates.

(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:

• it is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall be made (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12);
• it is his to prescribe and to command books for the religious instruction of the faithful; thus, for example, Clement XIII has recommended the Roman Catechism to all the bishops.
• The pope alone can establish a university, possessing the status and privileges of a canonically erected Catholic university;
• to him also belongs the direction of Catholic missions throughout the world; this charge is fulfilled through the Congregation of the Propaganda.
• It is his to prohibit the reading of such books as are injurious to faith or morals, and to determine the conditions on which certain classes of books may be issued by Catholics;
• his is the condemnation of given propositions as being either heretical or deserving of some minor degree of censure, and lastly
• he has the right to interpret authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and family life, in regard to the practice of usury, etc.

(2) With the pope's office of supreme teacher are closely connected his rights in regard to the worship of God: for it is the law of prayer that fixes the law of belief. In this sphere very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the Holy See. Thus

• the pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. If a doubt should occur in regard to the ceremonial of the liturgy, a bishop may not settle the point on his own authority, but must have recourse to Rome. The Holy See likewise prescribes rules in regard to the devotions used by the faithful, and in this way checks the growth of what is novel and unauthorized.
• At the present day the institution and abrogation of festivals which was till a comparatively recent time free to all bishops as regards their own dioceses, is reserved to Rome.
• The solemn canonization of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held that this is an exercise of the papal infallibility. Beatification and every permission for the public veneration of any of the servants of God is likewise reserved to his decision.
• He alone gives to anyone the privilege of a private chapel where Mass may be said.
• He dispenses the treasury of the Church, and the grant of plenary indulgences is reserved to him. While he has no authority in regard to the substantial rites of the sacraments, and is bound to preserve them as they were given to the Church by Christ and His Apostles, certain powers in their regard belong to him;
• he can give to simple priests the Power to confirm, and to bless the oil of the sick and the oil of catechumens, and
• he can establish diriment and impedient impediments to matrimony.

(3) The legislative power of the pope carries with it the following rights:

• he can legislate for the whole Church, with or without the assistance of a general council;
• if he legislates with the aid of a council it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its deliberations, to confirm its acts.
• He has full authority to interpret, alter, and abrogate both his own laws and those established by his predecessors. He has the same plenitude of power as they enjoyed, and stands in the same relation to their laws as to those which he himself has decreed;
• he can dispense individuals from the obligation of all purely ecclesiastical laws, and can grant privileges and exemptions in their regard. In this connexion may be mentioned
• his power to dispense from vows where the greater glory of God renders it desirable. Considerable powers of dispensation are granted to bishops, and, in a restricted measure, also to priests; but there are some vows reserved altogether to the Holy See.

(4) In virtue of his supreme judicial authority

• causae majores are reserved to him. By this term are signified cases dealing with matters of great moment, or those in which personages of eminent dignity are concerned.
• His appellate jurisdiction has been discussed in the previous section. It should, however, be noted
• that the pope has full right, should he see fit, to deal even with causae minores in the first instance, and not merely by reason of an appeal (Trent, Sess. XXIV; cap. 20). In what concerns punishment,
• he can inflict censures either by judicial sentence or by general laws which operate without need of such sentence.
• He further reserves certain cases to his own tribunal. All cases of heresy come before the Congregation of the Inquisition. A similar reservation covers the cases in which a bishop or a reigning prince is the accused party.

(5) As the supreme governor of the Church the pope has authority over all appointments to its public offices. Thus

• it is his to nominate to bishoprics, or, where the nomination has been conceded to others, to give confirmation. Further, he alone can translate bishops from one see to another, can accept their resignation, and can, where grave cause exists, sentence to deprivation.
• He can establish dioceses, and can annul a previously existing arrangement in favour of a new one. Similarly, he alone can erect cathedral and collegiate chapters.
• He can approve new religious orders, and
• can, if he sees fit, exempt them from the authority of local ordinaries.
• Since his office of supreme ruler imposes on him the duty of enforcing the canons, it is requisite that he should be kept informed as to the state of the various dioceses. He may obtain this information by legates or by summoning the bishops to Rome. At the present day this jus relationum is exercised through the triennial visit ad limina required of all bishops. This system was introduced by Sixtus V in 1585 (Constitution, “Rom. Pontifex”), and confirmed by Benedict XIV in 1740 (Constitution, “Quod Sancta”) .
• It is to be further observed that the pope's office of chief ruler of the Church carries with it jure divino the right to free intercourse with the pastors and the faithful. The placitum regium, by which this intercourse was limited and impeded, was therefore an infringement of a sacred right, and as such was solemnly condemned by the First Vatican Council (Constitution, “Pastor Aeternus”, cap. iii). To the pope likewise belongs the supreme administration of the goods of the Church. He alone
• can, where there is just cause, alienate any considerable quantity of such property. Thus, e. g., Julius III, at the time of the restoration of religion in England under Queen Mary validated the title of those laymen who had acquired Church lands during the spoliations of the previous reigns.
• The pope has further the right to impose taxes on the clergy and the faithful for ecclesiastical purposes (cf. Trent, Sess. XXI, cap. iv de Ref.).

Though the power of the pope, as we have described it, is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary and unrestricted. “The pope”, as Cardinal Hergenroether well says, “is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges....He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy — to 'feed' — and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit and mind of nations” (“Cath. Church and Christian State”, tr., I, 197).

V. PRIMACY OF HONOUR: TITLES AND INSIGNIA

Certain titles and distinctive marks of honour are assigned to the pope alone; these constitute what is termed his primacy of honour. These prerogatives are not, as are his jurisdictional rights, attached jure divino to his office. They have grown up in the course of history, and are consecrated by the usage of centuries; yet they are not incapable of modification.

(1) Titles

The most noteworthy of the titles are Papa, Summus Pontifex, Pontifex Maximus, Servus servorum Dei. The title pope (papa) was, as has been stated, at one time employed with far more latitude. In the East it has always been used to designate simple priests. In the Western Church, however, it seems from the beginning to have been restricted to bishops (Tertullian, “De Pud.” 13). It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P. L., XIII, 1164), and Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope Symmachus (P. L., LXIII, 69). Yet as late as the seventh century St. Gall (d. 640) addresses Desiderius of Cahors as papa (P. L., LXXXVII, 265). Gregory VII finally prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter. The terms Pontifex Maximus, Summus Pontifex, were doubtless originally employed with reference to the Jewish high-priest, whose place the Christian bishops were regarded as holding each in his own diocese (I Clement 40). As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome. Tertullian, as has already been said, uses the phrase of Pope Callistus. Though his words are ironical, they probably indicate that Catholics already applied it to the pope. But here too the terms were once less narrowly restricted in their use. Pontifex summus was used of the bishop of some notable see in relation to those of less importance. Hilary of Arles (d. 449) is so styled by Eucherius of Lyons (P. L., L, 773), and Lanfranc is termed “primas et pontifex summus” by his biographer, Milo Crispin (P. L., CL, 10). Pope Nicholas I is termed “summus pontifex et universalis papa” by his legate Arsenius (Hardouin, “Conc.”, V, 280), and subsequent examples are common. After the eleventh century it appears to be only used of the popes. The phrase Servus servorum Dei is now so entirely a papal title that a Bull in which it should be wanting would be reckoned unauthentic. Yet this designation also was once applied to others. Augustine (Ep. 217 a. d. Vitalem) entitles himself “servus Christi et per Ipsum servus servorum Ipsius”. Desiderius of Cahors made use of it (Thomassin, “Ecclesiae nov. et vet. disc.”, pt. I, I. I, c. iv, n. 4): so also did St. Boniface (740), the apostle of Germany (P. L., LXXIX, 700). The first of the popes to adopt it was seemingly Gregory I; he appears to have done co in contrast to the claim put forward by the Patriarch of Constantinople to the title of universal bishop (P. L., LXXV, 87). The restriction of the term to the pope alone began in the ninth century.

(2) Insignia and Marks of Honour

The pope is distinguished by the use of the tiara or triple crown (see TIARA). At what date the custom of crowning the pope was introduced is unknown. It was certainly previous to the forged donation of Constantine, which dates from the commencement of the ninth century, for mention is there made of the pope's coronation. The triple crown is of much later origin. The pope moreover does not, like ordinary bishops, use the bent pastoral staff, but only the erect cross. This custom was introduced before the reign of Innocent III (1198-1216) (cap. un. X de sacra unctione, I, 15). He further uses the pallium (q. v.) at all ecclesiastical functions, and not under the same restrictions as do the archbishops on whom he has conferred it. The kissing of the pope's foot — the characteristic act of reverence by which all the faithful do honour to him as the vicar of Christ — is found as early as the eighth century. We read that Emperor Justinian II paid this respect to Pope Constantine (708-16) (Anastasius Bibl. in P. L., CXXVIII 949). Even at an earlier date Emperor Justin had prostrated himself before Pope John I (523-6; op. cit., 515), and Justinian I before Agapetus (535-6; op. cit., 551). The pope, it may be added, ranks as the first of Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body.

VI. ELECTION OF THE POPES

The supreme headship of the Church is, we have seen, annexed to the office of Roman bishop. The pope becomes chief pastor because he is Bishop of Rome: he does not become Bishop of Rome because he has been chosen to be head of the universal Church. Thus, an election to the papacy is, properly speaking, primarily an election to the local bishopric. The right to elect their bishop has ever belonged to the members of the Roman Church. They possess the prerogative of giving to the universal Church her chief pastor; they do not receive their bishop in virtue of his election by the universal Church. This is not to say that the election should be by popular vote of the Romans. In ecclesiastical affairs it is always for the hierarchy to guide the decisions of the flock. The choice of a bishop belongs to the clergy: it may be confined to the leading members of the clergy. It is so in the Roman Church at present. The electoral college of cardinals exercise their office because they are the chief of the Roman clergy. Should the college of cardinals ever become extinct, the duty of choosing a supreme pastor would fall, not on the bishops assembled in council, but upon the remaining Roman clergy. At the time of the Council of Trent Pius IV, thinking it possible that in the event of his death the council might lay some claim to the right, insisted on this point in a consistorial allocution (Phillips, “Kirchenrecht”, V, p. 737 n.). It is thus plain that a pope cannot nominate his successor. History tells us of one pope — Benedict II (530) — who meditated adopting this course. But he recognized that it would be a false step, and burnt the document which he had drawn up for the purpose. On the other hand the Church's canon law (10 D. 79) supposes that the pope may make provision for the needs of the Church by suggesting to the cardinals some one whom he regards as fitted for the office: and we know that Gregory VII secured in this way the election of Victor III. Such a step, however, does not in any way fetter the action of the cardinals. The pope can, further, legislate regarding the mode in which the subsequent election shall be carried out, determining the composition of the electoral college, and the conditions requisite for a definitive choice. The method at present followed is the result of a series of enactments on this subject.

A brief historical review will show how the principle of election by the Roman Church has been maintained through all the vicissitudes of papal elections. St. Cyprian tells us in regard to the election of Pope St. Cornelius (251) that the comprovincial bishops, the clergy, and the people all took part in it: “He was made bishop by the decree of God and of His Church, by the testimony of nearly all the clergy, by the college of aged bishops [sacerdotum], and of good men”(Ep. Iv ad Anton., n. 8). And a precisely similar ground is alleged by the Roman priests in their letter to Emperor Honorius regarding the validity of the election of Boniface I (A. D. 418; P. L., XX, 750). Previous to the fall of the Western Empire interference by the civil power seems to have been inconsiderable. Constantius, it is true, endeavoured to set up an antipope, Felix II (355), but the act was universally regarded as heretical. Honorius on the occasion of the contested election of 418 decreed that, when the election was dubious, neither party should hold the papacy, but that a new election should take place. This method was applied at the elections of Conon (686) and Sergius I (687). The law is found in the Church's code (c. 8, d. LXXIX), though Gratian declares it void of force as having emanated from civil and not ecclesiastical authority (d. XCVI, proem.; d. XCVII, proem.). After the barbarian conquest of Italy, the Church's rights were less carefully observed. Basilius, the prefect of Odoacer, claimed the right of supervising the election of 483 in the name of his master, alleging that Pope Simplicius had himself requested him to do so (Hard., II, 977). The disturbances which occurred at the disputed election of Symmachus (498) led that pope to hold a council and to decree the severest penalties on all who should be guilty of canvassing or bribery in order to attain the pontificate. It was moreover decided that the majority of votes should decide the election. Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who at this period ruled Italy, became in his later years a persecutor of the Church. He even went so far as to appoint Felix III (IV) in 526 as the successor of Pope John I, whose death was due to the incarceration to which the king had condemned him. Felix, however, was personally worthy of the office, and the appointment was confirmed by a subsequent election. The precedent of interference set by Theodoric was fruitful of evil to the Church. After the destruction of the Gothic monarchy (537), the Byzantine emperors went even farther than the heretical Ostrogoth in encroaching on ecclesiastical rights. Vigilius (540) and Pelagius I (553) were forced on the Church at imperial dictation. In the case of the latter there seems to have been no election: his title was validated solely through his recognition as bishop by clergy and people. The formalities of election at this time were as follows (Lib. Diurnus Rom. Pont., 2, in P. L., CV, 27). After the pope's death, the archpriest, the archdeacon and the primicerius of the notaries sent an official notification to the exarch at Ravenna. On the third day after the decease the new pope was elected, being invariably chosen from among the presbyters or deacons of the Roman Church (cf. op. cit., 2, titt. 2, 3 5), and an embassy was despatched to Constantinople to request the official confirmation of the election. Not until this had been received did the consecration take Place. The Church acquired greater freedom after the Lombard invasion of 568 had destroyed the prestige of Byzantine power in Italy. Pelagius II (,578) and Gregory I (590) were the spontaneous choice of the electors. And in 684, owing to the long delays involved in the journey to Constantinople, Constantine IV (Pogonatus) acceded to Benedict II's request that in future it should not be necessary to wait for confirmation, but that a mere notification of the election would suffice. The 1088 of the exarchate and the iconoclastic heresy of the Byzantine court completed the severance between Rome and the Eastern Empire, and Pope Zacharias (741) dispensed altogether with the customary notice to Constantinople.

In 769 a council was held under Stephen III to rectify the confusion caused by the intrusion of the antipope Constantine. This usurper was a layman hurriedly raised to priest's orders to render his nomination to the pontificate possible. To make a repetition of the scandal impossible it was decreed that only members of the sacred college were eligible for election. The part of the laity was, moreover, reduced to a mere right of acclamation. Under Charlemagne and Louis the Pious the Church retained her freedom. Lothair, however, claimed more ample rights for the civil power. In 824 he exacted an oath from the Romans that none should be consecrated pope without the permission and the presence of his ambassadors. This was, in fact, done at most of the elections during the ninth century, and in 898 the riots which ensued upon the death of Pope Stephen V led John IX to give ecclesiastical sanction to this system of imperial control. In a council held at Rome in that year he decreed that the election should be made by bishops (cardinal) and clergy, regard being had to the wishes of the people, but that no consecration should take place except in the presence of the imperial legate (Mansi XVIII, 225).

The due formalities at least of election appear to have been observed through the wild disorders which followed the collapse of the Carlovingian Empire: and the same is true as regards the times of Otto the Great and his son. Under the restored empire, however, the electors enjoyed no freedom of choice. Otto I even compelled the Romans to swear that they would never elect or ordain a pope without his or his son's consent (963; cf. Liutprand, “Hist. Ott.”, viii). In 1046 the scandals of the preceding elections, in which the supreme pontificate had become a prize for rival factions entirely regardless of what means they employed, led clergy and people to leave the nomination to Henry III. Three popes were chosen in this manner. But Leo IX insisted that the Church was free in the choice of her pastors, and, until he was duly elected at Rome, declined to assume any of the state of his office. The party of reform, of which Hildebrand was the moving spirit, were eager for some measure which should restore an independent choice to the Church. This was carried out by Nicholas II. In 1059 he held a council in the Lateran and issued the Decree “In Nomine”. This document is found in two recensions, a papal and an imperial, both of early date. There is however little doubt that the papal recension embodied in the “Decretum Gratiani “ (c. 1. d. XXIII) is genuine, and that the other was altered in the interest of the antipope Guibert (1080, Hefele, “Conciliengesch.”, IV, 800, 899). The right of election is confined to the cardinals, the effective choice being placed in the hands of the cardinal bishops: clergy and people have a right of acclamation only. The right of confirmation is granted to the Emperor Henry IV and to such of his successors as should personally request and receive the privilege. The pope need not necessarily be taken from the number of cardinals, though this should be the case if possible.

This decree formed the basis of the present legislation on the papal election, though the system underwent considerable development. The first important modification was the Constitution “Licet de Vitanda” [c. vi, X, “De elect.” (I, 6)] of Alexander III, the first of the decrees passed by the Third Oecumenical Council of the Lateran (1179). To prevent the evils of a disputed election it was established by this law that no one should be held dub elected until two thirds of the cardinals should have given their votes for him. In this decree no distinction is made between the rights of the cardinal bishops and those of the rest of the Sacred College. The imperial privilege of confirming the election had already become obsolete owing to the breach between the Church and the Empire under Henry IV and Frederick I. Between the death of Clement IV (1268) and the coronation of Gregory X (1272) an interregnum of nearly three years intervened. To prevent a repetition of so great a misfortune the pope in the Council of Lyons (1179) issued the Decree “ Ubi periculum “ [c. iii, “ De elect.”, in 60 (I, 6)], by which it was ordained that during the election of a pontiff the cardinals should be secluded from the world under exceedingly stringent regulations, and that the seclusion should continue till they had fulfilled their duty of providing the Church with a supreme pastor. To this electoral session was given the name of the Conclave (q. v.). This system prevails at the present day.

VII. CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE POPES.

The historical lists of the popes, from those drawn up in the second century to those of the present day, form in themselves a considerable body of literature. It would be beyond the scope of the article to enter upon a discussion of these catalogues. For an account of the most famous of them all, the article LIBER PONTIFICALIS may be consulted. It appears, however, desirable to indicate very briefly what are our authorities for the names and the durations in office of the popes for the first two centuries of the Church's existence.

Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years after his Roman sojourn, enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Adv. Haer. 3:3:3; Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.” 5:6) . His object, as we have already seen, was to establish the orthodoxy of the traditional doctrine, as opposed to heretical novelties, by showing that the bishop was the natural inheritor of the Apostolic teaching. He gives us the names alone, not the length of the various episcopates. This need is supplied by other witnesses. Most important evidence is furnished by the document entitled the “ Liberian Catalogue “ — so called from the Pope whose name ends the list. The collection of tracts of which this forms a part was edited (apparently by one Furius Dionysius Philocalus) in 354. The catalogue consists of a list of the Roman bishops from Peter to Liberius, with the length of their respective episcopates, the consular dates, the name of the reigning emperor, and in many cases other details. There is the strongest ground for believing that the earlier part of the catalogue, as far as Pontian (230-35), is the work of Hippolytus of Portus. It is manifest that up to this point the fourth century compiler was making use of a different authority from that which he employs for the subsequent popes: and there is evidence rendering it almost certain that Hippolytus's work “Chronica” contained such a list. The reign of Pontian, moreover, would be the point at which that list would have stopped: for Hippolytus and he were condemned to servitude in the Sardinian mines — a fact which the chronographer makes mention when speaking of Pontian's episcopate. Lightfoot has argued that this list originally contained nothing but the names of the bishops and the duration of their episcopates, the remaining notes being additions by a later hand. The list of popes is identical with that of Irenaeus, save that Anacletus is doubled into Cletus and Anacletus, while Clement appears before, instead of after, these two names. The order of Popes Pius and Anicetus has also been interchanged. There is every reason to regard; these differences as due to the errors of copyists. Another witness is Eusebius. The names and episcopal years of the bishops can be gathered alike from his “History” and his “Chronicle”. The notices in the two works; can be shown to be m agreement, notwithstanding certain corruptions in many texts of the “Chronicle”. This Eastern list in the hands of Eusebius is seen to have been identical with the Western list of Hippolytus, except that in the East the name of Linus's successor seems to have been given as Anencletus, in the original Western list as Cletus. The two authorities presuppose the following list: (1) Peter, xxv; (2) Linus, xii; (3) Anencletus [Cletus], xii; (4) Clement, ix; (5) Evarestus, viii; (6) Alexander, x; (7) Sixtus, x; (8) Telesophorus, xi; (9) Hyginus, iv; (10) Pius, xv; (11) Anicetus, xi;, (12) Soter, viii; (13) Eleutherius, xv; (14) Victor, x; (15) Zephyrinus, xviii; (16) Callistus, v; (17) Urban, viii; (18) Pontian, v (Harnack, “Chronologie”, I, 152).

We learn from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4:22) that in the middle of the second century Hegesippus, the Hebrew Christian, visited Rome and that he drew up a list of bishops as far as Anicetus, the then pope. Eusebius does not quote his catalogue, but Lightfoot sees ground for holding that we possess it in a passage of Epiphanius (Haer. 27:6), in which the bishops as far as Anicetus are enumerated. This list of Hegesippus, drawn up less than a century after the martyrdom of St. Peter, was he believes, the foundation alike of the Eusebian and Hippolytan catalogues (Clement of Rome I, 325 so.). His view has been accepted by many scholars. Even those who, like Harnack (Chronologie, I, 184 sq.), do not admit that this list is really that of Hegesippus, recognize it as a catalogue of Roman origin and of very early date, furnishing testimony independent alike of the Eusebian and Liberian lists.

The “Liber Pontificalis”, long accepted as an authority of the highest value, is now acknowledged to have been originally composed at the beginning of the fifth century, and, as regards the early popes, to be dependent on the “Liberian Catalogue”.

In the numbering of the successors of St. Peter, certain differences appear in various lists. The two forms Anacletus and Cletus, as we hare seen, very early occasioned the third pope to be reckoned twice. There are some few cases, also, in which it is still doubted whether particular individuals should be accounted genuine popes or intruders, and, according to the view taken by the compiler of the list, they will be included or excluded. In the accompanying list the Stephen immediately following Zacharias (752) is not numbered, since, though duly elected, he died before his consecration. At that period the papal dignity was held to be conferred at consecration, and hence he is excluded from all the early lists. Leo VIII (963) is included, as the resignation of Benedict V, though enforced, may have been genuine. Boniface VII is also ranked as a pope, since, in 984 at least, he would seem to have been accepted as such by the Roman Church. The claim of Benedict X (1058) is likewise recognized. It cannot be affirmed that his title was certainly invalid, and his name, though now sometimes excluded, appears in the older catalogues. It should be observed that there is no John XX in the catalogue. This is due to the fact that, in the “ Liber Pontificalis “, two dates are given in connexion with the life of John XIV (983). This introduced confusion into some of the papal catalogues, and a separate pope was assigned to each of these dates. Thus three popes named John were made to appear between Benedict VII and Gregory V. The error led the pope of the thirteenth century who should have been called John XX to style himself John XXI (Duchesne, “Lib. Pont.” 2:17). Some only of the antipopes find mention in the list. No useful purpose would be served by giving the name of every such claimant. Many of them possess no historical importance whatever. From Gregory VII onward not merely the years but the precise days are assigned on which the respective reigns commenced and closed. Ancient authorities furnish these details in the case of most of the foregoing popes also: but, previously to the middle of the eleventh century, the information is of uncertain value. With Gregory VII a new method of reckoning came in. The papal dignity was held to be conferred by the election, and not as previously by the coronation, and the commencement of the reign was computed from the day of election. This point seems therefore a convenient one at which to introduce the more detailed indications.

Chronological List of the Popes

1. St. Peter, d. 67 (?)
2. St. Linus, 67-79 (?)
3. St. Anacletus, I, 79-90(?)
4. St. Clement I, 90-99(?)
5. St. Evaristus 99-107(?)
6. St. Alexander I, 107-16(?)
7. St. Sixtus (Xystus) I, 116-25(?)
8. St. Telesphorus, 125-36(?)
9. St. Hyginus, 136-40(?)
10. St. Pius, 140-54(?)
11. St. Anicetus, 154-65(?)
12. St. Soter, 165-74
13. St. Eleutherius, 174-89
14. St. Victor, 189-98
15. St. Zephyrinus, 198-217
16. St. Callistus I, 217-22
17. St. Urban I, 222-30
18. St. Pontian, 230-35
19. St. Anterus, 235-36
20. St. Fabian, 236-50
21. St. Cornelius, 251-53
22. Novatianus, 251-58(?)
23. St. Lucius I, 253-54
24. St. Stephen I, 254-57
25. St. Sixtus (Xystus) II, 257-58
26. St. Dionysius, 259-68
27. St. Felix I, 269-74
28. St. Eutychian, 275-83
29. St. Caius, 283-96
30. St. Marcellinus, 296-304
31. St. Marcellus I, 308-09
32. St. Eusebius, 309(310)
33. St. Melchiades (Miltiades), 311-14
34. St. Sylvester I, 314-35
35. St. Marcus, 336
36. St. Julius I, 337-52
37. St. Liberius, 352-6
38. Felix II, 355-65
39. Damasus I, 366-84
40. St. Siricius, 384-98
41. St. Anastasius I, 398-401
42. St. Innocent I, 402-17
43. St. Zosimus, 417-18
44. St. Boniface I, 418-22
45. St. Celestine I, 422-32
46. St. Sixtus (Xystus) III, 432-40
47. St. Leo I, 440-61
48. St. Hilarius, 461-68
49. St. Simplicius, 468-83
50. St. Felix II (III), 483-92
51. St. Gelasius I, 492-96
52. St. Anastasius II, 496-98
53. St. Symmachus, 498-514
54. St. Hormisdas, 514-23
55. St. John I, 523-26
56. St. Felix III (IV), 526-30
57. Boniface II, 530-32
58. John II, 533-35
59. St. Agapetus I, 535-36
60. St. Silverius, 536-38(?)
61. Vigilius, 538(?)-55
62. Pelagius I, 556-61
63. John III, 561-74
64. Benedict I, 575-79
65. Pelagius II, 579-90
66. St. Gregory I, 590-604
67. Sabinianus, 604-06
68. Boniface III, 607
69. St. Boniface IV, 608-15
70. St. Deusdedit, 615-18
71. Boniface V, 619-25
72. Honorius I, 625-38
73. Severinus, 638-40
74. John IV, 640-2
75. Theodore I, 642-49
76. St. Martin I, 649-55
77. St. Eugene I, 654-57
78. St. Vitalian, 657-72
79. Adeodatus, 672-76
80. Donus, 676-78
81. St. Agatho, 678-81
82. St. Leo II, 682-83
83. St. Benedict II, 684-85
84. John V, 686-86
85. Conon, 686-7
86. St. Sergius I, 687-701
87. John VI, 701-05
88. John VII, 705-07
89. Sisinnius, 708
90. Constantine, 708-15
91. St. Gregory II, 715-31
92. St. Gregorv III, 731-41
93. St. Zacharias, 741-52
94. Stephen II, 752
95. Stephen II (III), 752-57
96. St. Paul I, 757-67
97. Constantine, 767-68
98. Stephen III (IV), 768-72
99. Adrian I, 772-95
100. St. Leo III, 795-816
101. Stephen IV (V), 816-17
102. St. Paschal I, 817-24
103. Eugene II, 824-27
104. Valentine, 827
105. Gregory IV, 827-44
106. Sergius II, 844-47
107. St. Leo IV, 847-55
108. Benedict III, 855-58
109. Anastasius, 855
110. St. Nicholas I, 858-67
111. Adrian II, 867-72
112. John VIII, 872-82
113. Marinus I (Martin II), 882-84
114. Adrian III, 884-85
115. Stephen V (VI), 885-91
116. Formosus, 891-96
117. Boniface VI, 896
118. Stephen VI (VII), 896-97
119. Romanus, 897
120. Theodore II, 897
121. John IX, 898-900
122. Benedict IV, 900-03
123. Leo V, 903
124. Christopher, 903-04
125. Sergius III, 904-11
126. Anastasius III, 911-13
127. Lando, 913-14
128. John X, 914-28
129. Leo VI, 928
130. Stephen VII (VIII), 928-31
131. John XI, 931-36
132. Leo VII, 936-39
133. Stephen VIII (IX), 939-42
134. Marinus II (Martin III), 942-46
135. Agapetus II, 946-55
136. John XII, 955-64
137. Leo VIII, 963-65
138. Benedict V, 964
139. John XIII, 965-72
140. Benedict VI, 973-74
141. Boniface VII, 974
142. Benedict VII, 974-83
143. John XIV, 983-84
144. Boniface VII, 984-85
145. John XV, 985-96
146. Gregory V, 996-99
147. John XVI, 997-98
148. Silvester II, 999-1003
149. John XVII, 1003
150. John XVIII, 1003-09
151. Sergius IV, 1009-12
152. Benedict VIII, 1012-24
153. John XIX, 1024-32
154. Benedict IX (a) , 1032-45
155. Silvester III, 1045
156. Gregory VI. 1045-46
157. Clement II, 1046-47
158. Benedict IX (b), 1047-48
159. Damasus II, 1048
160. St. Leo IX, 1049-54
161. Victor II, 1055-57
162. Stephen IX (X), 1057-58
163. Benedict X, 1058-59
164. Nicholas II, 1059-61
165. Alexander II, 1061-73
166. Honorius II, 1061-64
167. St. Gregory VII, 22 Apr., 1073-25 May, 1085
168. Clement III, 1084-1100
169. Victor III, 9 May, 1087-16 Sept., 1087
170. Urban II, 12 March, 1088-29 July, 1099
171. Paschal II, 13 Aug., 1099-21 Jan., 1118
172. Sylvester IV, 1105-11
173. Gelasius II, 24 Jan., 1118-28 Jan., 1119
174. Gregory VIII, 1118-21
175. Callistus II, 2 Feb., 1119-13 Dee. 1124
176. Honorius II, 15 Dec., 1124-13 Feb., 1130
177. Celestine II, 1124
178. Innocent II, 14 Feb., 1130-24 Sept., 1143
179. Anacletus II, 1130-38
180. Victor IV, 1138
181. Celestine II, 26 Sept., 1143-8 March, 1144
182. Lucius II, 12 March, 1144 (cons.)-15 Feb.,1145
183. Eugene III, 15 Feb., 1145-8 July, 1153
184. Anastasius IV, 12 July, 1153 (cons.)-3 Dec., 1154
185. Adrian IV, 4 Dee., 1154-1 Sept., 1159
186. Alexander III, 7 Sept., 1159-30 Aug., 1181
187. Victor IV, 1159-64
188. Paschal III, 1164-68
189. Callistus III, 1168-78
190. Innocent III, 1179-80
191. Lucius III, 1 Sept., 1181-25 Nov., 1185
192. Urban III, 25 Nov., 1185-20 Oct., 1187
193. Gregory VIII, 21 Oct.-17 Dec., 1187
194. Clement III, 19 Dec., 1187-March, 1191
195. Celestine III, 30 March, 1191-8 Jan., 1198
196. Innocent III, 8 Jan., 1198-16 July, 1216
197. Honorius III, 18 July, 1216-18 Mareb, 1227
198. Gregory IX, 19 Mareh, 1227-22 Aug., 1241
199. Celestine IV, 25 Oct.-10 Nov., 1241
200. Innocent IV, 25 June, 1243-7 Dec., 1254
201. Alexander IV, 12 Dec., 1254-25 May 1261
202. Urban IV, 29 Aug., 1261-2 Oct., 1264
203. Clement IV, 5 Feb., 1265-29 Nov., 1268
204. St. Gregory X, 1 Sept., 1271-10 Jan., 1276
205. Innocent V, 21 Jan.-22 June, 1276
206. Adrian V, 11 July-18 Aug., 1276
207. John XXI, 8 Sept., 1276-20 May, 1277
208. Nieholas III, 25 Nov., 1277-22 Aug., 1280
209. Martin IV, 25 Feb., 1281-28 March, 1285
210. Honorius IV, 2 Apr., 1285-3 Apr., 1287
211. Nicholas IV, 22 Feb., 1288-4 Apr., 1292
212. St. Celestine V, 5 July-13 Dec., 1294
213. Boniface VIII, 24 Dec., 1294-11 Oct., 1303
214. Benedict XI, 22 Oct., 1303-7 July, 1304
215. Clement V, 5 June, 1305-20 Apr., 1314
216. John XXII, 7 Aug., 1316-4 Dec., 1334
217. Nicholas V, 1328-30
218. Benedict XII, 20 Dec., 1334-25 Apr., 1342
219. Clement VI, 7 May, 1342-6 Dec., 1352
220. Innocent VI, 18 Dec., 1352-12 Sept., 1362
221. Urban V, 6 Nov. 1362 (cons.)-19 Dec., 1370
222. Gregory XI, 30 Dec., 1370-27 March, 1378
223. Urban VI, 8 Apr., 1378-15 Oct., 1389
224. Clement Vll, 1378-94
225. Boniface IX, 2 Nov., 1389-1 Oct., 1404
226. Benedict XIII, 1394-1424
227. Innocent VII, 17 Oct., 1404-6 Nov., 1406
228. Gregory XII, 30 Nov., 1406-4 July, 1415
229. Alexander V, 26 June, 1409-3 May, 1410
230. John XXIII, 17 May, 1410-29 May, 1415
231. Martin V, 11 Nov., 1417-20 Feb., 1431
232. Clement Vlll, 1424-29
233. Benedict XIV, 1424
234. Eugene IV, 3 March, 1431-23 Feb., 1447
235. Felix V, 1439-49
236. Nicholas V, 6 March, 1447-24 March, 1455
237. Callistus III, 8 Apr., 1455-6 Aug., 1458
238. Pius II, 19 Aug., 1458-15 Aug., 1464
239. Paul II, 31 Aug., 1464-26 July, 1471
240. Sixtus IV, 9 Aug., 1471-12 Aug., 1484
241. Innocent VIII, 29 Aug., 1484-25 July, 1492
242. Alexander VI, 11 Aug., 1492-18 Aug., 1503
243. Pius III, 22 Sept.-18 Oct., 1503
244. Julius II, 1 Nov., 1503-21 Feb., 1513
245. Leo X, 11 March, 1513-1 Dec., 1521
246. Adrian VI, 9 Jan., 1522-14 Sept., 1523
247. Clement VII, 19 Nov., 1523-25 Sept., 1534
248. Paul III, 13 Oct., 1534-10 Nov., 1549
249. Julius III, 8 Feb., 1550-23 March, 1555
250. Marcellus II, 9-30 Apr., 1555
251. Paul IV, 23 May, 1555-18 Aug., 1559
252. Pius IV, 25 Dec., 1559-9 Dec., 1565
253. St. Pius V, 7 Jan., 1566-1 May, 1572
254. Gregory XIII, 13 May, 1572-10 Apr., 1585
255. Sixtus V, 24 Apr., 1585-27 Aug., 1590
256. Urban VII, 15-27 Sept., 1590
257. Gregory XIV, 5 Dec., 1590-15 Oct., 1591
258. Innocent IX, 29 Oct.-30 Dec., 1591
259. Clement VIII, 30 Jan., 1592-5 March, 1605
260. Leo XI, 1-27 Apr., 1605
261. Paul V, 16 May, 1605-28 Jan., 1621
262. Gregorv XV, 9 Feb., 1621-8 July, 1623
263. Urban VIII, 6 Aug., 1623-29 July, 1644
264. Innocent X, 15 Sept., 1644-7 Jan., 1655
265. Alexander VII, 7 Apr., 1655-22 May, 1667
266. Clement IX, 20 June, 1667-9 Dec., 1669
267. Clement X, 29 Apr., 1670-22 July, 1676
268. Innocent XI, 21 Sept., 1676-11 Aug., 1689
269. Alexander VIII, 6 Oct., 1689-1 Feb., 1691
270. Innocent XII, 12 July, 1691-27 Sept., 1700
271. Clement XI, 23 Nov., 1700-19 March, 1721
272. Innocent XIII, 8 May, 1721-7 March, 1724
273. Benedict XIII, 29 May, 1724-21 Feb., 1730
274. Clement XII, 12 July, 1730-6 Feb., 1740
275. Benedict XIV, 17 Aug., 1740-3 May, 1758
276. Clement XIII, 6 July, 1758-2 Feb., 1769
277. Clement XIV, 19 May, 1769-22 Sept., 1774
278. Pius VI, 15 Feb., 1775-29 Aug., 1799
279. Pius VII, 14 March, 1800 20 Aug., 1823
280. Leo XII, 28 Sept., 1823-10 Feb., 1829
281. Pius VIII, 31 March, 1829-30 Nov., 1830
282. Gregory XVI, 2 Feb., 1831-1 June, 1846
283. Pius IX, 16 June, 1846-7 Feb., 1878
284. Leo XIII, 20 Feb., 1878-20 July, 1903
285. Pius X, 4 Aug., 1903-

ROCABERTI, Bibl. Maxima Pontificia (21 vols., Rome, 1695-99); ROKOVANY, Romanus Pontifex tanquam Primas Ecclesiae et princeps civilis e Monument, omnium saeculorum demonstratus (16vols., Neutra, 1867-79). The collection of ROCABERTI embraces the works of more than a hundred authors (from the ninth to the seventeenth century) on primacy. ROKOVANY'S work is a collection of documents dealing with the primacy, the civil principality, infallibility, the First Vatican Council, etc. A valuable feature of the work is a vast bibliography of books and pamphlets treating of the subject from the earliest times up to the date of publication, with useful appreciations of many of the works mentioned. BELLARMINE, De Summo Pontifice in Controversiae, I (Ingolstadt, 1601); BALLERINI, De primatu romani pontificis in MIGNE, Thesaurus, III, 906; PALMIERI, De romano pontifice (Rome, 1877); PASSAGLIE, De praerogativis b. Petri apostolorum principis (Ratisbone, 1850); HERGENROETHER, Catholic Church and Christian State (London, 1876). On the primacy in the primitive Church: RIVINGTON, The Primitive Church and the See of Peter (London, 1894); IDEM, The Roman Primacy (430-451) (London, 1899); CHAPMAN, Bishops Gore and the Catholic Claims (London, 1905), vi-vii. On the right of the pope to receive appeals: LUPUS, Divinum et immutabile S. Petri circa omnium sub caelo fidelium ad Romanam ejus Cathedram Appellationes in Opera, VIII (Venice, 1726); ALEXANDER NATALIS, Hist. eccl. 4:28: De Jure Appellationum; BALLERINI, Annotationes in Dissert., V. Quesnellii in MIGNE, P.L., LV, 534; HEFELE-LECLERCQ, Hist. des conciles, I (2), p. 759 sq. (Paris, 1907). On the primacy of honour: PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht (Ratisbon, 1854); HINSCHIUS, System des kathol, Kirchenrechts (Berlin 1869). On papal elections: PHILLIPS, op. cit.; HINSCHIUS, op. cit.; THOMASSIN, Vetus et nova ecclesiae disciplina (Lyons, 1706); SCHEFFER-BOICHORST, Die Neuordnung der Papstwahl durch Nicolaus II (Strasburg, 1879). On the chronology of the popes: DUCHESNE, Liber Pontif. (Paris, 1892); GAMS, Series episcoporum (Ratisbon, 1873).

G. H. JOYCE

Prophecy

MEANING

As the term is used in mystical theology, it applies both to the prophecies of canonical Scripture and to private prophecies. Understood in its strict sense, it means the foreknowledge of future events, though it may sometimes apply to past events of which there no memory, and to present hidden things which cannot be known by the natural light of reason. St. Paul, speaking of prophecy in I Cor., xiv, does not confine its meaning to predictions of future events, but includes under it Divine inspirations concerning what is secret, whether future or not. As, however, the manifestation of hidden present mysteries or past events comes under revelation, we have here to understand by prophecy what is in its strict and proper sense, namely the revelation of future events. Prophecy consists in knowledge and in the manifestation of what is known. The knowledge must be supernatural and infused by God because it concerns things beyond the natural power of created intelligence; and the knowledge must be mmanifested either by words or signs, because the gift of prophecy is given primarily for the good of others, and hence needs to be manifested. It is a Divine light by which God reveals things concerning the unknown future and by which these things are in some way represented to the mind of the prophet, whose duty it is to manifest them to others.

DIVISION

Writers on mystical theology consider prophecies with reference to the illumination of the mind, to the objects revealed, and to the mmeans by which the knowledge is conveyed to the human mind. By reason of the illumination of the mind prophecy may be either perfect or imperfect. It is called perfect when not only the thing revealed, but the revelation itself is made known, that is, when the prophet knows that it is God who speaks. The prophecy is immperfect when the recipient does not know clearly or sufficiently from whom the revelation proceeds, or whether it is the prophetic or individual spirit that speaks. This is called the prophetic instinct, wherein it is possible that a man may be deceived, as it happened in the case of Nathan who said to David when he was thinking of building the Temple of God: “Go, do all that is in thy heart, because the Lord is with thee” (II Kings, vii,3). But that very night the Lord commanded the Prophet to return to the king and say that the glory of the building of the temple was reserved, not for him, but for his son. St. Gregory, as quoted by Benedict XIV, explains that some holy prophets, through the frequent pratice of prophesying, have of themselves predicted some things, believing that therein they were influenced by the spirit of prophecy.

By reason of the object there are three kinds of prophecy according to St. Thomas >(Summa II-II:174:1): prophecy of denunciation, of foreknowledge, and of predestination.

• In the first kind God reveals future events according to the order of secondary causes, which may be hindered from taking effect by other causes which would require a miraculous power to prevent, and these may or may not happen, though the prophets do not express it but seem to speak absolutely. Isaias spoke thus when he said to Ezechias: “Take order with thy house, for thou shalt die, and not live” (Is., xxxviii,1). To this kind belongs the prophecy of promise, as that mentioned in 1 Kings, ii,30: “I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father should minister in my sight, forever”, which was not fulfilled. It was a conditional promise made to Heli which was dependent upon other causes which prevented its fulfilment.
• The second, that of foreknowledge, takes place when God reveals future events which depend upon created free will and which he sees present from eternity. They have reference to life and death, to wars and dynasties, to the affairs of Church and State, as well as to the affairs of individual life.
• The third kind, the prophecy of predestination, takes place when God reveals what He alone will do, and what he sees present in eternity and in His absolute decree. This includes not only the secret of predestination to grace and to glory, but also those things which God has absolutely decreed to do by His own supreme power, and which will infallibly come to pass.

The objects of prophecy may also be viewed in respect to human knowledge:

• when an event may be beyond the possible natural knowledge of the prophet, but may be within the range of human knowledge and known to others who witness the occurrence, as, for instance, the result of the battle of Lepanto revealed to St. Pius V;
• when the object surpasses the knowledge of all men, not that it is unknowable but that the human mind cannot naturally receive the knowledge, such as the mystery of the Holy Trinity, or the mystery of predestination;
• when the things that are beyond the power of the human mind to know are not in themselves knowable because their truth is not yet determined, such as future contingent things which depend upon free will. This is regarded as the most perfect object of prophecy, because it is the most general and embraces all events that are in themselves unknowable.

God can enlighten the human mind in any way he pleases. He often makes use of angelic ministry in prophetic communications, or He Himself may speak to the prophet and illuminate his mind. Again the supernatural light of prophecy may be conveyed to the intellect or through the senses or the imagination. Prophecy may take place even when the senses are suspended in ecstasy, but this in mystical terminology is called rapture. St. Thomas teaches that there is no suspension of the sense activities when anything is presented to the mind of the prophet through impressions of the senses, nor is it necessary when the mind is immediately enlightened that activity of the senses should be suspended; but it is necessary that this should be the case when the manifestation is made by imaginative forms, at least at the moment of the vision or of the hearing of the revelation, because the mind is then abstracted from external things in order to fix itself entirely on the object manifested to the imagination. In such a case a perfect judgment cannot be formed of the prophetic vision during the transport of the soul, because then the senses which are necessary for a right understanding of things cannot act, and it is only when a man comes to himself and awakens from the ecstasy that he can properly know and discern the nature of his vision.

RECIPIENT OF PROPHECY

The gift of prophecy is an extraordinary grace bestowed by God. It has never been confined to any particular tribe, family, or class of persons. There is no distinct faculty in human nature by which any normal or abnormal person can prophesy, neither is any special preparation required beforehand for the reception of this gift. Hence Cornely remarks: “Modern authors speak inaccurately of 'schools of prophets', an expression never found in the Scriptures or the Fathers” (Comp. Introduct. in N.T., n. 463). Neither was there ever any external rite by which the office of prophet was inaugurated; its exercise was always extraordinary and depended on the immediate call of God. The prophetic light, according to St. Thomas, is in the soul of the prophet not as a permanent form or habit, but after the manner of a passion or passing impression (Summa II-II:171:2). Hence the ancient prophets by their prayers petitioned for this Divine light (1 Kings, viii, 6; Jer., xxxii, 16; xxiii, 2 sq.; xlii, 4 sq.), and they were liable to error if they gave an answer before invoking God (II Kings, vii, 2,3).

Writing on the recipients of prophecy, Benedict XIV (Heroic Virtue, III,144,150) says: “The recipients of prophecy may be angels, devils, men, women, children, heathens, or gentiles; nor is it necessary that a man should be gifted with any particular disposition in order to receive the light of prophecy provided his intellect and senses be adapted for making manifest the things which God reveals to him. Though moral goodness is most profitable to a prophet, yet it is not necessary in order to obtain the gift of prophecy.” He also tells us that the angels by their own natural penetration cannot know future events whch are undermined and contingent or uncertain, neither can they know the secrets of the heart of another, whether man or angel. When therefore God reveals to an angel as the medium through which the future is made known to man, the angel also becomes a prophet. As to the Devil, the same author tells us that he cannot of his own natural knowledge foretell future events which are the proper objects of prophecy, yet God may make use of him for this purpose. Thus we read in the Gospel of St. Luke that when the Devil saw Jesus he fell down before Him and, crying out with a loud voice, said: :What have I to do with thee, Jesus, Son of the most high God?” (Luke, viii,28). There are instances of women and children prophesying in Holy Scripture. Mary, the sister of Moses, is called a prophetess; Anna, the mother of Samuel, prophesied; Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, by a Divine revelation recognized and confessed Mary as the Mother of God. Samuel and Daniel as boys prophesied; Balaam, a Gentile, foretold the advent of the Messias and the devastation of Assyria and Palestine. St. Thomas, in order to prove that the heathens were capable of prophecy, refers to the instance of the Sybils, who make clear mention of the mysteries of the Trinity, of the Incarnation of the Word, of the Life, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ. It is true that the Sybilline poems now extant became in course of time interpolated; but, as Benedict XIV remarks, this does not hinder much of them, especially what the early Fathers referred to, from being genuine and in no wise apocryphal.

That the gift of private prophecy exists in the Church is clear from Scripture and the acts of canonization of the saints in every age. To the question, what credence is to be given to these private prophecies, Cardinal Cajetan answers, as stated by Benedict XIV: “Human actions are of two kinds, one of which relates to public duties, and especially to ecclesiastical affairs, such as preaching, celebrating Mass, pronouncing judicial decisions, and the like; with respect to these the question is settled in the canon law, where it is said that no credence is to be publicly given to him who says he has privately received a mission from God, unless he confirms it by a miracle or a special testimony of Holy Scripture. The other class of human actions consists of those of private persons, and speaking of these, he distinguishes between a prophet who enjoins or advises them, according to the universal laws of the Church, and a prophet who does the same without reference to those laws. In the first case every man may abound in his own sense whether or not to direct his actions according to the will of the prophet; in the second case a prophet is not to be listened to” (Heroic Virtue, III, 192).

It is also important that those who have to teach and direct others should have rules for their guidance to enable them to distinguish true from false prophets. A summary of those prescribed by theologians for our guidance may be useful to show practically how the doctrine is to be applied to devout souls in order to save them from errors or diabolical delusions:

1. the recipient of the gift of prophecy should, as a rule, be good and virtuous, for all mystical writers agree that for the most part this gift is granted by God to holy persons. The disposition or temperament of the person should also be considered, as well as the state of health and of the brain;
2. the prophecy must be conformable to Christian truth and piety, because if it propose anything against faith or morals it cannot proceed from the Spirit od Truth;
3. the prediction should concern things outside the reach of all natural knowledge, and have for its object future contingent things or those things which God alone knows;
4. it should also concern something of a grave and important nature, that is something for the good of the Church or the good of souls. This and the preceding rule will help to distinguish true prophecies from the puerile, senseless, and useless predictions of fortune-tellers, crystal-gazers, spiritualists, and charlatans. These may tell things beyond human knowledge and yet within the scope of the natural knowledge of demons, but not those things that are strictly speaking the objects of prophecy;
5. prophecies or revelations which make known the sins of others, or which announce the predestination or reprobation of souls are to be suspected. Three special secrets of God have always to be deeply respected as they are very rarely revealed, namely: the state of conscience in this life, the state of souls after death unless canonized by the Church, and the mystery of predestination. The secret of predestination has been revealed only in exceptional cases, but that of reprobation has never been revealed, because so long as the soul is in this life, its salvation is possible. The day of General Judgment is also a secret which has never been revealed;
6. we have afterwards to ascertain whether the prophecy has been fulfilled in the way foretold. There are some limitations to this rule:

• if the prophecy was not absolute, but containing threats only, and tempered by conditions expressed or understood, as exemplified in the prophecy of Jonas to the Ninivites. and that of Isaias to King Ezechias;
• it may sometimes happen that the prophecy is true and from God, and the human interpretation of it is false, as men may interpret it otherwise than God intended.

It is by these limitations we have to explain the prophecy of St. Bernard regarding the success of the Second Crusade, and that of St. Vincent Ferrer regarding the near approach of the General Judgment in his day.

CHIEF PARTICULAR PROPHECIES

The last prophetic work which the Church acknowledges as Divinely inspired is the Apocalypse (Revelations). The prophetic spirit did not disappear with the Apostolic times, but the Church has not pronounced any work prophetic since then, though she has canonized numberless saints who were more or less endowed with the gift of prophecy. The Church allows freedom in accepting or rejecting particular or private prophecies according to the evidence for or against them. We should be slow to admit and slow to reject them, and in either case treat them with respect when they come to us from trustworthy sources, and are in accordance with Catholic doctrine and the rules of Catholic morality. The real test of these predictions is their fulfilment; they may be only pious anticipations of the ways of Providence, and they may sometimes be fulfilled in part and in part contradicted byevents. The minatory prophecies which announce calamities, being for the most part conditional, may or may not be fulfilled. Many private prophecies have been verified by subsequent events, some have not; others have given rise to a good deal of discussion as to their genuineness. Most of the private prophecies of the saints and servants of God were concerned with individuals, their death, recovery from illness, or vocations. Some foretold things which would affect the fate of nations, as France, England, and Ireland. A great number have reference to popes and to the papacy; and finally we have many such prophecies relating to the end of the world and the approach of the Day of Judgment.

The more noteworthy of the prophecies bearing upon “latter times” seem to have one common end, to announce great calamities impending over mankind, the triumph of the Church, and the renovation of the world. All the seers agree in two leading features as outlined by E.H. Thompson in his “Life of Anna Maria Taigi” (ch. xviii): “First they all point to some terrible convulsion, to a revolution springing from most deep-rooted immpiety, consisting in a formal opposition to God and His truth, and resulting in the most formidable persecution to which the Church has ever been subject. Secondly, they all promise for the Church a victory more splendid than she has ever achieved here below. We may add another point in which there is a remarkable agreement in the catena of modern prophecies, and that is the peculiar connection between the fortunes of France and those of the Church and the Holy See, and also the large part which that country has still to play in the history of the Church and of the world, and will continue to play to the end of time.”

Some prophetic spirits were prolific in the forecasts of the future. The biographer of St. Philip Neri states that if all the prophecies attributed to this saint were narrated, they alone would fill entire volumes. It is sufficient to give the following as examples of private prophecies.

(1) Prophecy of St. Edward the Confessor

Ambrose Lisle Philipps in a letter to the Earl of Shrewsbury dated 28 October, 1850, in giving a sketch of English Catholic history, relates the following vision or prophecy made by St. Edward: “During the month of January, 1066, the holy King of England St. Edward the Confessor was confined to his bed by his last illness in his royal Westminster Palace. St. Aelred, Abbott of Recraux, in Yorkshire, relates that a short time before his happy death, this holy king was wrapt in ecstasy, when two pious Benedictine monks of Normandy, whom he had known in his youth, during his exile in that country, appeared to him, and revealed to him what was to happen to England in future centuries, and the cause of the terrible punishment. They said: 'The extreme coruption and wickedness of the English nation has provoked the just anger of God. When malice shall have reached the fulness of its measure, God will, in His wrath, send to the English people wicked spirits, who will punish and afflict them with great severity, by separating the green tree from its parent stem the length of three furlongs. But at last this same tree, through the compassionate mercy of God, and without any national (governmental) assistance, shall return to its original root, reflourish and bear abundant fruit.' After having heard these prophetic words, the saintly King Edward opened his eyes, returned to his senses, and the vision vanished. He immediately related all he had seen and heard to his virgin spouse, Edgitha, to Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, and to Harold, his successor to the throne, who were in his chamber praying around his bed.” (See “Vita beati Edwardi regis et confessoris”, from MS. Selden 55 in Bodleian Library, Oxford.)

The interpretation given to this prophecy is remarkable when applied to the events which have happened. The spirits mentioned in it were the Protestant innovators who pretended, in the sixteenth century, to reform the Catholic Church in England. The severance of the green tree from its trunk signifies the separation of the English Church from the root of the Catholic Church, from the Roman See. This tree, however, was to be separated from its life-giving root the distance of “three furlongs”. These three furlongs are understood to signify three centuries, at the end of which England would again be reunited to the Catholic Church, and bring forth flowers of virtue and fruits of sanctity. The prophecy was quoted by Ambrose Lisle Philipps on the occasion of the reestablishment of the Catholic hierarchy in England by Pope Pius IX in 1850.

(2) PROPHECIES OF ST. MALACHY

Concerning Ireland. This prophecy, which is distinct from the prophecies attributed to St. Malachy concerning the popes, is to the effect that his beloved native isle would undergo at the hands of England oppression, persecution, and calamities of every kind, during a week of centuries; but that she would preserve her fidelity to God and to His Church amidst all her trials. At the end of seven centuries she would be delivered from her oppressors (or oppressions),who in their turn would be subjected to dreadful chastisements, and Catholic Ireland would be instrumental in bringing back the British nation to that Divine Faith which Protestant England had, during three hundred years, so rudely endeavoured to wrest from her. This prophecy is said to have been copied by the learned Dom Mabillon from an ancient MS. preserved at Clairvaux, and transmitted by him to the martyred successor of Oliver Plunkett.

Concerning the Popes. The most famous and best known prophecies about the popes are those attributed to St. Malachy (q.v.). In 1139 he went to Rome to give an account of the affairs of his diocese to the pope, Innocent II, who promised him two palliums for the metropolitan Sees of Armagh and Cashel. While at Rome, he received (according to the Abbe Cucherat) the strange vision of the future wherein was unfolded before his mind the long list of illustrious pontiffs who were to rule the Church until the end of time. The same author tells us that St. Malachy gave his MS. to Innocent II to console him in the midst of his tribulations, and that the document remained unknown in the Roman Archives until its discovery in 1590 (Cucherat, “Proph. de la succession des papes”, ch. xv). They were first published by Arnold de Wyon, and ever since there has been much discussion as to whether they are genuine predictions of St. Malachy or forgeries. The silence of 400 years on the part of so many learned authors who had written about the popes, and the silence of St. Bernard especially, who wrote the “Life of St. Malachy”, is a strong argument against their authenticity, but it is not conclusive if we adopt Cucherat's theory that they were hidden in the Archives during those 400 years.

These short prophetical announcements, in number 112, indicate some noticeable trait of all future popes from Celestine II, who was elected in the year 1130, until the end of the world. They are enunciated under mystical titles. Those who have undertaken to interpret and explain these symbolical prophecies have succeeded in discovering some trait, allusion, point, or similitude in their application to the individual popes, either as to their country, their name, their coat of arms or insignia, their birth-place, their talent or learning, the title of their cardinalate, the dignities which they held etc. For example, the prophecy concerning Urban VIII is Lilium et Rosa (the lily and the rose); he was a native of Florence and on the arms of Florence figured a fleur-de-lis; he had three bees emblazoned on his escutcheon, and the bees gather honey from the lilies and roses. Again, the name accords often with some remarkable and rare circumstance in the pope's career; thus Peregrinus apostolicus (pilgrim pope), which designates Pius VI, appears to be verified by his journey when pope into Germany, by his long career as pope, and by his expatriation from Rome at the end of his pontificate. Those who have lived and followed the course of events in an intelligent manner during the pontificates of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X cannot fail to be impressed with the titles given to each by the prophecies of St. Malachy and their wonderful appropriateness: Crux de Cruce (Cross from a Cross) Pius IX; Lumen in caelo (Light in the Sky) Leo XIII; Ignis ardens (Burning Fire) Pius X. There is something more than coincidence in the designations given to these three popes so many hundred years before their time. We need not have recourse either to the family names, armorial bearings or cardinalatial titles, to see the fitness of their designations as given in the prophecies. The afflictions and crosses of Pius IX were more than fell to the lot of his predecessors; and the more aggravating of these crosses were brought on by the House of Savoy whose emblem was a cross. Leo XIII was a veritable luminary of the papacy. The present pope is truly a burning fire of zeal for the restoration of all things to Christ.

The last of these prophecies concerns the end of the world and is as follows: “In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End.” It has been noticed concerning Petrus Romanus, who according to St. Malachy's list is to be the last pope, that the prophecy does not say that no popes will intervene between him and his predecessor designated Gloria olivoe. It merely says that he is to be the last, so that we may suppose as many popes as we please before “Peter the Roman”. Cornelius a Lapide refers to this prophecy in his commentary “On the Gospel of St. John” (C. xvi) and “On the Apocalypse” (cc. xvii-xx), and he endeavours to calculate according to it the remaining years of time.

(3) Prophecy of St. Paul of the Cross

During more than fifty years this saint was accustomed to pray for the return of England to the Catholic Faith, and on several occasions had visions and revelations about its re-conversion. In spirit he saw the Passionists established in England and labouring there for the conversion and sanctification of souls. It is well known that several leaders of the Oxford Movement, including Cardinal Newman, and thousands of converts have been received into the Church in England by the Passionist missionaries.

There are many other private prophecies concerning the remote and proximate signs which will precede the General Judgment and concerning Antichrist, such as those attributed to St. Hildegarde, St. Bridget of Sweden, Venerable Anna Maria Taigi, the Cure d'Ars, and many others. These do not enlighten us any more than do the Scriptural prophecies as to the day and the hour of that judgment, which still remains a Divine secret.

ARTHUR DEVINE

Prophecy, Prophet, and Prophetess

I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

A. Introduction

Jahve had forbidden Israel all kinds of oracles in vogue among the pagans. If, for a time, he consented to reply by Urim and Thummim ( apparently a species of sacred lots which the high-priest carried in the cincture of his ephod, and consulted at the request of the public authorities in matters of graver moment), yet He always abominated those who had recourse to divination and magic, practiced augury and enchantment, trusted in charms, consulted soothsayers or wizards, or interrogate the spirits of the dead (Deut., xviii, 9 sqq.). Speaking of orthodox Jahveism, Balaam could truthfully say “There is no soothsaying in Jacob, nor divination in Israel. In their times it shall be told to Jacob and to Israel what God hath wrought” (Num., xxiii, 23). For the absence of other oracles, the Chosen People were indeed more than compensated by a gift unique in the annals of mankind, to wit, the gift of prophecy and the prophetic office.

B. General Idea and the Hebrew Names

(1) General Idea — The Hebrew Prophet was not merely, as the word commonly implies, a man enlightened by God to foretell events, he was the interpreter and supernaturally enlightened herald sent by Jahve to communicate His will and designs to Israel. His mission consisted in preaching as well as in foretelling. He had to maintain and develop the knowledge of the Old Law among the Chosen People, lead them back when they strayed, and gradually prepare the way for the new kingdom of God, which the messias was to establish on earth. Prophecy, in general, signifies the supernatural message of the Prophet, and more especially, from custom, the predictive element of the prophetic message.

(2) The Hebrew Names — The ordinary Hebrew word for prophet is nabî'. Its etymology is uncertain. According to many recent critics, the root nabî, not employed in Hebrew, signified to speak enthusiastically, “ to utter cries, and make more or less wild gestures”, like the pagan mantics. Judging from a comparative examination of the cognate words in Hebrew and the other Semitic tongues, it is at least equally probable that the original meaning was merely: to speak, to utter words (cf. Laur, “Die Prophetennamen des A.T.”, Fribourg, 1903, 14-38). The historic meaning of nabî' established by biblical usage is “interpreter and mouthpiece of God”. This is forcibly illustrated by the passage, where Moses, excusing himself from speaking to Pharao on account of his embarrassment of speech, was answered by Jahve: “Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land” (Ex., vii, 1-2). Moses plays towards the King of Egypt the role of God, inspiring what is to be uttered, and Aaron is the prophet, his mouthpiece, transmitting the inspired message he shall receive. The Greek prophetes (from pro-phanai, to speak for, or in the name of someone) translates the Hebrew word accurately. The Greek prophet was the revealer of the future, and the interpreter of divine things, especially of the obscure oracles of the pythoness. Poets were the prophets of the muses: Inspire me, muse, thy prophet I shall be” (Pindar, Bergk, Fragm. 127).

The word nabî' expresses more especially a function. The two most usual synonyms ro'éeh and hozéh emphasize more clearly the special source of the prophetic knowledge, the vision, that is, the Divine revelation or inspiration. Both have almost the same meaning; hozéh is employed, however, much more frequently in poetical language and almost always in connexion with a supernatural vision, whereas râ'ah, of which ro'éh is the participle, is the usual word for to see in any manner. The compiler of the first book of Kings (ix, 9) informs us that before his time ro'éh was used where nabî' was then employed. Hozéh is found much more frequently from the days of Amos. There were other less specific or more unusual terms employed, the meaning of which is clear, such as, messenger of God, man of God, servant of God, man of the spirit, or inspired man, etc. It is only rarely, and at a later period, that prophecy is called nebû'ah, a cognate of nabî'; more ordinarily we find hazôn, vision, or word of God, oracle (ne um) of Jahve, etc.

C. Brief Sketch of the History of Prophecy

(1) The first person entitled nabî' in the Old Testament is Abraham, father of the elect, the friend of God, favoured with his personal communications (Gen., xx, 7). The next is Moses, the founder and lawgiver of the theocratic nation, the mediator of the Old Covenant holding a degree of authority unequalled till the coming of Jesus Christ. “And there arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders, which he sent by him, to do in the land of Egypt to Pharao, and to all his servants, and to his whole land, and all the mighty hand, and great miracles, which Moses did before all Israel” (Deut., xxxiv, 10 sqq.). There were other Prophets with him, but only of the second rank, such as Aaron and Maria, Eldad and Medad, to whom Jahve manifested himself in dreams and vision, but not in the audible voice with which He favoured him, who was most faithful in all His house (Num., xii, 7).

Of the four institutions concerning which Moses enacted laws, according to Deuteronomy (xiv, 18-xviii), one was prophecy (xviii, 9-22; cf. xiii, 1-5, and Ex., iv, 1 sqq.). Israel was to listen to the true Prophets, and not to heed the false but rather to extirpate them, even had they the appearance of miracle-workers. The former would speak in the name of Jahve, the one God; and foretell things that would be accomplished or be confirmed by miracles. The latter were to come in the name of the false gods, or teach a doctrine evidently erroneous, or vainly endeavour to foretell events. Later prophetic writers added as other signs of the false Prophets, cupidity, flattery of the people or the nobles, or the promise of Divine favour for the nation weighed down with crime. Balaam is both a Prophet and a soothsayer; a professional soothsayer it would seem, of whom Jahve makes use to proclaim even in Moab the glorious destiny of the Chosen People, when He was about to lead them into the Promised Land (Num., xxii-xxiv).

In the time of the Judges, in addition to an unnamed Prophet (Judges, vi, 8-10), we meet with Debbora (Judges iv-v), “a mother in Israel”, judging the people, and communicating the Divine orders concerning the War of Independence to Barac and the tribes. The word of God was rare in those days of anarchy and semi-apostasy, when Jahve partly abandoned Israel to render it conscious of its feebleness and its sins. In the days of Samuel, on the contrary, prophecy became a permanent institution. Samuel was a new but lesser Moses, whose Divine mission it was to restore the code of the elder, and to supervise the beginning of the royalty. Under his guidance, or at least closely united to him, we find for the first time the nebî'îm (I Sam., x; xix) grouped together to sing the praises of God to the accompaniment of musical instruments. They are not Prophets in the strict sense of the word, nor are they disciples of the Prophets destined to become masters in their turn (the so-called “schools of Prophets”). Did they wander about spreading the oracles of Samuel among the people? Possibly; at all events, in order to waken the faith of Israel and increase the dignity of Divine worship, they seem to have received charismata similar to those bestowed upon the early Christians in the Apostolic days. They may not ineptly be compared with the families of singers gathered around David, under the direction of their three leaders, Asaph, Heman, and Idithum (I Par., xxv, 1-8). Doubtless the benê-nebî'îm of the days of Elias, and Eliseus the “disciples of the Prophets”, or “members of the confraternities of the Prophets”, forming at least three communities, domiciled respectively at Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho, must be regarded as their successors. St. Jerome seems to have understood their character aright, when he saw in them the germ of the monastic life (P. L. , XXII, 583, 1076).

Are we to consider as their degenerate and faithless successors those false Prophets of Jahve whom we meet at the court of Achab, numbering four hundred, and later very numerous, also fighting against Isaias and Micheas and especially against Jeremias and Ezekiel? A definite answer cannot as yet be given, but it is wrong to consider them, as certain critics do, as authentic as the true Prophets, differing from them only by a more retrograde spirit, and less brilliant intellectual gifts. After Samuel the first Prophets properly so called who are explicitly mentioned are Nathan and Gad. They assist David by their counsels, and, when necessary, confront him with energetic protests. Nathan's parable of the little sheep of the poor man is one of the most beautiful passages in prophetic history (II Kings, xii, 1 sqq.). The Books of Kings and Parapilomen mention a number of other “men of the spirit” exercising their ministry in Israel or in Juda. We may mention at least Ahias of Silo, who announced to Jeroboam his elevation to the throne of the Ten Tribes, and the ephemeral character of his dynasty, and Micheas, the son of Jemla, who predicted to Achab, in presence of the four hundred flattering court Prophets, that he would be defeated and killed in his war against the Syrians (III Kings, xxii).

But the two greatest figures of prophecy between Samuel and Isaiah are Elias and Eliseus. Jahveism was again endangered, especially by the Tyrian Jezabel, wife of Achab, who had introduced into Samaria the worship of her Phenician gods, and Israel's faith was tottering, as it divided its worship between Baal and Jahve. In Juda the danger was not less menacing, King Joram had married Athalia, a worthy daughter of Jezabel. At that moment Elias appeared like a mysterious giant, and by his preaching and his miracles led Israel back to the true God and suppressed, or at least moderated, their leaning towards the gods of Chanaan. At Carmel he won a magnificent and terrible victory over the Prophets of Baal; then he proceeded to Horeb to renew within him the spirit of the Covenant and to be present at a marvellous theophany; thence he returned to Samaria to proclaim to Achab the voice of justice calling out for vengeance for the murder of Naboth. When he disappeared in the fiery chariot, he left to his disciple Eliseus, with his mantle, a double share of his spirit. Eliseus continued the master's work against the Chanaanite idolatry with great success, and became such a bulwark to the Kingdom of the North, that King Joas wept for his death and took his farewell with these words: “My father! my father! chariot of Israel and its horsemen”! Not all the Prophets left their oracles in writing. Several of them, however, have written the history of their times. Gad and Nathan, for instance, the history of David; and Nathan that of Solomon; also Semeias and Addo the annals of Roboam; Jehu, son of Hanani those of Josaphat.....Is it possible that the historical books of Josue, Judges, Samuel, and Kings were called in the Jewish canon the “earlier Prophets” because of the belief that they were written by the Prophets or at least based on their writing? To this query there can be no solution.

(2) Prophetic Writers — The prophetic books were entitled in the same canon the “later Prophets”. Gradually the custom of calling their authors the prophetic writers crept in. There are four Greater Prophets, that is those whose works are of considerable length. Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and Daniel, and twelve Minor Prophets, whose works are briefer- Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, and Malachias. The Book of Baruch, which is not included in the Hebrew canon, is united in our Bibles to the Book of Jeremias. The ministry of Amos, the most ancient perhaps of the prophetic writers, is placed about the years 760-50. Osee follows him immediately. Next comes Isaias (about 740-700), and his contemporary Micheas. Sophonias, Nahum, and Habacuc prophesied towards the last quarter of the seventh century. Jeremias about 626-586; Ezechiel between 592-70. The prophecy of Aggeus and in part that of Zacharias are dated exactly in 520 and 520-18. Malachias belongs to the middle of the fifth century. As for Daniel, Abdias, Joel, Baruch, as well as portions of Isaias, Jeremias, Zacharias, their dates being disputed, it is necessary to refer the reader to the special articles treating of them.

(3) The Prophetesses — The Old Testament gives the name nebî'ah, to three women gifted with prophetic charismata: Mary, the sister of Moses; Debbora; and Holda, a contemporary of Jeremias (IV Kings, xxii, 14); also to the wife of Isaias meaning the spouse of a nabî'; finally to Noadia, a false Prophetess if the Hebrew text is accurate, for the Septuagint and Vulgate speak of a false Prophet (Neh., vi, 14).

(4) Cessation of Israelitic Prophecy — The prophetic institution had ceased to exist in the time of the Machabees. Israel clearly recognized this, and was awaiting its reappearance. Its necessity had ceased. Religious revelation and the moral code expressed in Holy Writ were full and clear. The people were being instructed by the scribes and doctors- a living magistracy, fallible, it is true, and bound overmuch by letter of the law, but withal zealous and learned. There was a feeling that the promises were about to be fulfilled and the consequent apocalypse increased and intensified this feeling. It was not unfitting, therefore, for God to allow an interval to elapse between the prophets of the Old Covenant and Jesus Christ, who was to be the crown and consummation of their prophecies.

D. Vocation and Supernatural Knowledge of the Prophets

(1) The Prophetic Vocation — “For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost” (II Pet., i, 21). The Prophets were ever conscious of this Divine mission. I am not a professional or a voluntary Prophet, Amos practically said to Amasias, who wished to prevent him from prophesying at Bethel. “I am a herdsman plucking wild figs. And the Lord took me when I followed the flock, and the Lord said to me: Go, prophesy to my people Israel” (vii, 14 sq.). Again “the lion shall roar, who will not fear? The Lord God hath spoken, who shall not prophesy?” (iii, 8). Isaias saw Jahve seated on a throne of glory, and when a seraph had purified his lips he heard the command “Go!” and he received his mission of preaching to the people the terrible judgments of God. God made known to Jeremias that he had consecrated him from his mother's womb and appointed him the Prophet of nations; He touched his lips to show that He made them His instrument for proclaiming His just and merciful judgments (i, 10), a duty so painful, that the Prophet endeavoured to be excused and to conceal the oracles entrusted to him. Impossible; his heart was consumed by a flame, which forced from him that touching complaint: “Thou hast deceived me, O Lord, and I am deceived: thou hast been stronger that I, and thou hast prevailed” (xx, 7). Ezechiel sees the glory of God borne on a fiery chariot drawn by celestial beings. He hears a voice commanding him to go and find the children of Israel, that rebellious nation, with hardened heart and brazen face, and without prevarication deliver to them the warnings he was to receive.

The other Prophets are silent on the subject of their vocation; doubtless they also received it as clearly and irresistibly. To the preaching and predictions of the false Prophets uttering the fancies of their hearts and saying “the word of Jahve” when Jahve spoke to them not, they fearlessly oppose their own oracles as coming from heaven and compelling under penalty of revolt against God. And the manifest sanctity of their lives, the miracles wrought, the prophecies accomplished demonstrate to their contemporaries the truth of their claims. We also separated from them by thousands of years should be convinced by two irrefragable proofs among others: the great phenomenon of Messianism culminating in Christ and the Church, and the excellence of the religious and moral teaching of the Prophets.

(2) Supernatural knowledge: inspiration and revelation

(a) The fact of revelation — The Prophet did not receive merely a general mission of preaching or predicting in Jahve's name: each of his words is Divine, all his teaching is from above, that is, it comes to him by revelation or at least by inspiration. Among the truths he preaches, there are some which he knows naturally by the light of reason or experience. It is not necessary for him to learn them from God, just as if he had been entirely ignorant of them. It suffices if the Divine illumination places them in a new light, strengthens his judgment and preserves it from error concerning these facts, and if a supernatural impulse determines his will to make them the object of his message. This oral inspiration of the Prophets bears an analogy to the Scriptural inspiration, in virtue of which the Prophets and hagiographers composed our canonical books.

The entire contents of the prophetic message is not, therefore, within the compass of the natural faculties of the divine messenger. The object of all strictly so-called prediction requires a new manifestation and illumination; unaided the Prophet would remain in more or less absolute obscurity. This, then, is revelation in the full sense of the term.

(b) Manner of the revelatory communications; Canons for the interpretation of the prophecies and their fulfilment — In the words of St. John of The Cross — and the doctors of mysticism have a special right to be heard in this matter — “God multiplies the means of transmitting these revelations; at one time he makes use of words, at another of signs, figures, images, similitudes; and again, of both words and symbols together” (The Ascent of Carmel, II, xxvii): To grasp accurately the meaning of the Prophets and judge of the fulfilment of their predictions, these words must be remembered and completed: The material element perceived in the vision may have a strictly literal meaning and simply signify itself. When Micheas, the son of Jemla, beholds “all Israel scattered upon the hills, like sheep that have no shepherd”, and hears Jahve say “These have no master; let every man of them return to his house in peace” (III Kings xxii, 17), he sees exactly what will be the outcome of Achab's expedition against the Syrians at Ramoth of Galaad. Again, the meaning may be entirely symbolic. The almond branch shown to Jeremias ( i, 11 sq.) is not shown for itself; it is intended solely to represent by its name vigilant, the Divine watchfulness, which will not allow the word of God to be unfulfilled. Between these two extremes there exists a whole series of intermediary possibilities, of significations imbued with varying degrees of reality or symbolism. The son promised to David in Nathan's prophecy (II Kings, vii) is at once Solomon and the Messianic king. In the last verse of Aggeus Zorobabel signifies himself and also the Messias.

Neither the Prophets nor their clear-sighted, sensible hearers were ever misled. It is wronging Isaias to say he believed that at the end of time the hill of Sion would physically surpass all the mountains and hills on the earth (ii, 2). Examples might be multiplied indefinitely. Yet we are not forced to believe that the Prophets were always able to distinguish between the literal and the symbolical significations of their visions. It was sufficient for them not to give, and to be unable to give, in the name of God any erroneous interpretation. It has likewise been long known that the vision very frequently disregards distances of time and place, and that the Messias or the Messianic era almost always appears on the immediate horizon of contemporary history. If to this we add the frequently conditional character of the oracles (cf. Jer., xviii; xxiv, 17 sqq. etc.), and remember moreover that the Prophets convey their message in words of eloquence, expressed in Oriental poetry, so rich in striking colours and bold figures, the pretended distinction between realized and unrealized prophecies, predictions substantially accurate but erroneous in detail, will disappear.

(c) State of the Prophet during the Vision — Ordinarily the vision occurred when the Prophet was awake. Dreams, of which the false Prophets made ill use, are scarcely ever mentioned in the case of true Prophets. Much has been said about the ecstatic state of the latter. Possibly the soul of the Prophet may have been at times, as happened to the mystics, so absorbed by the activity of the spiritual faculties that the activity of the senses was suspended, though no definite instance can be cited. In any case, we must remember what St. Jerome (In Isaiam, Prolog. in P. L., XXIV, 19) and St. John Chrysostom (In I Cor. homil. XXIX in P. G., LXI, 240 sqq.) remarked that the Prophets always retained their self-conciousness and were never subject to the disordered and degrading psychic conditions of the pagan soothsayers and pythias; and, instead of enigmatical and puerile sybilline oracles, their pronouncements were often sublime and always worthy of God.

E. The Teaching of the Prophets

(1) The exterior form — They usually taught orally. To this they often added symbolical acts which accorded with Oriental tastes and caught the attention of their hearers. Jeremias, for instance, wandered through Jerusalem under a wooden yoke, symbolizing the approaching subjugation of the nations by the King of Babylon. The false Prophet Hananias, having taken this yoke and broken it on the ground, receives this answer, in the name of Jahve “Thou hast broken chains of wood, and thou shalt make for them chains of iron” (xxviii, 13). Jeremias and Ezechiel make frequent use of this method of instruction. Amos was probably the first who was inspired to unite the written to the spoken word. His example was followed. The Prophets thus exercised wider and more lasting influence, and left moreover an indisputable proof that God had spoken by them (cf. Isaias, viii, 16). Some prophecies seem to have been made exclusively in writing, for instance, probably the second part of Isaias and all Daniel. The greater part of the prophetic books is couched in rhythmic language perfectly adapted to the popular and, at the same time, sublime character of the oracles. Hardly any kind of Hebrew poesy is absent; epithalamia and lamentations; little satirical songs; odes of wonderful lyrism etc. The fundamental law of Hebrew poetry, the parallelism of the stichs, is usually observed. The metric seems to be based essentially on the number of accents marking a raised intonation. Most exhaustive researches upon the construction of the strophes have been made, but without many definitely accepted conclusions.

(2) The Teaching

(a) Preaching: religion and morals, in general — Samuel and Elias sketch out the programme of the religious and moral preaching of the later Prophets. Samuel teaches that the idols are vanity and nothingness (I Kings, xii, 21); that Jahve alone is essentially true, and immutable (xv, 29); that He prefers obedience to sacrifice (xv, 22). For Elias also Jahve alone is God, Baal is nothing. Jahve chastises all iniquity and punishes the injustices of the powerful for the feeble. These are the fundamental points emphasized more and more by the prophetic writers. Their doctrine is based on the existence of one God alone, possessing all the attributes of the true Divinity- sanctity and justice, mercy and fidelity, supreme dominion over the material and moral world, the control of the cosmic phenomena and of the course of history. The worship desired by God does not consist in the profusion of sacrifices and offerings. They are nauseous to Jahve unless accompanied by adoration in spirit and in truth. With what greater indignation and disgust will He not turn away from the cruel and unclean practice of human sacrifice and the prostitution of sacred things so common among the neighbouring nations. On being asked with what one should approach and kneel before the Most High God, He replies by the mouth of Micheas: “I will show thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requireth of thee; Verily to do judgment, and to love mercy, and to walk solicitous with thy God” ( vi, 8). So religion joins morality, and formulates and imposes its dictates. Jahve will call the nations to account for violating the natural law, and Israel, in addition, for not observing the Mosaic legislation (cf. Amos, i-ii, etc.). And He will do this, so as to conciliate in a Divine manner the rights of justice with the realization of the promises made to Israel and mankind.

(b) Prophetic predictions. The Day of Jahve; the Saved; Messianism; Eschatology — The constant subjects of the great prophetic predictions of Israel, the punishment of the guilty nations, and the realization for all of the ancient promises. Directly or indirectly all the prophecies are concerned with the obstacles to be removed before the coming of the new kingdom or with the preparation of the New and final Covenant. From the days of Amos, and clearly it was not even then a new expectation, Israel was awaiting a great day of Jahve, a day, which it deemed one of extraordinary triumph for it and its God. The Prophets do not deny, but rather declare with absolute certainty that the day must come. They dispel the illusions concerning its nature. For Israel, faithless and burdened with crimes, the day of Jahve will be “darkness and not light” ( Amos, v, 18 sqq.). The time is approaching when the house of Jacob will be sifted among the nations as wheat is shaken in the sieve and not a good seed drops to the ground ( ix, 9)/ Alas! the good seed is rare here. The bulk will perish. A remnant alone will be saved, a holy germ from which the Messianic kingdom will arise. The pagan nations will serve as sievers for Israel. But as they have wandered still further from the right path, the day of Jahve will come for them in turn; finally the remnant of Israel and the converts of the nations will unite to form a single people under the great king, the Son of David. The remnant of Ephraem or of Juda remaining in Palestine at the time of the Exile, the remnant returning from the Captivity to form the post-Exilic community, the Messianic kingdom in its militant state and its final consummation- all these stages of the history of salvation are mingled here and there in one prophetic view. The future life looms up but little, the oracles being addressed principally to the body of the nation, for which there is no future life. However, Ezechiel (xxxvii) alludes to the resurrection of the dead; the apocalypse of Isaias (xxvi, 19 sqq.) mentions it explicitly; Daniel speaks of a resurrection unto life everlasting and a resurrection unto eternal reproach (xii, 2 sqq.). The broad daylight of the Christian Revelation is coming.

II. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

When this dawn is about to break, prophecy then long silent finds voices anew to tell the good tidings. Zachary and Elizabeth, Mary the Virgin-Mother, the old man Simeon and Anna the Prophetess are enlightened by the Holy Ghost and unfold the future. Soon the Precursor appears, filled with the spirit and power of Elias. He finds anew the accents of olden prophecy to preach penance and announce the coming of the kingdom. Then it is the Messias in person who, long foretold and awaited as a Prophet (Deut., xviii, 15, 18; Is., xlix, etc.), does not disdain to accept this title and to fulfil its signification. His preaching and His predictions are much closer to the prophetic models than are the teachings of the rabbis. His great predecessors are as far below Him as the servants are below the only Son. Unlike them He does not receive from without the truth which He preaches. Its source is within Him. He promulgates it with an authority thereunto unknown. His revelation is the definite message of the Father. To understand its meaning more and more clearly the Church which He is about to establish will have throughout all ages the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost. However, during the Apostolic times, God continues to select certain instruments like unto the Prophets of the Old Law to make known His will in an extraordinary manner and to foretell coming events: such, for instance, are the Prophets of Antioch (Acts, xiii, 1,8), Agabus, the daughters of the Evangelist Philip, etc. And among the charismata (cf. Prat, `La theologie de Saint Paul”, 1 pt., note H, p. 180-4) conferred so abundantly to hasten and fortify the incipient progress of the faith, one of the principal, next after the Apostolic, is the gift of prophecy. It is granted “unto edification, and exhortation, and comfort” (I Cor., xiv, 3). The writer of the “Didache” informs us that in his day it was fairly frequent and widespread, and he indicates the signs by which it may be recognized (xi, 7-12). Finally the Canon of the Scriptures closes with a prophetic book, the Apocalypse of St. John, which describes the struggles and the victories of the new kingdom while awaiting the return of its Chief at the consummation of all things.

CORNELY, Historica et crit. introd. in N.T. libros sacros, II, 2 (Paris, 1897), diss. III, i, 267-305; GIGOT, Special Introd. to the Study of the Old Testament, II (New York, 1906) 189-202.

JEAN CALÈS

Alphabetic Psalms

Alphabetic psalms are so called because their successive verses, or successive parallel series, begin with the successive letters of the alphabet. Some of these formations are perfectly regular, others are more or less defective. Among the regular Alphabetic Psalms must be reckoned Pss. cx, cxi, cxviii (Heb., Pss. cxi, cxii, cxix). The praise of the strong woman in Prov., xxxi, 10-31, and the first four chapters of Lamentations exhibit a similar regular formation. Pss. cx and cxi consist of twenty-two verses each, and successive verse begins with the corresponding successive letter of the alphabet. Ps. cxviii consists of twenty-two strophes containing each eight distichs; the successive twenty-two strophes are built on the twenty-two letters of the alphabet in such a way that each of the eight distichs of the first strophe begins with the first letter, each of the eight distichs of the second strophe begin with the second letter, etc. Prov., xxxi, 10, consists of twenty-two distichs, each successive distich beginning with the successive corresponding letter of the alphabet. Lam., i, ii, iv, consist each of twenty-two short strophes beginning with the successive letters of the alphabet. In Lam., iii, each successive letter of the alphabet begins three lines, so that the chapter consists of sixty-six lines in which each letter of the alphabet occurs three times as the initial of the line. Defectively Alphabetic Psalms may be found in Pss. ix, xxiv, xxxiv, xxvi, cxliv (Heb., ix, x, xxv, xxxvii, cxlv). But the device is not limited to the Book of Psalms; it is also found in other poetical portions of the Old Testament.

VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1895).

A.J. MAAS

Purgatory

The subject is treated under these heads:
I. Catholic Doctrine
II. Errors
III. Proofs
IV. Duration and Nature
V. Succouring the Dead
VI. Indulgences
VII. Invocation of Souls
VIII. Utility of Prayer for the Departed

I. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined: “Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful” (Denzinger, “Enchiridon”, 983). Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful.

Temporal Punishment

That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things (Wis. x, 2), but still condemned him “to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow” until he returned unto dust. God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the “land of promise” (Num., xx, 12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God's enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (II Kings, xii, 13, 14). In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matt., iii, 8; Luke, xvii, 3; iii, 3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.

Venial Sins

All sins are not equal before God, nor dare anyone assert that the daily faults of human frailty will be punished with the same severity that is meted out to serious violation of God's law. On the other hand whosoever comes into God's presence must be perfectly perfectly pure for in the strictest sense His “eyes are too pure, to behold evil” (Hab., i, 13). For unrepented venial faults for the payment of temporal punishment due to sin at time of death, the Church has always taught the doctrine of purgatory.

So deep was this belief ingrained in our common humanity that it was accepted by the Jews, and in at least a shadowy way by the pagans, long before the coming of Christianity. (“Aeneid,” VI, 735 sq.; Sophocles, “Antigone,” 450 sq.).

II. ERRORS

Epiphanius (haer., lxxv, P.G., XLII, col. 513) complains that Acrius (fourth cent.) taught that prayers for the dead were of no avail. In the Middle Ages, the doctrine of purgatory was rejected by the Albigenses, Waldenses, and Hussites. St. Bernard (Serm. lxvi in Cantic., P. L. CLXXXIII, col. 1098) states that the so-called “Apostolici” denied purgatory and the utility of prayers for the departed. Much discussion has arisen over the position the Greeks on the question of purgatory. It would seem that the great difference of opinion not concerning the existence of purgatory but concerning the nature of purgatorial fire; still St. Thomas proves the existence of purgatory in his dissertation against the errors of the Greeks, and the Council of Florence also thought necessary to affirm the belief of the Church on the subject (Bellarmine, “De Purgatorio,” lib. I, cap. i). The modern Orthodox Church denies purgatory, but is rather inconsistent in its way of putting forth its belief.

At the beginning of the Reformation there was some hesitation especially on Luther's part (Leipzig Disputation) as to whether the doctrine should be retained, but as the breach widened, the denial of purgatory by the Reformers became universal, and Calvin termed the Catholic position “exitiale commentum quod crucern Christi evacuat... quod fidem nostram labefacit et evertit” (Institutiones, lib. III, cap. v, 6). Modern Protestants, while they avoid the name purgatory, frequently teach the doctrine of “the middle state,” and Martensen (“Christian Dogmatics,” Edinburgh, 1890, p. 457) writes: “As no soul leaves this present existence in a fully complete and prepared state, we must suppose that there is an intermediate state, a realm of progressive development, (?) in which souls are prepared for the final judgment” (Farrar, “Mercy and Judgment,” London, 1881, cap. iii).

III. PROOFS

The Catholic doctrine of purgatory supposes the fact that some die with smaller faults for which there was no true repentance, and also the fact that the temporal penalty due to sin is it times not wholly paid in this life. The proofs for the Catholic position, both in Scripture and in Tradition, are bound up also with the practice of praying for the dead. For why pray for the dead, if there be no belief in the power of prayer to afford solace to those who as yet are excluded from the sight of God? So true is this position that prayers for the dead and the existence of a place of purgation are mentioned in conjunction in the oldest passages of the Fathers, who allege reasons for succouring departed souls. Those who have opposed the doctrine of purgatory have confessed that prayers for the dead would be an unanswerable argument if the modern doctrine of a “particular judgment” had been received in the early ages. But one has only to read the testimonies hereinafter alleged to feel sure that the Fatliers speak, in the same breath, of oblations for the dead and a place of purgation; and one his only to consult the evidence found in the catacombs to feel equally sure that the Christian faith there expressed embraced clearly a belief in judgment immediately after death. Wilpert (“Roma Sotteranea,” I, 441) thus concludes chapt. xxi, “Che tale esaudimento”, etc.,

Some stress too has been laid upon the objection that the ancient Christians had no clear conception of purgatory, and that they thought that the souls departed remained in uncertainity of salvation to the last day; and consequently they prayed that thoese who had gone before might in the final judgment escape even the everlasting torments of hell. The earliest Christian traditions are clear as to the particular judgment, and clearer still concerning a sharp distinction between purgatory and hell. The passages alledged as referring to relief from hell cannot offset the evidence given below (Bellarmine, “De Purgatorio,” lib. II, cap. v). Concerning the famous case of Trajan, which vexed the Doctors of the Middle Ages, see Bellarmine, loc. Cit., cap. Viii.

Old Testament

The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in II Machabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel, “making a gathering...sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins” (II Mach., xii, 43-46). At the time of the Machabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection.

New Testament

There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matt., xii, 32): “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” According to St. Isidore of Seveille (Deord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life “some sins wil be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire.” St. Augustine also argues “that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come” (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n.11) and other eminent theological writers.

A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in I Cor., iii, 11-1,5: “For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this eftect:

• St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii),
• St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv),
• St. Augustine (Comm. in Ps. xxxvii),
• St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix), and
• Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.).

See also St. Thomas, “Contra Gentes,”, IV, 91. For a discussion of the exegetical problem, see Atzberger, “Die christliche Eschatologie”, p. 275.

Tradition

This doctrine that many who have died are still in a place of purification and that prayers avail to help the dead is part of the very earliest Christian tradition. Tertullian “De corona militis” mentions prayers for the dead as an Apostolic ordinance, and in “De Monogamia” (cap. x, P. L., II, col. 912) he advises a widow “to pray for the soul of her husband, begging repose for him and participation in the first resurrection”; he commands her also “to make oblations for him on the anniversary of his demise,” and charges her with infidelity if she neglect to succour his soul. This settled custom of the Church is clear from St. Cyprian, who (P. L. IV, col. 399) forbade the customary prayers for one who had violated the ecclesiastical law. “Our predecessors prudently advised that no brother, departing this life, should nominate any churchman as his executor; and should he do it, that no oblation should be made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose.” Long before Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria had puzzled over the question of the state or condition of the man who, reconciled to God on his death-bed, had no time for the fulfilment of penance due his transgression. His answer is: “the believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the beleiver, for God's righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, “yet” etc. (P. G. IX, col. 332).

In Origen the doctrine of purgatory is very clear. If a man depart this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. “For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (I Cor., 3); but also wood and hay and stubble,what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works.” (P. G., XIII, col. 445, 448).

The Apostolic practice of praying for the dead which passed into the liturgy of the Church, is as clear in the fourth century as it is in the twentieth. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Mystog., V, 9, P.G., XXXIII, col. 1116) describing the liturgy, writes: “Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XLVI, col. 524, 525) states that man's weaknesses are purged in this life by prayer and wisdom, or are expiated in the next by a cleansing fire. “When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil.” About the same time the Apostolic Constitution gives us the formularies used in succouring the dead. “Let us pray for our brethren who sleep in Christ, that God who in his love for men has received the soul of the depart one, may forgive him every fault, and in mercy and clemency receive him into the bosom of Abraham, with those who in this life have pleased God” (P. G. I, col. 1144). Nor can we pass over the use of the diptychs where the names of the dead were inscribed; and this remembrance by name in the Sacred Mysteries—(a practice that was from the Apostles) was considered by Chrysostom as the best way of relieving the dead (In I Ad Cor., Hom. xli, n. 4, G., LXI, col. 361, 362).

The teaching of the Fathers, and the formularies used in the Liturgy of the Church, found expression in the early Christian monuments, particularly those contained in the catacombs. On the tombs of the faithful were inscribed words of hope, words of petition for peace and for rest; and as the anniversaries came round the faithful gathered at the graves of the departed to make intercession for those who had gone before. At the bottom this is nothing else than the faith expressed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, “De Purgatorio”), and to this faith the inscriptions in the catacombs are surely witnesses.

In the fourth century in the West, Ambrose insists in his commentary on St. Paul (I Cor., iii) on the existence of purgatory, and in his masterly funeral oration (De obitu Theodosii), thus prays for the soul of the departed emperor: “Give, O Lord, rest to Thy servant Theodosius, that rest Thou hast prepared for Thy saints. . . . I loved him, therefore will I fellow him to the land of the living; I will not leave him till by my prayers and lamentations he shall be admitted unto the holy mount of the Lord, to which his deserts call him “ (P. L., XVI, col. 1397). St. Augustine is clearer even than his master. He describes two conditions of men; “some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness” etc., and in the resurrection he says there will be some who “have gone through these pains, to which the spirits of the dead are liable” (De Civ. Dei, XXI, 24). Thus at the close of the fourth century not only (1) were prayers for the dead found in all the Liturgies, but the Fathers asserted that such practice was from the Apostles themselves; (2) those who were helped by the prayers of the faithful and by the celebration of the Holy Mysteries were in a place of purgation; (3) from which when purified they “were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord”. So clear is this patristic Tradition that those who do not believe in purgatory have been unable to bring any serious difficulties from the writings of the Fathers. The passages cited to the contrary either do not touch the question at all, or are so lacking in clearness that they cannot offset the perfectly open expression of the doctrine as found in the very Fathers who are quoted as holding contrary opinions (Bellarmine “De Purg.”, lib. I, cap. xiii).

IV. DURATION AND NATURE

Duration

The very reasons assigned for the existence of purgatory make for its passing character. We pray, we offer sacrifice for souls therein detained that “God in mercy may forgive every fault and receive them into the bosom of Abraham “ (Const. Apost., P. G., I col. 1144); and Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. XXI, cap.xiii and xvi) declares that the punishment of purgatory is temporary and will cease, at least with the Last Judgment. “But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both noow and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment.”

Nature of Punishment

It is clear from the Liturgies and the Fathers above cited that the souls for whose peace sacrifice was offered were shut out for the time being from the sight of God. They were “not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness”. Still, for them “death is the termination not of nature but of sin” (Ambrose, “De obitu Theodos.”); and this inability to sin makes them secure of final happiness. This is the Catholic position proclaimed by Leo X in the Bull “Exurge Domine” which condemned the errors of Luther.

Are the souls detained in purgatory conscious that their happiness is but deferred for a time, or may they still be in doubt concerning their ultimate salvation? The ancient Liturgies and the inscriptions of the catacombs speak of a “sleep of peace”, which would be impossible if there was any doubt of ultimate salvation. Some of the Doctors of the Middle Ages thought uncertainity of salvation one of the severe punishments of purgatory. (Bellarmine, “De Purgat.” lib. II, cap. iv); but this opinion finds no general credit among the theologians of the medieval period, nor is it possible in the light of the belief in the particular judgment. St. Bonaventure gives as the reason for this elimination of fear and of uncertainty the intimate conviction that they can no longer sin (lib. IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1 q. iv): “Est evacuatio timoris propter confirniationem liberi arbitrii, qua deinceps scit se peccare non posse” (Fear is cast out because of the strengthening of the will by which the soul knows it can no longer sin), and St. Thomas (dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) says: “nisi scirent se esse liberandas suffragia non peterent” (unless they knew that they are to be delivered, they would not ask for prayers).

Merit

In the Bull “Exurge Domine” Leo X condemns the proposition (n. 38) “Nec probatum est ullis aut rationibus aut scripturis ipsas esse extra statum merendi aut augendae caritatis” (There is no proof from reason or Scripture that they [the souls in purgatory] cannot merit or increase in charity). For them “the night has come in which no man can labour”, and Christian tradition has always considered that only in this life can man work unto the profit of his own soul. The Doctors of the Middle Ages while agreeing that this life is the time for merit and increase of grace, still some with St. Thomas seemed to question whether or not there might be some non-essential reward which the souls in purgatory might merit (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a. 3). Bellarmine believes that in this matter St. Thomas changed his opinion and refers to a statement of St. Thomas (“De Malo”, q. vii, a. 11). Whatever may be the mind of the Angelic Doctor, theologians agree that no merit is possible in purgatory, and if objection be urged that the souls there merit by their prayers, Bellarmine says that such prayers avail with God because of merit already acquired “Solum impetrant ex meritis praeteritis quomodo nunc sancti orando) pro nobis impetrant licet non merendo” (They avail only in virtue of past merits as those who are now saints intercede for us not by merit but by prayer). (loc. cit. II, cap. iii).

Purgatorial Fire

At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on tlils subject. In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine in Ps. 37 n. 3, speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, “gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita” (P. L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life “will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames,” and he adds “'that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life” (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. “Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur”, and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; “Gravior est oinni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta”. How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops “to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification', and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion” (Sess. XXV, “De Purgatorio”).

V. SUCCOURING THE DEAD

Scripture and the Fathers command prayers and oblations for the departed, and the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, “De Purgatorio”) in virtue of this tradition not only asserts the existence of purgatory, but adds “that the souls therein detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar.” That those on earth are still in communion with the souls in purgatory is the the earliest Christian teaching, and that the living aid the dead by their prayers and works of satisfaction is clear from the tradition above alleged. That the Holy Sacrifice was offered for the departed was received Catholic Tradition even in the days of Tertullian and Cyprian, and that the souls of the dead, were aided particularly “while the sacred victim lay upon the altar” is the expression of Cyril of Jerusalem quoted above. Augustine (Serm.. clxii, n. 2) says that the “prayers and alms of the faithful, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar aid the faithful departed and move the Lord to deal with them in mercy and kindness, and,” he adds, “this is the practice of the universal Church handed down by the Fathers.” Whether our works of satisfaction performed on behalf of the dead avail purely out of God's benevolence and mercy, or whether God obliges himself in justice to accept our vicarious atonement, is not a settled question. Suarez thinks that the acceptance is one of justice, and alleges the common practice of the Church which joins together the iving and the dead without any discrimination (De poenit., disp. xlviii, 6, n. 4).

VI. INDULGENCES

The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV) defined that indulgences are “most salutary for Christian people” and that their “use is to be retained in the Church”. It is the common teaching of Catholic theologians that

• indulgences may be applied to the souls detained in purgatory; and
• that indulgences are available for them “by way of suffrage” (per modum suffragii).

(1) Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XX, ix) declares that the souls of the faithful departed are not separated from the Church, which is the kingdom of Christ, and for this reason the prayers and works of the living are helpful to the dead. “If therefore”, argues Bellarmine (De indulgentiis, xiv) “we can offer our prayers and our satisfactions in behalf of those detained in purgatory, because we are members of the great body of Christ, why may not the Vicar of Christ apply to the same souls the superabundant satisfaction of Christ and his saints—of which he is the dispenser?” This is the doctrine of St. Thomas (IV, Sent., dist. xlv, q. ii, a. 3, q. 2) who asserts that indulgences avail principally for the person who performs the work for which the indulgence is given, if the but secondarily may avail even for the dead, if the form in which the indulgence is granted be so worded as to be capable of such interpretation, and he adds “nor is there any reason why the Church may not dispose of its treasure of merits in favour of the dead, as it surely dispenses it in favour of the living”.

(2) St. Bonaventure (IV, Sent., dist. xx, p. 2, q. v) agrees with St. Thomas, but adds that such “relaxation cannot be after the manner of absolution as in the case of the living but only as suffrage (Haec non tenet modum judicii, sed potius suffragii). This opinion of St. Bonaventure, that the Church through its Supreme Pastor does not absolve juridically the souls in purgatory from the punishment due their sins, is the teaching of the Doctors. They point out (Gratian, 24 q. ii, 2, can.1) that in case of those who have departed this life judgment is reserved to God; they allege the authority of Gelasius (Ep. ad Fausturn; Ep. ad. Episcopos Dardaniae) in support of their contention (Gratian ibid.), and they also insist that the Roman Pontiffs, when they grant indulgences that are applicable to the dead, add the restriction “per modum suffragii et deprecationis”. This phrase is found in the Bull of Sixtus IV “Romani Pontificis provida diligentia”, 27 Nov. 1447.

The phrase “per modum suffragi et deprecationis” has been variously interpreted by theologians (Bellarmine, “De indulgentiis”, p.137). Bellarmine himself says: “The true opinion is that indulgences avail as suffrage, because they avail not after the fashion of a juridical absolution 'quia non prosunt per modum juridicae absolutionis'.” But according to the same author the suffrages of the faithful avail at times “per modum meriti congrui” (by way of merit), at times “per modum impetrationis” (by way of supplication) at times “per modum satisfactionis” (by way of satisfaction); but when there is question of applying an indulgence to one in purgatory it is only “per modum suffragii satisfactorii” and for this reason “the pope does not absolve the soul in purgatory from the punishment due his sin, but offers to God from the treasure of the Church whatever may be necessary for the cancelling of this punishment”.

If the question be further asked whether such satisfaction is accepted by God out of mercy and benevolence, or “ex justitia”, theologians are not in accord—some holding one opinion, others the other. Bellarmine after canvassing both sides (pp. 137, 138) does not dare to set aside “either opinion, but is inclined to think that the former is more reasonable while he pronounces the latter in harmony with piety (“admodum pia”).

Condition

That an indulgence may avail for those in purgatory several conditions are required:

• The indulgence must be granted by the pope.
• There must be a sufficient reason for granting, the indulgence, and this reason must be something pertaing to the glory of God and the utility of the Church, not merely the utility accruing to the souls in purgatory.
• The pious work enjoined must be as in the case of indulgences for the living.

If the state of grace be not among the required works, in all probability the person performing the work may gain the indulgence for the dead, even though he himself be not in friendship with God (Bellarmine, loc. cit., p. 139). Suarez (De Poenit., disp. Iiii, s. 4, n. 5 and 6) puts this categorically when he says: “Status gratiae solum requiritur ad tollendum obicem indulgentiae” (the state of grace is required only to remove some hindrance to the indulgence), and in the case of the holy souls there can be no hindrance. This teaching is bound up with the doctrine of the Communion of Saints, and the monuments of the catacombs represent the saints and martyrs as interceding with God for the dead. The prayers too of the early liturgies speak of Mary and of the saints interceding for those who have passed from this life. Augustine believes that burial in a basilica dedicated to a holy, martyr is of value to the dead, for those who recall the memory of him who has suffered will recommend to the martyr's prayers the soul of him who has departed this life (Bellarmine, lib. II, xv). In the same place Bellarmine accuses Dominicus A Soto of rashness, because he denied this doctrine.

VII. INVOCATION OF SOULS

Do the souls in purgatory pray for us? May we call upon them in our needs? There is no decision of the Church on this subject, nor have the theologians pronounced with definiteness concerning the invocation of the souls in purgatory and their intercession for the living. In the ancient liturgies there are no prayers of the Church directed to those who are still in purgatory. On the tombs of the early Christians nothing is more common than a prayer or a supplication asking the departed to intercede with God for surviving friends, but these inscriptions seem always to suppose that the departed one is already with God. St. Thomas >(II-II:83:11) denies that the souls in purgatory pray for the living, and states they are not in a position to pray for us, rather we must make intercession for them. Despite the authority of St. Thomas, many renowned theologians hold that the souls in purgatory really pray for us, and that we may invoke their aid. Bellarmine (De Purgatorio, lib. II, xv,) says the reason alleged by St. Thomas is not at all convincing, and holds that in virtue of their greater love of God and their union with Him their prayers may have great intercessory power, for they are really superior to us in love of God, and in intimacy of union with Him. Suarez (De poenit., disp. xlvii, s. 2, n. 9) goes farther and asserts “that the souls in purgatory are holy, are dear to God, love us with a true love and are mindful of our wants; that they know in a general way our necessities and our dangers, and how great is our need of Divine help and divine grace”.

When there is question of invoking the prayers of those in purgatory, Bellarmine (loc. cit.) says it is superfluous, ordinarily speaking, for they are ignorant of our circumstances and condition. This is at variance with the opinion of Suarez, who admits knowledge at least in a general way, also with the opinions of many modern theologians who point to the practice now common with almost all the faithful of addressing their prayers and petitions for help to those who are still in a place of purgation. Scavini (Theol. Moral., XI, n. l74) sees no reason why the souls detained in purgatory may not pray for us, even as we pray for one another. He asserts that this practice has become common at Rome, and that it has the great name of St. Alphonsus in its favour. St. Alphonsus in his work the “Great Means of Salvation”, chap. I, III, 2, after quoting Sylvius, Gotti, Lessius, and Medina as favourable to his opinion, concludes: “so the souls in purgatory, being beloved by God and confirmed in grace, have absolutely no impediment to prevent them from praying for us. Still the Church does not invoke them or implore their intercession, because ordinarily they have no cognizance of our prayers. But we may piously believe that God makes our prayers known to them”. He alleges also the authority of St. Catharine of Bologna who “whenever she desired any favour had recourse to the souls in purgatory, and was immediately heard”.

VIII. UTILITY OF PRAYER FOR THE DEPARTED

It is the traditional faith of Catholics that the souls in purgatory are not separated from the Church, and that the love which is the bond of union between the Church's members should embrace those who have departed this life in God's grace. Hence, since our prayers and our sacrifices can help those who are still waiting in purgatory, the saints have not hesistated to warn us that we have a real duty toward those who are still in purgatorial expiation. Holy Church through the Congregation of Indulgences, 18 December 1885, has bestowed a special blessing on the so-called “heroic act” in virtue of which “a member of the Church militant ofters to God for the souls in purgatory all the satisfactory works which he will perform during his lifetime, and also all the suffrages which may accrue to him after his death” (Heroic Act, vol. VII ,292). The practice of devotion to the dead is also consoling to humanity and eminently worthy of a religion which seconds all the purest feelings of the human heart. “Sweet”, says Cardinal Wiseman (lecture XI), “is the consolation of the dying man, who, conscious of imperfection, believes that there are others to make intercession for him, when his own time for merit has expired; soothing to the afflicted survivors the thought that they possess powerful means of relieving their friend. In the first moments of grief, this sentiment will often overpower religious prejudice, cast down the unbeliever on his knees beside the remains of his friend and snatch from him an unconscious prayer for rest; it is an impulse of nature which for the moment, aided by the analogies of revealed truth, seizes at once upon this consoling belief. But it is only a flitting and melancholy light, while the Catholic feeling, cheering though with solemn dimness, resembles the unfailing lamp, which the piety of the ancients is said to have hung before the sepulchres of their dead.”

EDWARD J. HANNA
In memory of Father George P. O'Neill
Former pastor of St. John the Baptist Church, Buffalo, N.Y.

Rachel

Rachel (“a ewe”), daughter of Laban and younger sister of Lia. The journey of Jacob to the “east country” (Mesopotamia) in quest of a bride of his own kin, and his providential meeting with Rachel at the well in the open country followed by his introduction into the household of Laban are told with idyllic charm in the twenty-ninth chapter of Genesis. Jacob, being in love with Rachel, agreed to serve her father for her seven years. Laban accepted the proposal, and the seven years seemed to Jacob “but a few days, because of the greatness of his love”. He was deceived, however, by Laban, who at the end of the term of service gave him to wife, not Rachel, who “was well favoured, and of a beautiful countenance”, but her elder sister Lia, who was “blear-eyed”, and Jacob received the younger daughter to wife only on condition of serving seven years more. Rachel, being for a time without offspring and envious of her sister, to whom four children were born, gave to Jacob as a secondary wife her handmaid Bala, whose issue, according to a custom of the times, would be reckoned as her own. From this union were born Dan and Nephtali. In the quarrel which arose between Jacob and Laban, Rachel as well as Lia sided with the former, and when departing from her father's home she carried away with her the teraphim or household gods, believing in their protecting influence over herself and her husband (Gen., xxxi, 19). Among the sons of Rachel after the “Lord remembered” her were Joseph and Benjamin, in giving birth to the latter of whom Rachel died. At the point of death “she called the name of her son Benomi, that is, The son of my pain: but his father called him Benjamin, that is, the Son of the right hand”. Rachel was buried “in the highway that leadeth to Ephrata, this is Bethlehem. And Jacob erected a pillar over her sepulchre: this is the pillar of Rachel's monument, to this day” (Gen., xxxv, 18-20). The exact location of the grave of Rachel is a disputed point. A passage in Jeremias (xxxi, 15) would seem to indicate that it was on the northern border of Benjamin towards Ephraim, about ten miles north of Jerusalem. Tradition, however, has from at least the fourth century fixed the spot four miles south of Jerusalem and one mile north of Bethlehem.

VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v. ; VON HUMMELAUER, Comment. in Gen., ch. xxix-xxxv.

JAMES.F. DRISCOLL

St. Raphael

The name of this archangel (Raphael = “God has healed”) does not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in the Septuagint (`Raphael) only in the Book of Tobias. Here he first appears disguised in human form as the travelling companion of the younger Tobias, calling himself “Azarias the son of the great Ananias”. The story of the adventurous journey during which the protective influence of the angel is shown in many ways including the binding “in the desert of upper Egypt” of the demon who had previously slain seven husbands of Sara, daughter of Raguel, is picturesquely related in Tob.,v- xi, to which the reader is referred. After the return and the healing of the blindness of the elder Tobias, Azarias makes himself known as “the angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord” (Tob., xii, 15. Cf. Apoc., viii, 2. Of these seven `archangels” which appear in the angelology of post-Exilic Judaism, only three, Gabriel, Michael and Raphael, are mentioned in the canonical Scriptures. The others, according to the Book of Enoch (cf. xxi) are Uriel, Raguel, Sariel, and Jerahmeel, while from other apocryphal sources we get the variant names Izidkiel, Hanael, and Kepharel instead of the last three in the other list.

Regarding the functions attributed to Raphael we have little more than his declaration to Tobias (Tob., xii) that when the latter was occupied in his works of mercy and charity, he (Raphael) offered his prayer to the Lord, that he was sent by the Lord to heal him of his blindness and to deliver Sara, his son's wife, from the devil. The Jewish category of the archangels is recognized in the New Testament (I Thess., iv, 15; Jude, 9), but only Gabriel and Michael are mentioned by name. Many commentators, however, identify Raphael with the “angel of the Lord” mentioned in John, v. This conjecture is base both on the significance of the name and on the healing role attributed to Raphael in the Book of Tobias. The Church assigns the feast of St. Raphael to 24 Oct. The hymns of the Office recall the healing power of the archangel and his victory over the demon. The lessons of the first Nocturn and the Antiphons of the entire Office are taken from the Book of Tobias, and the lessons of the second and third Nocturns from the works of St. Augustine, viz. for the second Nocturn a sermon on Tobias (sermon I on the fifteenth Sunday), and for the third, a homily on the opening verse of John, v. The Epistle of the Mass is taken from the twelfth chapter of Tobias, and the Gospel from John, v, 1-4, referring to the pool called Probatica, where the multitude of the infirm lay awaiting the moving of the water, for “an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond; and the water was moved.And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water was made whole of whatsoever infirmity he lay under”. Thus the conjecture of the commentators referred to above is confirmed by the official Liturgy of the Church.

Vigouroux, Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Raphael.

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

The Reformation

The usual term for the religious movement which made its appearance in Western Europe in the sixteenth century, and which, while ostensibly aiming at an internal renewal of the Church, really led to a great revolt against it, and an abandonment of the principal Christian beliefs. We shall review the general characteristics of this movement from the following standpoints:

CAUSES OF THE REFORMATION

The causes of the great religious revolt of the sixteenth century must be sought as far back as the fourteenth. The doctrine of the Church, it is true, had remained pure; saintly lives were yet frequent in all parts of Europe, and the numerous beneficient medieval institutions of the Church continued their course uninterruptedly. Whatever unhappy conditions existed were largely due to civil and profane influences or to the exercise of authority by ecclesiastics in civil spheres; they did not obtain everywhere with equal intensity, nor did they always occur simultaneous in the same country. Ecclesiastical and religious life exhibited in many places vigour and variety; works of education and charity abounded; religious art in all its forms had a living force; domestic missionaries were many and influential; pious and edifying literature was common and appreciated. Gradually, however, and largely owing to the variously hostile spirit of the civil powers, fostered and heightened by several elements of the new order, there grew up in many parts of Europe political and social conditions which hamperedthe free reformatory activities of the Church, and favoured the bold and unscrupulous, who seized a unique opportunity to let loose all the forces of heresy and schism so long held in check by the harmonious action of the ecclesiastical and civil authorities.

A. Since the barbarian invasions the Church had effected a complete transformation and revival of the races of Western Europe, and a glorious development of religious and intellectual life. The papacy had become the powerful centre of the family of Christian nations, and as such had for centuries, in union with the episcopate and theclergy, displayed a most beneficent activity. With the ecclesiastical organization fully developed, it came to pass that the activities of the governing ecclesiastical bodies were no longer confined to the ecclesiastical domain, but affected almost every sphere of popular life. Gradually a regrettable worldliness manifested itself in many high ecclesiastics. Their chief object, viz. to guide man to his eternal goal, claimed too seldom their attention, and worldly activities became in too many cases the chief interest. Political power, material possessions, privileged position in public life, the defence of ancient historical rights, earthly interests of various kinds were only too often the chief aim of many of the higher clergy. Pastoral solicitude, the specifically religious and ecclesiastical aim, fell largely into the background, notwithstanding various spirited and successful attempts to rectify the existing evils.

B. Closely connected with the above were various abuses in the lives of the clergy and the people. In the Papal Curia political interests and a worldly life were often prominent. Many bishops and abbots (especially in countries where they were also territorial princes) bore themselves as secular rulers rather than as servants of the Church. Many members of cathedral chapters and other beneficed ecclesiastics were chiefly concerned with their income and how to increase it, especially by uniting several prebends (even episcopal sees) in the hands of one person, who thus enjoyed a larger income and greater power. Luxury prevailed widely among the higher clergy, while the lower clergywere often oppressed. The scientific and ascetic training of the clergy left much to be desired, the moral standard of many being very low, and the practice of celibacy not everywhere observed. Not less serious was the condition of many monasteries of men, and even of women (which were often homes for the unmarried daughters of the nobility). The former prestige of the clergy had thus suffered greatly, and its members were in many places regarded with scorn. As to the Christian people itself, in numerous districts ignorance, superstition, religious indifference, and immorality were rife. Nevertheless, vigorous efforts to revive life were made in most lands, and side by side with this moral decayappear numerous examples of sincere and upright Christian life. Such efforts, however, were too often confined to limited circles. From the fourteenth century the demand for “reform of head and members” (reformatio in capite et in membris) had been voiced with ever-increasing energy by serious and discerning men, but the same cry was taken up also by many who had no real desire for a religious renewal, wishing merely to reform others but not themselves, and seeking only their own interests. This call for reformation of head and members, discussed in many writings and in conversation with insistence on existing and often exaggerated abuses, tended necessarily to lower the clergy stil more in the eyes of the people, especially as the councils of the fifteenth century, though largely occupied with attempts at reformation, did not succeed in accomplishing it extensively or permanently.

C. The authority of the Holy See had also been seriously impaired, partly through the fault of some of its occupants and partly through that of the secular princes. The pope's removal to Avignon in the fourteenth century was a grievous error, since the universal character of the papacy was thus obscured in the minds of the Christian people. Certain phases of the quarrel with Louis the Bavarian and with the Franciscan Spirituals clearly indicate a decline of the papal power. The severest blow was dealt by the disastrous papal schism (1378-1418) which familiarized Western Christians with the idea that war might be made, with all spiritual and material weapons, against one whom many other Christians regarded as the only lawful pope. After the restoration of unity, the attempted reforms of the Papal Curia were not thorough. Humanism and the ideals of the Renaissance were zealously cultivated in Rome, and unfortunately the heathen tendencies of this movement, so opposed to the Christian moral law, affected too profoundly the life of many higher ecclesiastics, so that worldly ideas, luxury, and immorality rapidly gained ground at the centre of ecclesiastical life. When ecclesiastical authority grew weak at the fountain-head, it necessarily decayed elsewhere. There were also serious administrative abuses in the Papal Curia. The ever-increasing centralization of ecclesiastical admministration had brought it about that far too many ecclesiastical benefices in all parts of Christendomwere conferred at Rome, while in the granting of them the personal interests of the petitioner, rather than the spiritual needs of the faithful, were too often considered. The various kinds of reservation had also become a grievous abuse. Dissatisfaction was felt widely among the clergy at the many taxes imposed by the Curia on the incumbents of ecclesiastical benefices. From the fourteenth century these taxes called forth loud complaints. In proportion as the papal authority lost the respect of many, resentment grew against both the Curia and the Papacy. The reform councils of the fifteenth century, instead of improving the situation, weakened still more the highest ecclesiastical authority by reason of their anti-papal tendencies and measures.

D. In princes and governments there had meanwhile developed a national consciousness, purely temporal and to a great extent hostile to the Church; the evil powers interfered more frequently in ecclesiastical matters, and the direct influence exercised by laymen on the domestic administration of the Church rapidly increased. In the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries arose the modern concept of the State. During the preceding period many matters of a secular or mixed nature had been regulated or managed by the Church, in keeping with the historical development of European society. With the growing self-consciousness of the State, the secular governments sought to control all matters that fell within their competence, which course, although in large measure justifiable, was new and offensive, and thus led to frequent collisions between Church and State. The State, moreover, owing to the close historical connexion between the ecclesiastical and secular orders, encroached on the ecclesiastical domain. During the course of the Western Schism (1378-1418) opposing popes sought the support of the civil powers, and thus gave the latter abundant occasion to interfere in purely ecclesiastical affairs. Again, to strengthen their authority in the face of anti-papal tendencies, the popes of the fifteenth century made at various times certain concessions to the civil authorities, so that the latter came to regard ecclesiastical affairs as within their domain. For the future the Church was to be, not superordinate, but subordinate to the civil power, and was increasingly menaced with complete subjection. According as national self-consciousness developed in the various countries of Europe, the sense of the unity and interpendence of the Christian family of nations grew weaker. Jealousy between nations increased, selfishness gained ground, the rift between politics and Christian morality and religion grew wider, and discontent and perilous revolutionary tendencies spread rapidly among the people. Love of wealth was meanwhile given a great incentive by the discovery of the New World, the rapid development of commerce, and the new prosperity of the cities. In public life a many-sided and intense activity revealed itself, foreshadowing a new era and inclining the popular mind to changes in the hitherto undivided province of religion.

E. The Renaissance and Humanism partly introduced and greatly fostered these conditions. Love of luxury was soon associated with the revival of the art and literature of Graeco-Roman paganism. The Christian religious ideal was to a great extent lost sight of; higher intellectual culture, previously confined in great measure to the clergy, but now common among the laity, assumed a secular character, and in only too many cases fostered actively and practically a pagan spirit, pagan morality and views. A crude materialism obtained among the higher classes of society and in the educated world, characterized by a gross love of pleasure, a desire for gain, and a voluptuousness of life diametrically opposed to Christian morality. Only a faint interest in the supernatural life survived. The new art ofprinting made itpossible to disseminate widely the works of pagan authors and of their humanistic imitators. Immoral poems and romances, biting satires on ecclesiastical persons and institutions, revolutionary works and songs, were circulated in all directions and wrought immense harm. As Humanism grew, it waged violent war againsts the Scholasticism of the time. The traditional theological method had greatly degenerated owing to the finical, hair-splitting manner of treating theological questions, and a solid and thorough treatment of theology had unhappily disappeared from many schools and writings. The Humanists cultivated new methods, and based theology on the Bible and the study of the Fathers, an essentially good movement which might have renewed the study of theology, if properly developed. But the violence of the Humanists, their exaggerated attacks on Scholasticism (q.v.), and the frequent obscurity of their teaching aroused strong opposition from the representative Scholastics. The new movement, however, had won the sympathy of the lay world and of the section of the clergy devoted to Humanism. The danger was only too imminent that the reform would not be confined to theological methods but would reach the content of ecclesiastical dogma, and would find widespread support in humanistic circles.

The soil was thus ready for the growth of revolutionary movements in the religious sphere. Many grave warnings were indeed uttered, indicating the approaching danger and urging a fundamental reform of the actual evil conditions. Much had been effected in this direction by the reform movement in various religious orders and by the apostolic efforts of zealous individuals. But a general renewal of ecclesiastical life and a uniform improvement of evil conditions, beginning with Rome itself, the centre of the Church, were not promptly undertaken, and soon it needed only an external impulse to precipitate a revolution, which was to cut off from the unity of the Church great territories of Central and almost all Northern Europe.

II. ORIGINAL IDEAS AND PURPOSES OF THE REFORMERS

The first impulse to secession was supplied by the opposition of Luther in Germany and of Zwingli in German Switzerland to the promulgation by Leo X of an indulgence for contributions towards the building of the new St. Peter's at Rome. For a long time it had been customary for the popes to grant indulgences for buildings of public utility (e.g. bridges). In such cases the true doctrine of indulgences as a remission of the punishment due to sin (not of guilt of sin) had been always upheld, and the necessary conditions (especially the obligation of a contrite confession to obtain absolution from sin) always inculcated. But the almsgiving for a good object, prescribed only as a good work supplementary to the chief conditions for the gaining of the indulgence, was often prominently emphasized. The indulgence commissaries sought to collect as much money as possible in connexion with the indulgence. Indeed, frequently since the Western Schism the spiritual needs of the people did not receive as much consideration as a motive for promulgating an indulgence, as the need of the good object by promoting which the indulgence was to be gained, and the consequent need of obtaining alms for this purpose. The war against the Turks and other crises, the erection of churches and monasteries, and numerous other causes led to the granting of indulgences in the fifteenth century. The consequent abuses were heightened by the fact that secular rulers frequently forbade the promulgation of indulgences within their territories, consenting only on condition that a portion of the receipts should be given to them. In practice, therefore, and in the public mind the promulgation of indulgences took on an economic aspect, and, as they were frequent, many came to regard them as an oppressive tax. Vainly did earnest men raise their voices against this abuse, which aroused no little bitterness against the ecclesiastical order and particularly the Papal Curia. The promulgation of indulgences for the new St. Peter's furnished Luther with an opportunity to attack indulgences in general, and this attack was the immediate occasion of the Reformation in Germany. A little later the same motive led Zwingli to put forth his erroneous teachings, thereby inaugurating the Reformation in German Switzerland (see LUTHER, MARTIN; ZWINGLI, HULDREICH). Both declared that they were attacking only the abuses of indulgences; however, they soon taught doctrine in many ways contrary to the teaching of the Church.

The great applause which Luther received on his first appearance, both in humanistic circles and among some theologians and some of the earnest-minded laity, was due to the dissatisfaction with the existing abuses. His own erroneous views and the influence of a portion ofhis followers very soon drove Luther into rebellion against ecclesiastical authority as such, and eventually led him into open apostasy and schism. His chief original supporters were among the Humanists, the immoral clergy, and the lower grades of the landed nobility imbued with revolutionary tendencies. It was soon evident that he meant to subvert all the fundamental institutions of the Church. Bginning by proclaiming the false doctrine of “justification by faith alone”, he later rejected all supernatural remedies (especially the sacraments and the Mass), denied the meritoriousness of good works (thus condemning monastic vows and Christian asceticism in general), and finally rejected the institution of a genuine hierarchical priesthood (especially the papacy) in the Church. His doctrine of the Bible as the sole rule of faith, with rejection of all ecclesiastical authority, established subjectivism in mmatters of faith. By this revolutionary assault Luther forfeited the support of many serious persons indisposed to break with the Church but on the other hand won over all the anti-ecclesiastical elements, including numerous monks and nuns who left the monasteries to break their vows, and many priests who espoused his cause with the intention of marrying. The support of his sovereign, Frederick of Saxony, was of great importance. Very soon secular princes and municipal magistrates made the Reformation a pretext for arbitrary interference in purely ecclesiastical and religious affairs, for appropriating ecclesiastical property and disposing of it at pleasure, and for deciding what faith their subjects should accept. Some followers of Luther went to even greater extremes. The Anabaptists and the “Iconoclasts” revealed the extremest possibilities of the principles advocated by Luther, while in the Peasants' War the most oppressed elements of German society put into practice the doctrine of the reformer. Ecclesiastical affairs were now reorganized on the basis of the new teachings; henceforth the secular power is ever more clearly the supreme judge in purely religious matters, and completely disregards any independent ecclesiastical authority.

A second centre of the Reformation was established by Zwingli at Zurich. Though he differed in many particulars from Luther, and was much more radical than the latter in his transformation of the ceremonial of the Mass, the aims of his followers were identical with those of the Lutherans. Political considerations played a great role in the development of Zwinglianism, and the magistracy of Zurich, after a majority of its members had declared for Zwingli, became a zealous promoter of the Reformation. Arbitrary decrees were issued by the magistrates concerning ecclesiastical organization; the councillors who remained true to the Catholic Faith were expelled from the council, and Catholic services were forbidden in the city. The city and the canton of Zurich were reformed by the civil authorities according to the ideas of Zwingli. Other parts of German Switzerland experienced a similar fate. French Switzerland developed later its own peculiar Reformation; this was organized at Geneva by Calvin (q.v.). Calvinism is distinguished from Lutheranism and Zwinglianism by a more rigid and consistent form of doctrine and by the strictness of its moral precepts, which regulate the whole domestic and public life of the citizen. The ecclesiastical organization of Calvin was declared a fundamental law of the Republic of Geneva, and the authorities gave their entire support to the reformer in the establishment of his new court of morals. Calvin's word was the highest authority, and he tolerated no contradiction of his views or regulations. Calvinism was introduced into Geneva and the surrounding country by violence. Catholic priests were banished, and the people oppressed and compelled to attend Calvinistic sermons.

In England the origin of the Reformation was entirely different. Here the sensual and tyrannical Henry VIII, with the support of Thomas Cranmer, whom the king made the Archbishop of Canterbury, severed his country from ecclesiastical unity because the pope, as the true guardian of the Divine law, refused to recognize the invalid marriage of the king with Anne Boleyn during the lifetime of his lawful wife. Renouncing obedience to the pope, the despotic monarch constituted himself supreme judge even in ecclesiastical affairs; the opposition of such good men as Thomas More and John Fisher was overcome in blood. The king wished, however, to retain unchanged both the doctrines of the Church and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and caused a series of doctrines and institutions rejected by Luther and his followers to be strictly prescribed by Act of Parliament (Six Articles) under the pain of death. In England also the civil power constituted itself supreme judge in matters of faith, and laid the foundation for further arbitrary religious innovations. Under the following sovereign, Edward VI (1547-53), the Protestant party gained the upped hand, and thenceforth began to promote the Reformation in England according to the principles of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. Here also force was employed to spread the new doctrines. This last effort of the Reformationmovement was practically confined to England (see ANGLICANISM).

III. METHOD OF SPREADING THE REFORMATION

In the choice of means for extending the Reformation its founders and supporters were not fastidious, availing themselves of any factor which could further their movement.

A. Denunciation of real and supposed abuses in religious and ecclesiastical life was, especially at the beginning, one of the chief methods employed by the reformers to promote their designs. By this means they won over many who were dissatisfied with existing conditions, and were ready to support any movement that promised a change. But it was especially the widespread hatred of Rome and of the members of the hierarchy, fostered by the incessantly repeated and only too often justifiable complaints about abuses, that most efficiently favoured the reformers, who very soon violently attacked the papal authority, recognizing in it the supreme guardian of the Catholic Faith. Hence the multitude of lampoons, often most vulgar, against the pope, the bishops, and in general against all representatives of ecclesiastical authority. These pamphlets were circulated everywhere among the people, and thereby respect for authority was still more violently shaken. Painters prpared shameless and degrading caricatures of the pope, the clergy, and the monks, to illustrate thetext of hostile pamphlets. Waged with every possible weapon (even the most reprehensible), this warfare against the representatives of the Church, as the supposed originators of all ecclesiastical abuses, prepared the way for the reception of the Reformation. A distinction was no longer drawn between temporary and corrigible abuses and fundamental supernatural Christian truths; together with the abuses, important ecclesiastical institutions, resting on Divine foundation were simultaneously abolished.

B. Advantage was also taken of the divisions existing in many places between the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. The development of the State, in its modern form, among the CHristian peoples of the West gave rise to mmany disputes between the cklergy and laity, between bishops and the cities, between monasteries and the territorial lords. When the reformers withdrew from the clergy all authority, especially all influence in civil affairs, they enabled the princes and municipal authorities to end these long-pending strifes to their own advantage by arbitrarily arrogating to themselves all disputed rights, banishing the hierarchy whose rights they usurped, and then establishing by their own authority a completely new ecclesiastical organization. The Reformed clergy thus possessed from the beginning only such rights as the civil authorities were pleased to assign them. Consequently the Reformed national Churches were completely subject to the civil authorities, and the Reformers, who had entrusted to the civil power the actual execution of their principles, had now no means of ridding themselves of this servitude.

C. In the course of centuries an immense number of foundations had been made for religious, charitable, and educational objects, and had been provided with rich material resources. Churches, monasteries, hospitals, and schools had often great incomes and extensive possessions, which aroused the envy of secular rulers. The Reformation enabled the latter to secularize this vast ecclesiastical wealth, since the leaders of the Reformation constantly inveighed against the centralization of such riches in the hands of the clergy. The princes and municipal authorities were thus invited to seize ecclesiastical property, and employ it for their own purposes. Ecclesiastical principalities, which were entrusted to the incumbents only as ecclesiastical persons for administration and usufruct, were, in defiance of actual law, by exclusion of the incumbents, transformed into secular principalities. In this way the Reformers succeeded in depriving the Church of the temporal wealth provided for its many needs, and in diverting the same to their own advantage.

D. Human emotions, to which the Reformers appealed in the most various ways, were another means of spreading the Reformation. The very ideas which these innovators defended - Christian freedom, license of thought, the right and capacity of each individual to found his own faith on the Bible, and other similar principles - were very seductive for many. The abolition of religious institutions which acted as a curb on sinful human nature (confession, penance, fasting, abstinence, vows) attracted the lascivious and frivolous. The warfare against the religious orders, against virginity and celibacy, against the practices of a higher Christian life, won for the Reformation a great number of those who, without a serious vocation, had embraced the religious life from purely human and worldly motives, and who wished to be rid of obligations towards God which had grown burdensome, and to be free to gratify their sensual cravings. This they could do the more easily, as the confiscation of the property of the Churches and monasteries rendered it possible to provide for the material advancemment of ex-monks and ex-nuns, and of priests who apostasized. In the innumerable writings and pamphlets intended for the people the Reformers made it their frequent endeavour to excite the basest human instincts. Against the pope, the Roman Curia, and the bishops, priests, monks, and nuns who had remained true to their Catholic convictions, the most incredible lampoons and libels were disseminated. In language of the utmost coarseness Catholic doctrines and institutions were distorted and ridiculed. Among the lower, mostly uneducated, and abandoned elements of the population, the baser passions and instincts were stimulated and pressed into the service of the Reformation.

E. At first many bishops displayed great apathy towards the Reformers, attaching to the new movement no importance; its chiefs were thus given a longer time to spread their doctrines. Even later, many worldly-inclined bishops, though remaining true to the Church, were very lax in combating heresy and in employing the proper means to prevent its further advance. The same might be said of the parochial clergy, who were to a great extent ignorant and indifferent, and looked on idly at the defection of the people. The Reformers, on the other hand, displayed the greatest zeal for their cause. Leaving no means unused by word and pen, by constant intercourse with similarly minded persons, by popular eloquence, which the leaders of the Reformation were especially skilled in employing, by sermons and popular writings appealing to the weaknesses of the popular character, by inciting the fanaticism of the masses, in short by clever and zealous utilization of every opportunity and opening that presented itself, they proved their ardour for the spread of their doctrines. Meanwhile they proceeded with great astuteness, purported to adhere strictly to the essential truths of the Catholic Faith, retained at first many of the external ceremonies of Catholic worship, and declared their intention of abolishing only things resting on human invention, seeking thus to deceive the people concerning the real objects of their activity. They found indeed many pious and zealous opponents in the ranks of the regular and secular clergy, but the great need, especially at the beginning, was a universally organized and systematically conducted resistance to this false reformation.

F. Many new institutions introduced by the Reformers flattered the multitude - e.g. the reception of the chalice by the whole people, the use of the vernacular at Divine service, the popular religious hymns used during services, the reading of the Bible, the denial of the essential difference between clergy and laity. In this category may be included doctrines which had an attraction for many - e.g. justification by faith alone without reference to good works, the denial of freedom of will, which furnished an excuse for moral lapses, personal certainty of salvation in faith (i.e. subjective confidence in the merits of Christ), the universal priesthood, which seemed to give all a direct share in sacerdotal functions and ecclesiastical administration.

G. Finally, one of the chief means employed in promoting the spread of the Reformation was the use of violence by the princes and the municipal authorities. Priests who remained Catholic were expelled and replaced by adherents of the new doctrine, and the people were compelled to attend the new services. The faithful adherents of the Church were variously persecuted, and the civil authorities saw to it that the faith of the descendants of those who had strongly opposed the Reformation was gradually sapped. In many places the people were severed from the Church by brutal violence; elsewhere to deceive the people the ruse was employed of retaining the Catholic rite outwardly for a long time, and prescribing for the reformed clergy the ecclesiastical vestments of the Catholic worship. The history of the Reformation shows incontestably that the civil power was the chief factor in spreading it in all lands, and that in the last analysis it was not religious, but dynastic, political, and social interests which proved decisive. Add to this that the princes and municipal magistrates who had joined the Reformers tyrannized grossly over the consciences of their subjects and burghers. All must accept the religion prescribed by the civil ruler. The principle “Cuius regio, illius et religio” (Religion goes with the land) is an outgrowth of the Reformation, and was by it and its adherents, wherever they possessed the necessary power, put into practice.

IV. SPREAD OF THE REFORMATION IN THE VARIOUS COUNTRIES

A. Germany and German Switzerland

The Reformation was inaugurated in Germany when Luther affixed his celebrated theses to the doors of the church at Wittenberg, 31 October, 1517. From the consequences of papal excommunication and the imperial ban Luther was protected by Elector Frederick of Saxony, his territorial sovereign. While outwardly adopting a neutral attitude, the latter encouraged the formation of Lutheran communities within his domains, after Luther had returned to Wittenberg and resumed there the leadership of the reform movement, in opposition to the Anabaptists. It was Luther who introduced the arbitrary regulations for Divine worship and religious functions; in accordance with these, Lutheran communities were established, whereby an organized heretical body was opposed to the Catholic Church. Among the other German princes who early associated themselves with Luther and seconded his efforts were: John of Saxony (the brother of Frederick); Grand-Master Albet of Prussia, who converted the lands of his order into a secular duchy, becoming its hereditary lord on accepting Lutheranism; Dukes Henry and Albert of Mecklenburg; Count Albert of Mansfield: Count Edzard of East Friesland; Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who declared definitively for the Reformation after 1524. Meanwhile in several German imperial cities the reform movement was initiated by followers of Luther - especially in Ulm, Augsburg, Nuremburg, Nördlingen, Strasburg, Constance, Mainz, Erfurt, Zwickau, Magdeburg, Frankfort-on-the-Main, and Bremen. The Lutheran princes formed the Alliance of Torgau on 4 May, 1526, for their common defence. By their appearance at the Diet of Speyer in 1526 they secured the adoption of the resolution that, with respect to the Edict of Worms against Luther and his erroneous doctrine, each might adopt such attitude as he could answer for before God and emperor. Liberty to introduce the Reformation into their territories was thus granted to the territorial rulers. The Catholic estates became discouraged, while the Lutheran princes grew ever more extravagant in their demands. Even the entirely moderate decrees of the Diet of Speyer (1529) drew a protest from the Lutheran and Reformed estates.

The negotiations at the Diet of Augsburg (1530), at which the estates rejecting the Catholic faith elaborated their creed (Augsburg Confession), showed that the restoration of religious unity was not to be effected. The Reformation extended wider and wider, both Lutheranism and Zwinglianism being introduced into other German territories. Besides the above-mentioned principalities and cities, it had made its way by 1530 into the principalities of Bayreuth, Ansbach, Anhalt, and Brunswick-Lunenburg, and in the next few years into Pomerania, Jülich-Cleve, and Wurtemberg. In Silesia and the duchy of Liegnitz the Reformation also made great strides. In 1531 the Smalkaldic League, an ofensive and defensive alliance, was concluded between the Protestant princes and cities. Especially after its renewal (1535) this league was joined by other cities and princes who had espoused the Reformation, e.g. Count Palatine Rupert of Zweibrücken, Count William of Nassau, the cities of Augsburg, Kempten, Hamburg, and others. Further negotiations and discussions between the religious parties were instituted with a view to ending the schism, but without success. Among the methods adopted by the Protestants in spreading the Reformation force was ever more freely employed. The Diocese of Naumburg-Zeitz becoming vacant, Elector John Frederick of Saxony installed by force in the see the Lutheran preacher Nicholas Amsdorf (instead of the cathedral provost, Julius von Pflug, chosen by the chapter) and himself undertook the secular government. Duke Henry of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel was exiled in 1542, and the Reformation introduced into his domains by force. In Cologne itself the Reformation was very nearly established by force. Some ecclesiastical princes proved delinquent, taking no measures against the innovations that spread daily in widening circles. Into Pfalz-Neuburg and the towns of Halberstadt, Halle, etc., the Reformation found entrance. The collapse of the Smalkaldic League (1547) somewhat stemmed the progress of the Reformation: Julius von Pflug was installed in his diocese of Naumburg, Duke Henry of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel recovered his lands, and Hermann von Wied had to resign the Diocese of Cologne, where the Catholic Faith was thus maintained.

The formula of union established by the Diet of Augsburg in 1547-48 (Augsburg Interim) did not succeed in its object, although introduced into many Protestant territories. Meanwhile the treachery of Prince Moritz of Saxony, who made a secret treaty with Henry II of France, Germany's enemy, and formed a confederation with the Protestant princes William of Hesse, John Albert of Mecklenburg, and Albert of Brandenburg, to make war on the emperor and empire, broke the power of the emperor. At the suggestion of Charles, King Ferdinand convened the Diet of Augsburg in 1555, at which, after long negotiations, the compact known as the Religious Peace of Augsburg was concluded. This pact contained the following provisions in its twenty-two paragraphs:

1. between the Catholic imperial estates and those of the Augsburg Confession (the Zwinglians were not considered in the treaty) peace and harmony was to be observed;
2. no estate of the empire was to compel another estate or its subjects to change religion, nor was it to make war on such on account of religion;
3. should an ecclesiastical dignitary espouse the Augsburg Confession, he was to lose his ecclesiastical dignity with all offices and emoluments connected with it, without prejudice, however, to his honour and private possession. Against this eccclesiastical proviso the Lutheran estates protested:
4. the holders of the Augsburg Confession were to be left in possession of all ecclesiastical property which they had held since the beginning of the Reformation; after 1555 neither party might seize anything from the other;
5. until the conclusion of peace between the contending religious bodies (to be effected at the approaching Diet of Ratisbon) the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Catholic hierarchy was suspended in the territories of the Augsburg Confession;
6. should any conflict arise between the parties concerning land or rights, an attempt must first be made to settle such disputes by arbitration;
7. no imperial estate might protect the subjects of another estate from the authorities;
8. every citizen of the Empire had the right of choosing either of the two recognized religions and of practising it in another territory without loss of rights, honour, or property (without prejudice, however, to the rights of the territorial lord over his peasantry);
9. this peace was to include the free knights and the free cities of the empire, and the imperial courts had to be guided exactly by its provisions;
10. oaths might be administered either in the name of God or of His Holy Gospel.

By this peace the religious schism in the German Empire was definitively established; henceforth the Catholic and Protestant estates are opposing camps. Almost all Germany, from the Netherlands frontier in the west to the Polish frontier in the east, the territory of the Teutonic Order in Prussia, CentralGermany with the exception of the greater part of the western portion, and (in South Germany) Wurtemburg, Ansbach, Pfalz-Zweibrucken, and other small domains, with numerous free cities, had espoused the Lutheran Reformmation. Moreover, in the south and southeast, which remained prevailingly Catholic, it found more or less numerous supporters. Calvinism also spread fairly widely.

But the Peace of Augsburg failed to secure the harmony hoped for. In defiance of its express provisions, A series of ecclesiastical principalities (2 archbishoprics, 12 bishoprics, and numerous abbeys) were reformed and secularized before the beginning of the seventeenth century. The Catholic League was formed for the protection of Catholic interests, and to offset the Protestant Union. The Thirty Years War soon followed, a struggle most ominous for Germany, since it surrendered the country to its enemies from the west and north, and destroyed the power, wealth, and influence of the German Empire. The Peace of Westphalia, concluded in 1648 with France at Munster and with Sweden at Osnabruck, confirmed definitely the status of religious schism in Germany, placed both the Cavinists and the Reformed on the same footing as the Lutherans, and granted the estates immediately subject to the emperor the right of introducing the Reformation. Henceforth territorial sovereigns could compel their subjects to adopt a given religion, subject to the recognition of the independence of those who in 1624 enjoyed the right to hold their own religious services. State Absolutism in religious matters had now attained its highest development in Germany.

In German Switzerland a similar course was pursued. After Zurich had accepted and forcibly introduced the Reformation, Basle followed its example. In Basle John Oecolampadius and Wolfgang Capito associated themselves with Zwingli, spread his teaching, and won a victory for the new faith. The Catholic members of the Great Council were expelled. Similar results followed in Appenzell Outer Rhodes, Schaffhausen, and Glarus. After long hesitation, the Reformation was accepted also at Berne, where an apostate Carthusian, Franz Kolb, with Johann and Berthold Haller, preached Zwinglianism; all the monasteries were suppressed, and great violence was exercised to force Zwinglianism upon the people of the territory. St. Gall, where Joachim Vadianus preached, and a great portion of Graubunden also adopted the innovations. Throughout the empire Zwinglianism was a strong rival of Lutheranism, and a violent conflict between the two confessions began, despite constant negotiations for union. Attempts were not wanting in Switzerland to terminate the unhappy religious division. In May, 1526, a great religious disputation was held at Baden, the Catholics being represented by Eck, Johann Faber, and Murner, and the Reformed by Oecolampadius and Berthold Haller. The result was favourable to the Catholics; most of the representatives of the estates present declared against the Reformation, and writings of Luther and Zwingli were prohibited. This aroused the opposition of the Reformed estates. In 1527 Zurich formed an alliance with Constance; Basle, Bern, and other Reformed estates joined the Confederacy in 1528. In self-defence the Catholic estates formed an alliance in 1529 for the protection of the true faith within their territories. In the resulting war the Catholic estates gained a victory at Kappel, and Zwingli was slain on the battle-field. Zurich and Berne were granted peace on condition that no place should disturb another on account of religion, and that Catholic services might be freely held in the common territories. The Catholic Faith was restored in certain districts of Glarus and Appenzell; the Abbey of St. Gall was restored to the abbot, though the town remained Reformed. In Zurich, Basle, Berne, and Schaffhausen, however, the Catholics were unable to secure their rights. The Swiss Reformers soon composed formal statements of their beliefs; especially noteworthy were the First Helvetic Confession (Confessio Helvetica I), composed by Bullinger, Myconius, Grynaeus, and others (1536), and the Second Confession composed by Bullinger in 1564 (Confessio Helvetica II); the latter was adopted in most Reformed territories of the Zwinglian type.

B. The Northern Kingdoms: Denmark, Norway and Sweden

The Lutheran Reformation found an early entrance into Denmark, Norway (then united to Denmark), and Sweden. Its introduction was primarily due to royal influence. King Christian II of Denmark (1513-23) welcomed the Reformation as a means of weakening the nobility and especially the clergy (who possessed extensive property) and thereby extending the power of the throne. His first attempt to spread the teaching of Master Martin Luther in 1520 met with little success: the barons and prelates soon deposed him for tyranny, and in his place elected his uncle Duke Frederick of Schleswig and Holstein. The latter, who was a secret follower of Lutheranism, deceived the bishops and nobility, and swore at his coronation in 1523 to maintain the Catholic Religion. Seated on the throne, however, he favoured the Reformers, especially the preacher Hans Tausen. At the Diet of Odensee in 1527 he granted freedom of religion to the Reformers, permitted the clergy to marry, and reserved to the king the confirmation of ll episcopal appointments. Lutheranism was spread by violent means, and the faithful adherents of the Catholic religion were oppressed. His son, Christian III who had already “reformed” Holstein, threw into prison the Danish bishops who protested against his succession, and courted the support of the barons. With the exception of Bishop Ronow of Roskilde, who died in prison (1544), all the bishops agreed to resign and to refrain from opposing the new doctrine, whereupon they were set at liberty and their property was restored to them. All the priests who opposed the Reformation were expelled, the monasteries suppressed, and the Reformation introduced everywhere by force. In 1537 Luther's companion Johann Bugenhagen (Pomeranus) was summoned from Wittenberg to Denmark to establish the Reformation in accordance with the ideas of Luther. At the Diet of Copenhagen in 1546 the last rights of the Catholics were withdrawn; right of inheritance and eligibility for any office were denied them, and Catholic priests were forbidden to reside in the country under penalty of death.

In Norway Archbishop Olaus of Trondhjem apostatized to Lutheranism, but was compelled to leave the country, as a supporter of the deposed king, Christian II. With the aid of the Danish nobility Christian III introduced the Reformation into Norway by force. Iceland resisted longer royal absolutism and the religious innovations. The unflinching Bishop of Holum, Jon Arason, was beheaded, and the Reformation spread rapidly after 1551. Some externals of the Catholic period were retained - the title of bishop and to some extent the liturgical vestments and forms of worship.

Into Sweden also the Reformation was introduced for political reasons by the secular ruler. Gustavus Vasa, who had been given to Christian II of Denmark in 1520 as a hostage and had escaped to Lubeck, there became acquainted with the Lutheran teaching and recognized the services it could render him. Returning to Sweden, he became the first imperial chancellor, and, after being elected king on the deposition of Christian II in Denmark, attempted to convert Sweden into a hereditary monarchy, but had to yield to the opposition of the clergy and nobility. The Reformation helped him to attain his desire, although its introduction was difficult on account of the great fidelity of the people to the Catholic Faith. He appointed to high positions two Swedes, the brothers Olaf and Lorenz Peterson, who had studied at Wittenberg and had accepted Luther's teaching; one was appointed court chaplain at Stockholm and the other professor at Upsala. Both laboured in secret for the spread of Lutheranism, and won many adherents, including the archdeacon Lorenz Anderson, whom the king thereupon named his chancellor. In his dealings with Pope Adrian VI and his legates the king simulated the greatest fidelity to the Church, while he was giving ever-increased support to religious innovations. The Dominicans, who offered a strong opposition to his designs, were banished from the kingdom, and the bishops who resisted were subjected to all kinds of oppression. After a religious disputation at the University of Upsala the king assigned the victory to Olaf Peterson and proceeded to Lutheranize the university, to confiscate ecclesiastical property, and to employ every means to compel the clergy to accept the new doctrine. A popular rebellion gave him an opportunity of accusing the Catholic bishops of high treason, and in 1527 the Archbishop of Upsala and the Bishop of Westraes were executed. Many ecclesiastics acceded to the wishes of the king; others resisted and had to endure violent persecution, an heroic resistance being offered by the nuns of Wadstena. After the Diet of Westraes in 1527 great concessions were made to the king through fear of fresh subjection to the Danes, especially the right of confiscating church property, of ecclesiastical appointments and removals, etc. Some of the nobles were soon won over to the king's side, when it was made optional to take back all the goods donated to the Church by one's ancestors sine 1453. Clerical celibacy was abolished, and the vernacular introduced into Divine service. The king constituted himself supreme authority in religious matters, and severed the country from Catholic unity. The Synod of Orebro (1529) completed the Reformation, although most of the external rites, the images in the churches, the liturgical vestments, and the titles of archbishop and bishop were retained. Later (1544) Gustavus Vasa made the title to the throne hereditary in his family. The numerous risings directed against him and his innovations were put down with bloody violence. At a later period arose other great religious contests, likewise of a political character.

Calvinism also spread to some extent, and Eric XIV (1560-68) endeavoured to promote it. He was, however, dethroned by the nobility for his tyranny, and his brother John III (1568-92) named king. The latter restored the Catholic Faith and tried to restore the land to the unity of the Church. But on the death of his first wife, the zealous Catholic Princess Katherina, his ardour declined in the face of numerous difficulties, and his second wife favoured Lutheranism. On John's death his son Sigismund, already King of Poland and thoroughly Catholic in sentiment, became King of Sweden. However, his uncle Duke Charles, the chancellor of the kingdom, gave energetic support to the Reformation, and the Augsburg Confession was introduced at the National Synod of Upsala in 1593. Against the chancellor and the Swedish nobility Sigismund found himself powerless; finally (1600) he was deposed as an apostate from the “true doctrine”, and Charles was appointed king. Gustavus Adolphus (1611-32), Charles' son, utilized the Reformation to increase the power of Sweden by his campaigns. The Reformation was then successfully enforced throughout Sweden.

C. France and French Switzerland

In certain humanistic circles in France there originated at an early date a movement favourable to the Reformation. The centre of this movement was Meaux, where Bishop Guillaume Briconnet favoured the humanistic and mystic ideas, and where Professor Lefevre d'Etaples, W. Farel, and J. de Clerc, humanists with Lutheran tendencies, taught. However, the Court, the university, and the Parlement opposed the religious innovations, and the Lutheran community of Meaux was dissolved. More important centres of the Reformation were found in the South, where the Waldensians had prepared the soil. Here public riots occurred during which images of Christ and the saints were destroyed. The parlements in most cases took energetic measures against the innovators, although in certain quarters the latter found protectors- especially Margaret of Valois, sister of King Francis I and wife of Henry d'Albret, King of Navarre. The leaders of the Reformation in Germany sought to win over King Francis I, for political reasons an ally of the Protestant German princes; the king, however, remained true to the Church, and suppressed the reform movements throughout his land. In the south-east districts, especially in Provence and Dauphine, the supporters of the new doctrines increased through the efforts of Reformers from Switzerland and Strasburg, until finally the desecration and plundering of churches compelled the king to take energetic steps against them. After Calvinism had established itself in Geneva, its influence grew rapidly in French reform circles. Calvin appeared at Paris as defender of the new religious movement in 1533, dedicated to the French king in 1536 his “Institutiones Christianae Religionis”, and went to Geneva in the same year. Expelled from Geneva, he returned in 1541, and began there the final establishment of his religious organization. Geneva, with its academy inaugurated by Calvin, was a leading centre of the Reformation and affected principally France. Pierre le Clerc established the first Calvinistic community at Paris; other communities were established at Lyons, Orléans, Angers, and Rouen, repressive measures proving of little avail. Bishop Jacques Spifamius of Nevers lapsed into Calvinism, and in 1559 Paris witnessed the assembly of a general synod of French Reformers, which adopted a Calvinistic creed and introduced the Swiss presbyteral constitution for the Reformed communities. Owing to the support of the Waldensians, to the dissemination of reform literature from Geneva, Basle, and Strasburg, and to the steady influx of preachers from these cities, the adherents of the Reformation increased in France. On the death of King Henry II (1559) the Calvinist Huguenots wished to take advantage of the weakness of the government to increase their power. The queen-dowager, Catherine de Medici, was an ambitious intriguer, and pursued a time-serving policy. Political aspirations soon became entangled with the religious movement, which thereby assumed wider proportions and a greater importance. From opposition to the ruling line and to the powerful and zealously Catholic dukes of Guise, the princes of the Bourbon line became the protectors of the Calvinists; these were Antoine de Vendôme, King of Navarre, and his brothers, especially Louis de Condé. They were joined by the Constable de Montmorency, Admiral Coligny and his brother d'Andelot, and Cardinal Odet de Châtillon, Bishop of Beauvais.

In spite of anti-heretical laws, Calvinism was making steady progress in the South of France, when on 17 January, 1562, the queen-dowager, regent for the young Charles IX, issued an edict of toleration, allowing the Huguenots the free practice of their religion outside the towns and without weapons, but forbidding all interference with and acts of violence against Catholic institutions, and ordering the restitution of all churches and all ecclesiastical property taken from the Catholics. Rendered thereby only more audacious, the Calvinists committed, especially in the South, revolting acts of violence against the Catholics, putting to death Catholic priests even in the suburbs of Paris. The occurrence at Vassy in Champagne on 1 March, 1562, where the retinue of the Duke of Guise came into conflict with the Huguenots, inaugurated the first religious and civil war in France. Although this ended with the defeat of the Huguenots, it occasioned great losses to the Catholics of France. Relics of saints were burned and scattered, magnificent churches reduced to ashes, and numerous priests murdered. The Edict of Amboise granted new favours to the Calvinistic nobles, although the earlier edict of tolerance was withdrawn. Five other civil wars followed, during which occurred the mmassacre of St. Bartholomew's Day (24 August, 1572). It was not until the line of Valois had become extinct with Henry III (1589), and Henry of Navarre (who embraced Catholicism in 1593) of the Bourbon line had ascended the throne, that the religious wars were brought to an end by the Edict of Nantes (13 April, 1598); this granted the Calvinists not only full religious freedom and admission to all public offices, but even a privileged position in the State. Ever-increasing difficulties of a political nature arose, and Cardinal Richelieu aimed at ending the influential position of the Huguenots. The capture of their chief fortress, La Rochelle (28 October, 1628), finally broke the power of the French Calvinists as a political entity. Later, many of their number returned to Catholicism, although there still remained numerous adherents of Calvinism in France.

D. Italy and Spain

While in both these lands there appeared isolated supporters of the Reformation, no strong or extensive organization arose. Here and there in Italy influential individuals (e.g.Vittoria Colonna and her circle) favoured the reform movement, but they desired such to occur within, not as a rebellion against the Church. A few Italians embraced Lutheranism or Calvinism, e.g. John Valdez, secretary of the Viceroy of Naples. In the cities of Turin, Pavia, Venice, Ferrara (where Duchess Renata favoured the Reformation), and Florence might be found adherents of the German and Swiss Reformers, although not so extreme as their prototypes. The more prominent had to leave the country - thus Pietro Paolo Vergerio, who fled to Switzerland and thence to Wittenberg; Bernardino Ochino, who fled to Geneva and was later professor at Oxford; Petrus Martyr Vermigli, who fled to Zurich, and was subsequently active at Oxford, Strasburg, and again at Zurich. By the vigorous inauguration of true ecclesiastical reform in the spirit of the Council of Trent, through the activity of numerous saintly men (such as St. Charles Borromeo and Philip Neri), through the vigilance of the bishops and the diligence of the Inquisition, the Reformation was excluded from Italy. In some circles rationalistic and anti-trinitarian tendencies showed themselves, and Italy was the birthplace of the two heresiarchs, Laelius Socinus and his nephew Faustus Socinus, the founders of Socinianism (q.v.)

The couse of events was the same in Spain as in Italy. Despite some attempts to disseminate anti-ecclesiastical writings in the country, the Reformation won no success, thanks to the zeal displayed by the ecclesiastical and public authorities in counter-acting its efforts. The few Spaniards who accepted the new doctrines were unable to develop any reforming activity at home, and lived abroad - e.g. Francisco Enzinas (Dryander), who made a translation of the Bible for Spaniards, Juan Diaz, Gonsalvo Montano, Miguel Servede (Servetus), who was condemned by Calvin at Geneva for his doctrine against the Trinity and burnt at the stake.

E. Hungary and Transylvania

The Reformation was spread in Hungary by Hungarians who had studied at Wittenberg and had there embraced Lutheranism. In 1525 stringent laws were passed agsinst the adherents of the heretical doctrines, but their numbers continued to increase, especially among the nobility, who wished to confiscate the ecclesiastical property, and in the free cities of the kingdom. Turkish victories and conquest and the war between Ferdinand of Austria and John Zapolya favoured the reformers. In addition to the Lutherans there were soon followers of Zwingli and Calvin in the country. Five Lutheran towns in Upper Hungary accepted the Augsburg Confession. Calvinism, however, gradually won the upper hand, although the domestic disputes between the reforming sects by no means ceased. In Transylvania merchants from Hermannstadt, who had become acquainted with Luther's heresy at Peipzig, spread the Reformation after 1521. Notwithstanding the persecution of the Reformers, a Lutheran school was started at Hermannstadt, and the nobility endeavoured to use the Reformation as a means of confiscating the property of the clergy. In 1529 the regular orders and the most vigorous champions of the Church were driven from the town. At Kronstadt the Lutheran preacher Johann Honter gained the ascendency in 1534, the Mass being abolished and Divine service organized after the Lutheran model. At a synod held iin 1544 the Saxon nation in Transylvania decided in favour of the Augsburg Confession, while the rural Magyars accepted Calvinism. At the Diet of Klausenburg in 1556 general religious freedom was granted and the ecclesiastical property confiscated for the defence of the country and the erection of Lutheran schools. Among the supporters of the Reformation far-reaching divisions prevailed. Besides the Lutherans, there were Unitarians (Socinians) and Anabaptists, and each of these sects waged war against the others. A Catholic minority survived among the Greek Walachians.

F. Poland, Livonia, and Courland

Poles learned of the Reformation through some young students from Wittenberg and through the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren. Archbishop Laski of Gnesen and King Sigismund I ((1501-48) energetically opposed the spread of heretical doctrines. However, the supporters of the Reformation succeeded in winning recruits at the University of Cracow, at Posen, and at Dantzig. From Dantzig the Reformation spread to Thorn and Elbing, and certain nobles favoured the new doctrines. Under the rule of the weak Sigismund II (1548-72) there were in Poland, besides the Lutherans and the Bohemian Brethren, Zwinglians, Calvinists, and Socinians. Prince Radziwill and John Laski favoured Calvinism, and the Bible was translated into Polish in accordance with the views of this party in 1563. Despite the efforts of the papal nuncio, Aloisius Lippomano (1556-58) free practice of religion was secretly granted in the aforementioned three cities, and the nobility were allowed to hold private religious services in their houses. The different Reformed sects fought among one another, the formula of faith introduced at the General Synod of Sandomir in 1570 by the Reformed, the Lutherans, and the Bohemian Brethren producing no unity. In 1573 the heretical parties secured the religious peace of Warsaw, which granted equal rights to Catholics and “Dissidents”, and established permanent peace between the two sections. By the zealous inauguration of true ecclesiastical reform, the diligent activity of the papal legates and able bishops, and the laboours of the Jesuits, further progress of the Reformation was prevented.

In Livonia and Courland, the territories of the Teutonic Order, the course of the Reformation was the same as in the other territory of the Order, Prussia. Commander Gotthard Kettler of Courland embraced the Augsburg Confession, and converted the land into a secular hereditary duchy, tributary to Poland. In Livonia Commander Walter of Plettenberg strove to foster Lutheranism, which had been accepted at Riga, Dorpat, and Reval since 1523, hoping thus to make himself independent of the Archbishop of Riga. When Margrave William of Brandenburg became Archbishop of Riga in 1539, Lutheranism rapidly obtained exclusive sway in Livonia.

G. Netherlands

During the reign of Charles V the seventeen provinces of the Netherlands remained fairly immune from the infection of the new doctrine. Several followers of Luther had indeed appeared there, and endeavoured to disseminate the Lutheran writings and doctrines. Charles V, however, issued strict edicts against the Lutherans and against the printing and spreading of the writings of the Reformer. The excesses of the Anabaptists evoked the forcible suppression of their movement, and until 1555 the Reformation found little root in the country. In this year Charles V granted the Netherlands to his son Philip II, who resided in the country until 1559. During this period Calvinism made rapid strides, especially in the northern provinces. Many of the great nobles and the much impoverished lower nobility used the Reformation to incite the liberty-loving people against the king's administration, the Spanish officials and troops, and the strictness of the government. Disaffection continued to increase, owing chiefly to the severe ordinances of the Duke of Alva and the bloody persecution conducted by him. William of Orange-Nassau, governor of the Province of Holland, aimed for political reasons at securing the victory for Calvinism, and succeeded in several of the northern districts. He then placed himself at the head of the rebellion against the Spanish rule. In the ensuing war the northern provinces (Niederlande) asserted their independence, whereupon Calvinism gained in them the ascendancy. In 1581 every public exercise of the Catholic Faith was forbidden. The “Belgian Confession” of 1562 had already a Calvinistic foundation; by the synods of Dordrecht in 1574 and 1618 Calvinism received a fixed form. The Catholics of the country (about two-fifths of the population) were subjected to violent suppression. Among the Calvinists of Holland violent conflicts arose concerning the doctrine of predestination.

H. England and Scotland

The Reformation received its final form in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603). On the basis of the liturgy established in the “Book of Common Prayer” under Edward VI (1547-53) and the confession of Forty-two Articles composed by Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Ridley in 1552, and after Queen Mary (1553-58) had failed to restore her country to union with Rome and the Catholic Faith, the ascendancy of Anglicanism was established in England by Elizabeth. The Forty-two Articles were revised, and, as the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church, became in 1562 the norm of its religious creed. The ecclesiastical supremacy of the queen was recognized, an oath to this effect (Oath of Supremacy) being required under penalty of removal from office and loss of property. Several prelates and the universities offered resistance, which was overcome by force. The majority of the lower clergy took the oath, which was demanded with ever-increasing severity from all members of the House of Commmons, all ecclesiastics, barristers, and teachers. In externals much of the old Catholic form of worship was retained. After the failure of the movement in favour of Mary Stuart of Scotland, who had fled to England in 1568, the oppression of the English Catholics was continued with increasing violence. Besides the Anglican Established Church there were in England the Calvinistic Nonconformists, who opposed a presbyterian popular organization to the episcopal hierarchy; like the Catholics, they were much oppressed by the rulers of England.

In Scotland the social and political situation gave a great impetus to the Reformation, aided by the ignorance and rudeness of the clergy (to a great extent the result of the constant feuds). The nobility used the Reformation as a weapon in their war against the royal house, which was supported by the higher clergy. Already under James V (1524-42) supporters of the Lutheran doctrines e.g. Patrick Hamilton, Henry Forest, and Alexander Seton, the king's confessor, came forward as Reformers. The first two were executed, while the last fled to the Continent. However, the heretical doctrines continued to find fresh adherents. On the death of James V his daughter and heiress was only eight days old. The office of regent fell to James Hamilton, who, though previously of Protestant sentiments, returned to the Catholic Church and supported Archbishop David Beaton in his energetic measures against the innovators. After the execution of the Reformer George Wishart, the Protestants formed a conspiracy against the archbishop, attacked him in his castle in 1545, and put him to death. The rebels (among them John Knox), joined by 140 nobles, then fortified themselves in the castle. Knox went to Geneva in 1546, there embraced Calvinism, and from 1555 was the leader of the Reformation in Scotland, where it won the ascendancy in the form of Calvinism. The political confusion prevailing in Scotland from the death of James V facilitated the introduction of the Reformation.

V. DIFFERENT FORMS OF THE REFORMATION

The fundamental forms of the Reformation were Lutheranism, Zwinglianism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism. Within each of these branches, however, conflicts arose in consequence of the diverse views of individual representatives. By negotiations, compromises, and formulae of union it was sought, usually without lasting success, to establish unity. The whole Reformation, resting on human authority, presented from the beginning, in the face of Catholic unity of faith, an aspect of dreary dissension. Besides these chief branches appeared numerous other forms, which deviated from them in essential points, and gradually rise to the countless divisions of Protestantism. The chief of these forms may be shortly reviewed (for further treatment see the separate articles).

• The Anabaptists, who appeared in Germany and German Switzerland shortly after the appearance of Luther and Zwingli, wished to trace back their conception of the Church to Apostolic times. They denied the validity of the baptism of children, saw in the Blessed Eucharist merely a memorial ceremmony, and wished to restore the Kingdom of God according to their own heretical and mystical views. Though attacked by the other Reformers, they won supporters in many lands. From them also issued the Mennonites, founded by Menno Simonis (d. 1561).
• The Schwenkfeldians were founded by Kaspar of Schwenkfeld, aulic councillor of Duke Frederick of Liegnitz and canon. At first he associated himself with Luther, but from 1525 he opposed the latter in his Christology, as well as in his conception of the Eucharist, and his doctrine of justification. Attacked by the Gernman reformers, his followers were able to form but a few communities. The Schwenkfeldians still maintain themselves in North America.
• Sebastian Franck (1499-1542), a pure spiritualist, rejected every external form of ecclesiastical organization, and favoured a spiritual, invisible Church. He thus abstained from founding a separate community, and sought only to disseminate his ideas.
• The Socinians and other Anti-Trinitarians. Some individual members of the early Reformers attacked the fundamental doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, especially the Spaniard Miguel Servede (Servetus), whose writing, “De Trinitatis erroribus”, printed in 1531, was burned by Calvin in Geneva in 1553. The chief founders of Anti-Trinitarianism were Laelius Socinus, teacher of jurisprudence at Siena, and his nephew, Faustus Socinus. Compelled to fly from their home, they maintained themselves in various parts, and founded special Socinian communities. Faustus disseminated his doctrine especially in Poland and Transylvania.
• Valentine Weigel (1533-1588) and Jacob Böhme (d. 1624), a shoemaker from Gorlitz, represented a mystical pantheism, teaching that the external revelation of God in the Bible could be recognized only through an internal light. Both found numerous disciples. Böhme's followers later received ther name of Rosenkreuzer, because it was widely supposed that they stood under the direction of a hidden guide named Rozenkreuz.
• The Pietists in Germany had as their leader Philip Jacob Spener (1635-1705). Pietism was primarily a reaction against the barren Lutheran orthodoxy, and regarded religion mainly a thing of the heart.
• The Inspiration Communities originated in Germany during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with various apocalyptic visionaries. They regarded the kingdom of the Holy Ghost as arrived, and believed in the universal gift of prophecy and in the millenium. Among the founders of such visionary societies were Johann Wilhelm Petersen (d. 1727), superintendent at Luneberg, and Johann Konrad Duppel (b. 1734), a physician at Leiden.
• The Herrnhuter were founded by Count Nicholas of Zinzendorf (b. 1700; d. 1760). On the Hutberg, as it was called, he established the community of Herrnhut, consisting of Moravian Brethren and Protestants, with a special constitution. Stress was laid on the doctrine of the Redemption, and strict moral discipline was inculcated. This community of Brethren spread in many lands.
• The Quakers were founded by John George Fox of Drayton in Leicestershire (1624-1691). He favoured a visionary spiritualism, and found in the soul of each man a portion of the Divine intelligence. All are allowed to preach, according as the spirit incites them. The moral precepts of this sect were very strict.
• The Methodists were founded by John Wesley. In 1729 Wesley instituted, with his brother Charles and his friends Morgan and Kirkham, an association at Oxford for the cultivation of the religious and ascetic life, and from this society Methodism developed.
• The Baptists originated in England in 1608. They maintained that baptism was necessary only for adults, upheld Calvinism in its essentials, and observeed the Sabbath on Saturday instead of Sunday.
• The Swedenborgians are named after their founder Emmanuel Swedenborg (d. 1772), son of a Swedish Protestant bishop. Believing in his power to communicate with the spirit-world and that he had Divine revelations, he proceeded on the basis of the latter to found a community with a special liturgy, the “New Jerusalem”. He won numerous followers, and his community spread in many lands.
• The Irvingites are called after their founder, Edward Irving, a native of Scotland and from 1822 preacher in a Presbyterian chapel in London.
• The Mormons were founded by Joseph Smith, who made his appearance with supposed revelations in 1822.

Besides these best-known secondary branches of the Reformation movement, there are many different denominations; for from the Reformation the evolution of new forms has always proceeded, and must always proceed, inasmuch as subjective arbitrariness was made a principle by the heretical teaching of the sixteenth century.

VI. RESULTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE REFORMATION

The Reformation destroyed the unity of faith and ecclesiastical organization of the Christian peoples of Europe, cut many millions off from the true Catholic Church, and robbed them of the greatest portion of the salutary means for the cultivation and maintenance of the supernatural life. Incalculable harm was thereby wrought from the religious standpoint. The false fundamental doctrine of justification by faith alone, taught by the Reformers, produced a lamentable shallowness in religious life. Zeal for good works disappeared, the asceticism which the Church had practised from her foundation was despised, charitable and ecclesiastical objects were no longer properly cultivated, supernatural interests fell into the background, and naturalistic aspirations aiming at the purely mundane, became widespread. The denial of the Divinely instituted authority of the Church, both as regards doctrine and ecclesiastical government, opened wide the door to every eccentricity, gave rise to the endless division into sects and the never-ending disputes characteristic of Protestantism, and could not but lead to the complete unbelief which necessarily arises from the Protestant principles. Of real freedom of belief among the Reformers of the sixteenth century there was not a trace; on the contrary, the greatest tyranny in matters of conscience was displayed by the representatives of the Reformation. The most baneful Caesaropapism was meanwhile fostered, since the Reformation recognized the secular authorities as supreme also in religious matters. Thus arose from the very beginning the various Protestant “national Churches”, which are entirely discordant with the Christian universalism of the Catholic Church, and depend, alike for their faith and organization, on the will of the secular ruler. In this way the Reformation was a chief factor in the evolution of royal absotutism. In every land in which it found ingress, the Reformation was the cause of indescribable suffering among the people; it occasioned civil wars which lasted decades with all their horrors and devastations; the people were oppressed and enslaved; countless treasures of art and priceless manuscripts were destroyed; between members of the same land and race the seed of discord was sown. Germany in particular, the original home of the Reformation, was reduced to a state of piteous distress by the Thirty Years' War, and the German Empire was thereby dislodged from the leading position which it had for centuries occupied in Europe. Only gradually, and owing to forces which did not essentially spring from the Reformation, but were conditioned by other historical factors, did the social wounds heal, but the religious corrosion still continues despite the earnest religious sentiments which have at all times characterized many individual followers of the Reformation.

J.P.KIRSCH

Relics

The word relics comes from the Latin reliquiae (the counterpart of the Greek leipsana) which already before the propagation of Christianity was used in its modern sense, viz., of some object, notably part of the body or clothes, remaining as a memorial of a departed saint. The veneration of relics, in fact, is to some extent a primitive instinct, and it is associated with many other religious systems besides that of Christianity. At Athens the supposed remains of Oedipus and Theseus enjoyed an honour which it is very difficult to distinguish from a religious cult (see for all this Pfister, “Reliquienkult in Altertum”, I, 1909), while Plutarch gives an account of the translation of the bodies of Demetrius (Demetr. Iii) and Phocion (Phoc. xxxvii) which in many details anticipates the Christian practice of the Middle Ages. The bones or ashes of Aesculapius at Epidaurus, of Perdiccas I at Macedon, and even — if we may trust the statement of the Chronicon Paschale (Dindorf, p. 67) — of the Persian Zoroaster (Zarathustra), were treated with the deepest veneration. As for the Far East, the famous story of the distribution of the relics of Buddha, an incident which is believed to have taken place immediately after his death, seems to have found remarkable confirmation in certain modern archaeological discoveries. (See “Journ. of R. Asiatic Society”, 1909, pp. 1056 sqq.). In any case the extreme development of relic-worship amongst the Buddhists of every sect is a fact beyond dispute

I. DOCTRINE REGARDING RELICS

The teaching of the Catholic church with regard to the veneration of relics is summed up in a decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV), which enjoins on bishops and other pastors to instruct their flocks that “the holy bodies of holy martyrs and of others now living with Christ — which bodies were the living members of Christ and 'the temple of the Holy Ghost' (I Cor., vi, 19) and which are by Him to be raised to eternal life and to be glorified are to be venerated by the faithful, for through these [bodies] many benefits are bestowed by God on men, so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other sacred monuments are uselessly honoured by the faithful, and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid, are wholly to be condemned, as the church has already long since condemned, and also now condemns them.” Further, the council insists that “in the invocation of saints the veneration of relics and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed and all filthy lucre abolished.” Again, “the visitation of relics must not be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness.” To secure a proper cheek upon abuses of this kind, “no new miracles are to be acknowledged or new relics recognized unless the bishop of the diocese has taken cognizance and approved thereof.” Moreover, the bishop, in all these matters, is directed to obtain accurate information to take council with theologians and pious men, and in cases of doubt or exceptional difficulty to submit the matter to the sentence of the metropolitan and other bishops of the province, “yet so that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in the church, shall be resolved on, without having first consulted the Holy See.”

The justification of Catholic practice, which is indirectly suggested here by the reference to the bodies of the saints as formerly temples of the Holy Ghost and as destined hereafter to be eternally glorified, is further developed in the authoritative “ Roman Catechism “ drawn up at the instance of the same council. Recalling the marvels witnessed at the tombs of the martyrs, where “the blind and cripples are restored to health, the dead recalled to life, and *devils?* expelled from the bodies of men” the Catechism points out that these are facts which “St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, most unexceptionable witnesses, declare in their writings that they have not merely heard and read about, as many did but have seen with their own eyes ', (Ambrose Epist. xxii, nn. 2 and 17, Augustine, Serm. cclxxxvi, c. v.; “De Civ. Dei”, xxii, (S, “Confess.”, ix”). And from thence, turning to Scriptural analogies, the compilers further argue: “If the clothes, the kerchiefs (Acts, .xix, 12), if the shadow of the saints (Acts, v, 15), before they departed from this life, banished diseases and restored strength, who will have the hardihood to deny that God wonderfully works the same by the sacred ashes, the bones, and other relics of the saints ? This is the lesson we have to learn from that dead body which, having been accidentally let down into the sepulchre of Eliseus, “when it had touched the bones of the Prophet, instantly came to life” (4 Kings xiii, 21, and cf. Ecclus., xlviii, 14). We may add that this miracle as well as the veneration shown to the bones of Moses (See Ex., xiii, 19 and Jos., xxiv, 32) only gain additional force from their apparent contradiction to the ceremonial laws against defilement, of which we read in Num., xix, 11-22. The influence of this Jewish shrinking from contact with the dead so far lingered on that it was found necessary in the “Apostolical Constitutions” (vi, 30) to issue a strong warning against it and to argue in favour of the Christian cult of relics.

According to the more common opinion of theologians, relics are to be honoured; St. Thomas, in Summa, III:38:6, does not seem to consider even the word adorare inappropriate — cultu duliae relativae, that is to say with a veneration which is not that of latria (divine worship) and which though directed primarily to the material objects of the cult — i. e., the bones, ashes, garments, etc. — does not rest in them, but looks beyond to the saints they commemorate as to its formal term. Hauck, Kattenbusch, and other non-Catholic writers have striven to show that the utterances of the Council of Trent are in contradiction to what they admit to be the “very cautious” language of the medieval scholastics, and notably St. Thomas. The latter urges that those w ho have an affection to any person hold in honour all that was intimately connected with him. Hence, while we love and venerate the saints who were so dear to God, we also venerate all that belonged to them, and particularly their bodies, which were once the temples of the Holy Spirit, and which are some day to be conformed to the glorious body of Jesus Christ. “whence also “, adds St. Thomas, “God fittingly does honour to such relics by performing miracles in their presence [in earum praesentia].” It will be seen that this closely accords with the terms used by the Council of Trent and that the difference consists only in this, that the Council says per quae — “through which many benefits are bestowed on mankind” — while St. Thomas speaks of miracles worked “in their presence “. But it is quite unnecessary to attach to the words per quae the idea of physical causality. We have no reason to suppose that the council meant more than that the relics of the saints were the occasion of God's working miracles. When we read in the Acts of the Apostles, xix, 11, 12, “And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out from them” there can be no inexactitude in saying that these also were the things by which (per quae) God wrought the cure.

There is nothing, therefore, in Catholic teaching to justify the statement that the church encourages belief in a magical virtue, or physical curative efficacy residing in the relic itself . It may be admitted that St. Cyril of Jerusalem (A. D. 347), and a few other patristic and medieval writers, apparently speak of some power inherent in the relic. For example, St. Cyril, after referring to the miracle wrought by the body of Eliseus, declares that the restoration to life of the corpse with which it was in contact took place: “to show that even though the soul is not present a virtue resides in the body of the saints, because of the righteous soul which has for so many years tenanted it and used it as its minister”. And he adds, “Let us not be foolishly incredulous as though the thing had not happened, for if handkerchiefs and aprons which are from without, touching the body of the diseased, have raised up the sick, how much more should the body itself of the Prophet raise the dead?” (Cat., xviii, 16.) But this seems rather to belong to the personal view or manner of speech of St. Cyril. He regards the chrism after its consecration “as no longer simple ointment but the gift of Christ and by the presence of His Godhead it causes in us the Holy Ghost” (Cat., xxi, 3); and, what is more striking, he also declares that the meats consecrated to idols, “though in their own nature plain and simple become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit” (Cat., xix, 7) — all of which must leave us very doubtful as to his real belief in any physical virtue inherent in relics. Be this as it may, it is certain that the church, with regard to the veneration of relics has defined nothing, more than what was stated above. Neither has the church ever pronounced that any particular relic, not even that commonly venerated as the wood of the Cross, as authentic; but she approves of honour being paid to those relics which with reasonable probability are believed to be genuine and which are invested with due ecclesiastical sanctions.

II. EARLY HISTORY

Few points of faith can be more satisfactorily traced back to the earliest ages of Christianity than the veneration of relics. The classical instance is to be found in the letter written by the inhabitants of Smyrna, about 156, describing the death of St. Polycarp. After he had been burnt at the stake, we are told that his faithful disciples wished to carry off his remains, but the Jews urged the Roman officer to refuse his consent for fear that the Christians “would only abandon the Crucified One and begin to worship this man”. Eventually, however, as the Smyrnaeans say, “we took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place, where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together, as we are able, in gladness and joy, and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom.” This is the keynote which is echoed in a multitude of similar passages found a little later in the patristic writers of both East and West. Harnack's tone in referring to this development is that of an unwilling witness overwhelmed by evidence which it is useless to resist. “Most offensive”, he writes, “was the worship of relics. It flourished to its greatest extent as early as the fourth century and no Church doctor of repute restricted it. All of them rather, even the Cappadocians, countenanced it. The numerous miracles which were wrought by bones and relics seemed to confirm their worship. The Church therefore, would not give up the practice, although a violent attack was made upon it by a few cultured heathens and besides by the Manichaeans” (Harnack, “Hist. of Dog.”, tr., IV, 313).

From the Catholic standpoint there was no extravagance or abuse in this cult as it was recommended and indeed taken for granted, by writers like St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and by all the other great doctors without exception. To give detailed references besides those already cited from the Roman Catechism would be superfluous. Suffice it to point out that the inferior and relative nature of the honour due to relics was always kept in view. Thus St. Jerome says (“Ad Riparium”, i, P. L., XXII, 907): “We do not worship, we do not adore [non colimus, non adoramus], for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate [honoramus] the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are.” And St. Cyril of Alexandria writes (“Adv. Julian.”, vi, P. G. LXXVI, 812): “We by no means consider the holy martyrs to be gods, nor are we wont to bow down before them adoringly, but only relatively and reverentially [ou latreutikos alla schetikos kai timetikos].” Perhaps no single writing supplies a more striking illustration of the importance attached to the veneration of relics in the Christian practice of the fourth century than the panegyric of the martyr St. Theodore by St. Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XLVI, 735-48). Contrasting the horror produced by an ordinary corpse with the veneration paid to the body of a saint the preacher expatiates upon the adornment lavished upon the building which had been erected over the martyr's resting place, and he describes how the worshipper is led to approach the tomb “believing that to touch it is itself a sanctification and a blessing and if it be permitted to carry off any of the dust which has settled upon the martyr's resting place, the dust is accounted as a great gift and the mould as a precious treasure. And as for touching the relics themselves, if that should ever be our happiness, only those who have experienced it and who have had their wish gratified can know how much this is desirable and how worthy a recompense it is of aspiring prayer” (col. 740).

This passage, like many others that might be quoted, dwells rather upon the sanctity of the martyr's resting place and upon that of his mortal remains collected as a whole and honourably entombed. Neither is it quite easy to determine the period at which the practice of venerating minute fragments of bone or cloth, small parcels of dust, etc., first became common. We can only say that it was widespread early in the fourth century, and that dated inscriptions upon blocks of stone, which were probably altar slabs, afford evidence upon the point which is quite conclusive. One such, found of late years in Northern Africa and now preserved in the Christian Museum of the Louvre, bears a list of the relics probably once cemented into a shallow circular cavity excavated in its surface. Omitting one or two words not adequately explained, the inscription runs: “A holy memorial [memoria sancta] of the wood of the Cross, of the land of Promise where Christ was born, the Apostles Peter and Paul, the names of the martyrs Datian, Donatian, Cyprian, Nemesianus, Citinus, and Victoria. In the year of the Province 320 [i. e. A. D. 359] Benenatus and Pequaria set this up “ (“Corp. Inscr. Lat.”, VIII, n. 20600).

We learn from St. Cyril of Jerusalem (before 350) that the wood of the Cross, discovered c. 318, was already distributed throughout the world; and St. Gregory of Nyssa in his sermons on the forty martyrs, after describing how their bodies were burned by command of the persecutors, explains that “their ashes and all that the fire had spared have been so distributed throughout the world that almost every province has had its share of the blessing. I also myself have a portion of this holy gift and I have laid the bodies of my parents beside the ashes of these warriors, that in the hour of the resurrection they may be awakened together with these highly privileged comrades “ (P. G., XLVI, 764). We have here also a hint of the explanation of the widespread practice of seeking burial near the tombs of the martyrs. It seems to have been felt that when the souls of the blessed martyrs on the day of general were once more united to their bodies, they would be accompanied in their passage to heaven by those who lay around them and that these last might on their account find more ready acceptance with God.

We may note also that, while this and other passages suggest that no great repugnance was felt in the East to the division and dismemberment of the bodies of the saints, in the West, on the other hand, particularly at Rome, the greatest respect was shown to the holy dead. The mere unwrapping or touching of the body of a martyr was considered to be a terribly perilous enterprise, which could only be set about by the holiest of ecclesiastics, and that after prayer and fasting. This belief lasted until the late Middle Ages and is illustrated, for example, in the life of St. Hugh of Lincoln, who excited the surprise of his episcopal contemporaries by his audacity in examining and translating relics which his colleagues dared not disturb. In the Theodosian Code the translation, division, or dismemberment of the remains of martyrs was expressly forbidden (“Nemo martyrem distrahat”, Cod. Theod., IX, xvii, 7); and somewhat later Gregory the Great seems in very emphatic terms to attest the continuance of the same tradition. He professed himself sceptical regarding the alleged “customs of the Greeks” of readily transferring the bodies of martyrs from place to place, declaring that throughout the West any interference with these honoured remains was looked upon as a sacrilegious act and that numerous prodigies had struck terror into the hearts of even well meaning men who had attempted anything of the sort. Hence, though it was the Empress Constantina herself who had asked him for the head or some portion of the body of St. Paul, he treated the request as an impossible one, explaining that, to obtain the supply of relics needful in the consecration of churches, it was customary to lower into the Confession of the Apostles as far as the second “cataract” — so we learn from a letter to Pope Hermisdas in 519 (Thiel, “Epist. gen.”, I, 873) ] a box containing portions of silk or cloth, known as brandea, and these brandea, after lying for a time in contact with the remains of the holy Apostles, were henceforth treated as relics. Gregory further offers to send Constantina some filings from St. Peter's chains, a form of present of which we find frequent mention in his correspondence (St. Gregory, “Epist.”, Mon. Germ. Hist., I, 264 -66). It is certain that long before this time an extended conception of the nature of a relic, such as this important letter reveals, had gradually grown up. Already when Eusebius wrote (c. 325) such objects as the hair of St. James or the oil multiplied by Bishop Narcissus (Hist. Eccl., VII, xxxix, and VI, ix) were clearly venerated as relics, and St. Augustine, in his “De Civit. Dei” (xxii, 8), gives numerous instances of miracles wrought by soil from the Holy Land flowers which had touched a reliquary or had been laid upon a particular altar, oil from the lamps of the church of a martyr, or by other things not less remotely connected with the saints themselves. Further. it is noteworthy that the Roman prejudice against translating and dividing seems only to have applied to the actual bodies of the martyrs reposing in their tombs. It is St. Gregory himself who enriches a little cross, destined to hang round the neck as an encolpion, with filings both from St. Peter's chains and from the gridiron of St. Laurence (“Epist.”, Mon. Germ. Hist., I, 192). Before the year 350, St. Cyril of Jerusalem three times over informs us that the fragments of the wood of the Cross found by St. Helen had been distributed piecemeal and had filled the whole world (Cat., iv, 10; x, 19; xiii, 4). This implies that Western pilgrims felt no more impropriety in receiving than the Eastern bishops in giving,

During the Merovingian and Carlovingian period the cultus of relics increased rather than diminished. Gregory of Tours abounds in stories of the marvels wrought by them, as well as of the practices used in their honour, some of which have been thought to be analogous to those of the pagan “incubations “ (De Glor. Conf., xx); neither does he omit to mention the frauds occasionally perpetrated by scoundrels through motives of greed. Very significant, as Hauck (Kirchengesch. Deutschl., I 185) has noticed is the prologue to the text of the Salic Laws, probably written, by a contemporary of Gregory of Tours in the sixth century. “That nation”, it says, “which has undoubtedly in battle shaken off the hard yoke of the Romans, now that it has been illuminated through Baptism, has adorned the bodies of the holy martyrs with gold and precious stones, those same bodies which the Romans burnt with fire, and pierced with the sword, or threw to wild beasts to be torn to pieces.” In England we find from the first a strong tradition in the same sense derived from St. Gregory himself. Bede records (Hist. Eccl., I, xxix) how the pope “forwarded to Augustine all the things needful for the worship and service of the church, namely, sacred vessels, altar linen, church ornaments, priestly and clerical vestments, relics of the holy Apostles and martyrs and also many books”. The Penitential ascribed to St. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, which certainly was known in England at an early date, declares that “the relics of the saints are to be venerated “, and it adds, seemingly in connexion with the same idea, that “If possible a candle is to burn there every night” (Haddan and Stubbs, “Councils”, III, 191). When we remember the candles which King Alfred constantly kept burning before his relics, the authenticity of this clause in Theodore's Penitential seems the more probable. Again the relics of English saints, for example those of St. Cuthbert and St. Oswald, soon became famous, while in the case of the latter we hear of them all over the continent. Mr. Plummer (Bede, II, 159-61) has made a short list of them and shows that they must have been transported into the remotest part of Germany. After the Second Council of Nicaea, in 7 87, had insisted with special urgency that relics were to be used in the consecration of churches and that the omission was to be supplied if any church had been consecrated without them the English Council of Celchyth (probably Chelsea) commanded that relics were to be used, and in default of them the Blessed Eucharist. But the developments of the veneration of relics in the Middle Ages were far too vast to be pursued further. Not a few of the most famous of the early medieval inscriptions are connected with the same matter. It must suffice to mention the famous Clematius inscription at Cologne, recording the translation of the remains of the so called Eleven thousand Virgins (see Krause, “Inscrip d. Rheinlande”, no. 294, and, for a discussion of the legend, the admirable essay on the subject by Cardinal Wiseman.

III. ABUSES

Naturally it was impossible for popular enthusiasm to be roused to so high a pitch in a matter which easily lent itself to error, fraud and greed of gain, without at least the occasional occurrence of many grave abuses. As early as the end of the fourth century, St. Augustine denouncing certain impostors wandering about in the habit of monks, describes them as making profit by the sale of spurious relics (“De op. monach.”, xxviii and cf. Isidore, “De. div. off.”, ii, 16). In the Theodosian Code the sale of relics is forbidden (“Nemo martyrem mercetur”, VII, ix, 17), but numerous stories, of which it would be easy to collect a long series, beginning with the writings of St. Gregory the Great and St. Gregory of Tours, prove to us that many unprincipled persons found a means of enriching themselves by a sort of trade in these objects of devotion, the majority of which no doubt were fraudulent. At the beginning of the ninth century, as M. Jean Guiraud had shown (Mélanges G. B. de Rossi, 73-95), the exportation of the bodies of martyrs from Rome had assumed the dimensions of a regular commerce, and a certain deacon, Deusdona, acquired an unenviable notoriety in these transactions (see Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XV, passim). What was perhaps in the long run hardly less disastrous than fraud or avarice was the keen rivalry between religious centres, and the eager credulity fostered by the desire to be known as the possessors of some unusually startling relic. We learn from Cassian, in the fifth century, that there were monks who seized upon certain martyrs' bodies by force of arms, defying the authority of the bishops, and this was a story which we find many times repeated in the Western chronicles of a later date.

In such an atmosphere of lawlessness doubtful relics came to abound. There was always a disposition to regard any human remains accidentally discovered near a church or in the catacombs as the body of a martyr. Hence, though men like St. Athanasius and St. Martin of Tours set a good example of caution in such cases, it is to be feared that in the majority of instances only a very narrow interval of time intervened between the suggestion that a particular object might be, or ought to be, an important relic, and the conviction that tradition attested it actually to be such. There is no reason in most cases for supposing the existence of deliberate fraud. The persuasion that a benevolent Providence was likely to send the most precious pignora sanctorum to deserving clients, the practice already noticed of attributing the same sanctity to objects which had touched the shrine as attached to the contents of the shrine itself, the custom of making facsimiles and imitations, a custom which persists to our own day in the replicas of the Vatican statue of St. Peter or of the Grotto of Lourdes, all these are causes adequate to account for the multitude of unquestionably spurious relics with which the treasuries of great medieval churches were crowded. In the case of the Nails with which Jesus Christ was crucified, we can point to definite instances in which that which was at first venerated as having touched the original came later to be honoured as the original itself. Join to this the large license given to the occasional unscrupulous rogue in an age not only utterly uncritical but often curiously morbid in its realism, and it becomes easy to understand the multiplicity and extravagance of the entries in the relic inventories of Rome and other countries.

On the other hand it must not be supposed that nothing was done by ecclesiastical authority to secure the faithful against deception. Such tests were applied as the historical and antiquarian science of that day was capable of devising. Very often however, this test took the form of an appeal to some miraculous sanction, as in the well known story repeated by St. Ambrose, according to which, when doubt arose which of the three crosses discovered by St. Helena was that of Christ, the healing of a sick man by one of them dispelled all further hesitation. Similarly Egbert, Bishop of Trier, in 979, doubting as to the authenticity of what purported to be the body of St. Celsus, “lest any suspicion of the sanctity of the holy relics should arise, during Mass after the offertory had been sung, threw a joint of the finger of St. Celsus wrapped in a cloth into a thurible full of burning coals, which remained unhurt and untouched by the fire the whole time of the Canon” (Mabillon “Acta SS. Ord. Ben.”, III, 658) . The decrees of synods upon this subject are generally practical and sensible, as when, for example, Bishop Quivil of Exeter, in 1287 after recalling the prohibition of the General Council of Lyons against venerating recently found relics unless they were first of all approved by the Roman Pontiff, adds: “We command the above prohibition to be carefully observed by all and decree that no person shall expose relics for sale, and that neither stones, nor fountains, trees, wood, or garments shall in any way be venerated on account of dreams or on fictitious grounds.” So, again, the whole procedure before Clement VII (the Antipope) in 1359, recently brought to light by Canon Chevalier, in connexion with the alleged Holy Shroud of Lirey, proves that some check at least was exercised upon the excesses of the unscrupulous or the mercenary.

Nevertheless it remains true that many of the more ancient relics duly exhibited for veneration in the great sanctuaries of Christendom or even at Rome itself must now be pronounced to be either certainty spurious or open to grave suspicion. To take one example of the latter class, the boards of the Crib (Praesaepe) — a name which for much more than a thousand years ears has been associated, as now, with the basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore — can only be considered to be of doubtful In his monograph “Le memorie Liberiane dell' Infanzia di N. S. Gesù Cristo” (Rome, 1894), Mgr. Cozza Luzi frankly avows that all positive evidence for the authenticity of the relics of the Crib etc., is wanting before the eleventh century. Strangely enough, an inscription in Greek uncials of the eighth century is found on one of the boards, the inscription having nothing to do with the Crib but being apparently concerned with some commercial transaction. It is hard to explain its presence on the supposition that the relic is authentic. Similar difficulties might he urged against the supposed “column of the flagellation” venerated at Rome in the Church of Santa Prassede and against many other famous relics.

Still, it would be presumptuous in such cases to blame the action of ecclesiastical authority in permitting the continuance of a cult which extends back into remote antiquity. On the one hand no one is constrained to pay homage to the relic, and supposing it to be in fact spurious, no dishonour is done to God by the continuance of an error which has been handed down in perfect good faith for many centuries. On the other hand the practical difficulty of pronouncing a final verdict upon the authenticity of these and similar relics must be patent to all. Each investigation would be an affair of much time and expense, while new discoveries might at any moment reverse the conclusions arrived at. Further, devotions of ancient date deeply rooted in the heart of the peasantry cannot be swept away without some measure of scandal and popular disturbance. To create this sensation seems unwise unless the proof of spuriousness is so overwhelming as to amount to certainty. Hence there is justification for the practice of the Holy See in allowing the cult of certain doubtful ancient relics to continue. Meanwhile, much has been done by quietly allowing many items in some of the most famous collections of relics to drop out of sight or by gradually omitting much of the solemnity which formerly surrounded the exposition of these doubtful treasures. Many of the inventories of the great collections of Rome, or of Aachen, Cologne, Naples, Salzburg, Antwerp, Constantinople, of the Sainte Chapelle at Paris etc., have been published. For illustration's sake reference may be made to the Count de Riant's work “Exuviae Constantinopolitanae” or to the many documents printed by Mgr. Barbier de Monault regarding Rome, particularly in vol. VII of his “Oeuvres complètes”. In most of these ancient inventories, the extravagance and utter improbability of many of the entries can not escape the most uncritical. Moreover though some sort of verification seems often to be traceable even in Merovingian times, still the so called authentications which have been printed of this early date (seventh century) are of a most primitive kind. They consist in fact of mere labels, strips of parchment with just the name of the relic to which each strip was attached, barbarously written in Latin. For example “Hic sunt reliquas sancti Victuriepiscopi, Festivitate Kalendis Septembris”, “Hic sunt patrocina sancti Petri et Paullo Roma civio”, etc.

It would probably be true to say that in no part of the world was the veneration of relics carried to greater lengths with no doubt proportionate danger of abuse, than among Celtic peoples. The honour paid to the handbells of such saints as St. Patrick, St. Senan, and St. Mura the strange adventures of sacred remains carried about with them in their wanderings by the Armorican people under stress of invasion by Teutons and Northmen the prominence given to the taking of oaths upon relics in the various Welsh codes founded upon the laws of Howell the Good, the expedients used for gaining possession of these treasures, and the numerous accounts of translations and miracles, all help to illustrate the importance of this aspect of the ecclesiastical life of the Celtic races.

IV. TRANSLATIONS

At the same time the solemnity attached to translations was by no means a peculiarity of the Celts. The story of the translation of St. Cuthbert's remains is almost as marvellous as any in Celtic hagiography. The forms observed of all-night vigils, and the carrying of the precious remains in “feretories” of gold or silver, overshadowed with silken canopies and surrounded with lights and incense, extended to every part of Christendom during the Middle Ages. Indeed this kind of solemn translation (elevatio corporis) was treated as the outward recognition of heroic sanctity, the equivalent of canonization, in the period before the Holy See reserved to itself the passing of a final judgment upon the merits of deceased servants of God, and on the other hand in the earlier forms of canonization Bulls it was customary to add a clause directing that the remains of those whose sanctity was thus proclaimed by the head of the Church should be “elevated”, or translated, to some shrine above ground where fitting honour could be paid them.

This was not always carried at once. Thus St. Hugh of Lincoln, who died in 1200, was canonized in 1220, but it was not until 1280 that his remains were translated to the beautiful “Angel Choir” which had been constructed expressly to receive them. This translation is noteworthy not only because King Edward I himself helped to carry the bier, but because it provides a typical example of the separation of the head and body of the saint which was a peculiar feature of so many English translations. The earliest example of this separation was probably that of St. Edwin, king and martyr; but we have also the cases of St. Oswald, St. Chad, St. Richard of Chichester (translated in 1276), and St. William of York (translated 1284). It is probable that the ceremonial observed in these solemn translations closely imitated that used in the enshrining of the relics in the sepulcrum of the altar at the consecration of a church while this in turn, as Mgr Duchesne has shown, is nothing but the development of the primitive burial service the martyr or saint being laid to rest in the church dedicated to his honour. But the carrying of relics is not peculiar to the procession which takes place at the dedications of a church. Their presence is recognized as a fitting adjunct to the solemnities of almost every kind of precession, except perhaps those of the Blessed Sacrament, and in medieval times no exception was made even for these latter.

V. FEAST OF RELICS

It has long been customary especially in churches which possessed large collections of relics, to keep one general feast in commemoration of all the saints whose memorials are there preserved. An Office and Mass for this purpose will be found in the Roman Missal and Breviary, and though they occur only in the supplement Pro aliquibus locis and are not obligatory upon the Church at large, still this celebration is now kept almost universally. The office is generally assigned to the fourth Sunday in October. In England before the Reformation, as we may learn from a rubric in the Sarum Breviary, the Festum Reliquiarum was celebrated on the Sunday after the feast of the Translation of St. Thomas of Canterbury (7 July), and it was to be kept as a greater double “wherever relics are preserved or where the bodies of dead persons are buried, for although Holy Church and her ministers observe no solemnities in their honour, the glory they enjoy with God is known to Him alone.”

HERBERT THURSTON

Rerum Novarum

The opening words and the title of the Encyclical issued by Leo XIII, 15 May, 1891, on the “Condition of Labour”. Although the Encyclical follows the lines of the traditional teaching concerning the rights and duties of property and the relations of employer and employee, it applies the old doctrines specifically to modern conditions. Opening with a description of the grievances of the working classes, it proceeds to refute the false theories of the Socialists, and to defend the right of private ownership. The true remedy, continues the pope, is to be found in the combined action of the Church, the State, the employer and the employed. The Church is properly interested in the social question because of its religious and moral aspects; the State has the right and the duty to intervene on behalf of justice and individual and social well-being; and employers and workers should organize into both mixed and separate associations for mutual protection and for self protection. All this is set forth with sufficient detail to reach the principal problems and relations of industrial and social life.

Probably no other pronouncement on the social question has had so many readers or exercised such a wide influence. It has inspired a vast Catholic social literature, while many non-Catholics have acclaimed it as one of the most definite and reasonable productions ever written on the subject. Sometimes criticized as vague, it is as specific as any document could be written for several countries in different stages of industrial development. On one point it is strikingly definite: “Let it be taken for granted that workman and employer should, as a rule, make free agreements, and in particular should agree freely as to wages; nevertheless, there is a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, that remuneration should be sufficient to maintain the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.”. Although this doctrine had been a part of the traditional teaching for many centuries, it had never been stated with such precision and authority. As the years go by and thoughtful men realize more and more how difficult it is to define the full requirements of justice in the matter of wages, a constantly increasing number of persons look up on this statement of Leo XIII as the most fruitful and effective principle of industrial justice that has ever been enunciated.

JOHN A. RYAN
In Memory of Francis M. O'Leary, OBE, KSG

Private Revelations

There are two kinds of revelations: (1) universal revelations, which are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all; (2) particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: “It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)” (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II).

Illusions connected with private revelations have been explained in the article CONTEMPLATION. Some of them are at first thought surprising. Thus a vision of an historical scene (e.g., of the life or death of Christ) is often only approximately accurate, although the visionary may be unaware of this fact, and he may be misled, if he believes in its absolute historical fidelity. This error is quite natural, being based on the assumption that, if the vision comes from God, all its details (the landscape, dress, words, actions, etc.) should be a faithful reproduction of the historical past. This assumption is not justified, for accuracy in secondary details is not necessary; the main point is that the fact, event, or communication revealed be strictly true. It may be objected that the Bible contains historical books, and that thus God may sometimes wish to reveal certain facts in religious history to us exactly. That doubtless is true, when there is question of facts which are necessary or useful as a basis for religion, in which case the revelation is accompanied by proofs that guarantee its accuracy. A vision need not guarantee its accuracy in every detail. One should thus beware of concluding without examination that revelations are to be rejected; the prudent course is neither to believe nor to deny them unless there is sufficient reason for so doing. Much less should one suspect that the saints have been always, or very often deceived in their vision. On the contrary, such deception is rare, and as a rule in unimportant matters only.

There are cases in which we can be certain that a revelation is Divine. (1) God can give this certainty to the person who receives the revelation (at least during it), by granting an insight and an evidence so compelling as to exclude all possibility of doubt. We can find an analogy in the natural order: our senses are subject to many illusions, and yet we frequently perceive clearly that we have not been deceived. (2) At times others can be equally certain of the revelation thus vouchsafed. For instance, the Prophets of the Old Testament gave indubitable signs of their mission; otherwise they would not have been believed. There were always false prophets, who deceived some of the people but, inasmuch as the faithful were counselled by Holy Writ to distinguish the false from the true, it was possible so to distinguish. One incontrovertible proof is the working of a miracle, if it be wrought for this purpose and circumstances show this to be so. A prophecy realized is equally convincing, when it is precise and cannot be the result of chance or of a conjecture of the evil spirit.

Besides these rather rare means of forming an opinion, there is another, but longer and more intricate method: to discuss the reasons for and against. Practically, this examination will often give only a probability more or less great. It may be also that the revelation can be regarded as Divine in its broad outlines, but doubtful in minor details. Concerning the revelations of Marie de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, for example, contradictory opinions have been expressed: some believe unhesitatingly everything they contain, and are annoyed when anyone does not share their confidence; others give the revelations no credence whatsoever (generally on a priori grounds); finally there are many who are sympathetic, but do not know what to reply when asked what degree of credibility is to be attributed to the writings of these two ecstatics. The truth seems to be between the two extreme opinions indicated first. If there is question of a particular fact related in these books and not mentioned elsewhere, we cannot be certain that it is true, especially in minor details. In particular instances, these visionaries have been mistaken: thus Marie de Agreda teaches, like her contemporaries, the existence of crystal heavens, and declares that one must believe everything she says, although such an obligation exists only in the case of the Holy Scriptures. In 1771 Clement XIV forbade the continuation of her process of beatification “on account of the book”. Catherine Emmerich has likewise given expression to false or unlikely opinions: she regards the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius as due to the Areopagite, and says strange things about the terrestrial Paradise, which, according to her, exists on an inaccessible Mountain towards Tibet. If there be question of the general statement of facts given in these works, we can admit with probability that many of them are true. For these two visionaries led lives that were regarded as very holy. Competent authorities have judged their ecstasies as divine. It is therefore prudent to admit that they received a special assistance from God, preserving them not absolutely, but in the main, from error.

In judging of revelations or visions we may proceed in this manner: (1) get detailed information about the person who believes himself thus favored; (2) also about the fact of the revelation and the circumstances attending it. To prove that a revelation is Divine (at least in its general outlines), the method of exclusion is sometimes employed. It consists in proving that neither the demon nor the ecstatic's own ideas have interfered (at least on important points) with God's action, and that no one has retouched the revelation after its occurrence. This method differs from the preceding one only in the manner of arranging the information obtained, but it is not so convenient. To judge revelations or visions, we must be acquainted with the character of the person favoured with them from a triple point of view: natural, ascetical, and mystical. (For those who have been beatified or canonized, this inquiry has been already made by the Church.) Our inquiry into the visionary's character might be pursued as follows:

1. What are his natural qualities or defects, from a physical, intellectual, and especially moral standpoint? If the information is favourable (if the person is of sound judgment, calm imagination; if his acts are dictated by reason and not by enthusiasm, etc.), many causes of illusion are thereby excluded. However, a momentary aberration is still possible.
2. How has the person been educated? Can the knowledge of the visionary have been derived from books or from conversations with theologians?
3. What are the virtues exhibited before and after the revelation? Has he made progress in holiness and especially in humility? The tree can be judged by its fruits.
4. What extraordinary graces of union with God have been received? The greater they are the greater the probability in favour of the revelation, at least in the main.
5. Has the person had other revelations that have been judged Divine? Has he made any predictions that have been clearly realized?
6. Has he been subjected to heavy trials? It is almost impossible for extraordinary favours to be conferred without heavy crosses; for both are marks of God's friendship, and each is a preparation for the other.
7. Does he practice the following rules: fear deception; be open with your director; do not desire to have revelations?

Our information concerning a revelation considered in itself or concerning the circumstances that accompanied it might be secured as follows:

1. Is there an authentic account, in which nothing has been added, suppressed, or corrected?
2. Does the revelation agree with the teaching of the Church or with the recognized facts of history or natural science?
3. Does it teach nothing contrary to good morals, and is it unaccompanied by any indecent action? The commandments of God are addressed to everyone without exception. More than once the demon has persuaded false visionaries that they were chosen souls, and that God loved them so much as to dispense them from the burdensome restrictions imposed on ordinary mortals. On the contrary, the effect of Divine visitations is to remove us more and more from the life of sense, and make us more rigorous towards ourselves.
4. Is the reaching helpful towards the obtaining of eternal salvation? In spiritism we find the spirits evoked treat only of trifles. They reply to idle questions, or descend to providing amusement for an assembly (e.g., by moving furniture about); deceased relatives or the great philosophers are interrogated and their replies are woefully commonplace. A revelation is also suspect if its aim is to decide a disputed question in theology, history, astronomy, etc. Eternal salvation is the only thing of importance in the eyes of God. “In all other matters”, says St. John of the Cross, “He wishes men to have recourse to human means” (Montée, II, xxii). Finally, a revelation is suspect if it is commonplace, telling only what is to be found in every book. It is then probable that the visionary is unconsciously repeating what he has learnt by reading.
5. After examining all the circumstances accompanying the vision (the attitudes, acts, words, etc.), do we find that the dignity and seriousness which become the Divine Majesty? The spirits evoked by Spiritists often speak in a trivial manner. Spiritists try to explain this by pretending that the spirits are not demons, but the souls of the departed who have retained all their vices; absurd or unbecoming replies are given by deceased persons who are still liars, or libertines, frivolous or mystifiers, etc. But if that be so, communications with these degraded beings is evidently dangerous. In Protestant “revivals” assembled crowds bewail their sins, but in a strange, exaggerated way, as if frenzied or intoxicated. It must be admitted that they are inspired by a good principle: a very ardent sentiment of the love of God and of repentance. But to this is added another element that cannot be regarded as Divine: a neuropathic enthusiasm, which is contagious and sometimes develops so far as to produce convulsions or repugnant contortions. Sometimes a kind of unknown language is spoken, but it consists in reality of a succession of meaningless sounds.
6. What sentiments of peace, or, on the other hand, of disturbance, are experienced during or after the revelations? Here is the rule as formulated by St. Catherine of Siena and St. Ignatius: “With persons of good will [it is only of such that we are here treating] the action of the good spirit [God or His Angels] is characterized by the production of peace, joy, security, courage; except perhaps at the first moment.” Note the restriction. The Bible often mentions this disturbance at the first moment of the revelation; the Blessed Virgin experienced it when the Angel Gabriel appeared to her. The action of the demon produces quite the contrary effect: “With persons of good will he produces, except perhaps at the first moment, disturbance, sorrow, discouragement, perturbation, gloom.” In a word the action of Satan encounters a mysterious resistance of the soul.
7. It often happens that the revelation inspires an exterior work - for instance, the establishment of a new devotion, the foundation of a new religious congregation or association, the revision of the constitutions of a congregation, etc., the building of a church or the creation of a pilgrimage, the reformation of the lax spirit in a certain body, the preaching of a new spirituality, etc. In these cases the value of the proposed work must be carefully examined; is it good in itself, useful, filling a need, not injurious to other works, etc.?
8. Have the revelations been subjected to the tests of time and discussion?
9. If any work has been begun as a result of the revelation, has it produced great spiritual fruit? Have the sovereign pontiffs and the bishops believed this to be so, and have they assisted the progress of the work? This is very well illustrated in the cases of the Scapular of Mount Carmel, the devotion to the Sacred Heart, the miraculous medal. These are the signs that enable us to judge with probability if a revelation is Divine. In the case of certain persons very closely united to God, the slow study of these signs has been sometimes aided or replaced by a supernatural intuition; this is what is known as the infused gift of the discernment of spirits.

As regards the rules of conduct, the two principal have been explained in the article on CONTEMPLATION, namely

1. if the revelation leads solely to the love of God and the saints, the director may provisionally regard it as Divine;
2. at the beginning the visionary should do his best to repulse the revelation quietly. He should not desire to receive it, otherwise he will be exposing himself to the risk of being deceived.

Here are some further rules:

• the director must be content to proceed slowly, not to express astonishment, to treat the person gently. If he were to be harsh or distrustful, he would intimidate the soul he is directing, and incline it to conceal important details from him;
• he must be very careful to urge the soul to make progress in the way of sanctity. He will point out that the only value of the visions is in the spiritual fruit that they produce;
• he will pray fervently, and have the subject he is directing pray, that the necessary light may be granted. God cannot fail to make known the true path to those who ask Him humbly. If on the contrary a person confided solely in his natural prudence, he would expose himself to punishment for his self-sufficiency;
• the visionary should be perfectly calm and patient if his superiors do not allow him to carry out the enterprises that he deems inspired by Heaven or revealed. One who, when confronted with this opposition, becomes impatient or discouraged, shows that he has very little confidence in the power of God and is but little conformed to His will. If God wishes the project to succeed, He can make the obstacles suddenly disappear at the time appointed by Him. A very striking example of this divine delay is to be found in the life of St. Juliana, the Cistercian prioress of Mont-Cornillon, near Liège (1192-1258). It is to her that the institution of the feast of the Blessed Sacrament is due. All of her life was passed in awaiting the hour of God, which she was never to see, for it came only more than a century after the beginning of the revelations.

As regards inspirations ordinarily, those who have not passed the period of tranquility or a complete union, must beware of the idea that they hear supernatural words; unless the evidence is irresistible, they should attribute them to the activity of their own imaginations. But they may at least experience inspirations or impulses more or less strong, which seem to point out to them how to act in difficult circumstances. This is a minor form of revelation. The same line of conduct should be followed as in the latter case. We must not accept them blindly and against the dictates of reason, but weigh the reasons for and against, consult a prudent director, and decide only after applying the rules for the discernment of spirits. The attitude of reserve that has just been laid down does not apply to the simple, sudden and illuminating views of faith, which enables one to understand in a higher manner not novelties, but the truths admitted by the Church. Such enlightenment cannot have any evil result. It is on the contrary a very precious grace, which should be very carefully welcomed and utilized.

Consult the writings of ST. TERESA AND ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS, passim; PHILIP OF THE BLESSED TRINITY, Summa theologica mysticae (Lyons, 1656), pt. II, tr. iii; DE VALLGORNERA, Mystica Theologia (Barcelona, 1662), Q. ii, disp. 5; LOPEZ DE EZQUERRA, Lucerna Mystica (Venice, 1692), tr. v; AMORT, De revelationibus (Augsburg, 1744); BENEDICT XIV, De servorum Dei canonizatione (Rome, 1767), l.III, c. liii; SCARAMELLI, Direttorio mistico (Venice, 1754), tr.iv; SCHRAM, Institutiones theologicae mysticae (Augsburg, 1777), pt. II, c. iv; ST. LIGUORI, Homo apostolicus (Venice, 1782), append.i, n. 19; RIBET, La mystique divine, II (Paris, 1879); POULAIN, Des graces d'oraison (5th ed., Paris, 1909), tr. The Graces of Interior Prayer (London, 1910).

AUG. POULAIN

Manoel de Sa

Portuguese theologian and exegete, b. at Villa do Conde (Province Entre-Minho-e-Douro), 1530; d. at Arona (Italy), 30 Dec., 1596. He distinguished himself as a student at the University of Coimbra, and at the age of fifteen joined the Society of Jesus. He soon afterward taught philosophy, first at Coimbra, and next at Gandia, where he also acted as tutor to St. Francis Borgia, then Duke of Gandia. In 1557, he became one of the early professors of the Roman College, and commented for two years on the prophecies of Osee and the “Summa” of St. Thomas. Exhausted by his labours, he discontinued his lectures, and visited the houses of the Society in Tuscany. Restored to health, he returned to the Roman College, where he filled the chair of exegesis, and found time to give missions in various places, preaching with an eloquence truly apostolic. His reputation for scholarship induced Pius V to appoint him as a member of the commission in charge of preparing the authentic edition of the Septuagint. This did not prevent him from continuing his apostolic labours and from founding several houses of his order in Upper Italy. After residing for a time at Genoa, he withdrew to the professed house of Arona (Diocese of Milan), where he died. His exegetical works are: “Scholia in Quatuor Evangelia” (Antwerp, 1596), and “Notationes in totam Scripturam Sacram” (Antwerp, 1598), both of which passed thrrough several editions. However short, Sa's annotations clearly set forth the literal sense of Holy Writ, and bespeak a solid erudition, despite a few inaccuracies which have been sharply rebuked by Protestant critics. His theological treatise entitled “Aphorismi Confessariorum ex Doctorum sententiis collecti” (Venice, 1595), however remarkable, was censured in 1603, apparently because the Master of the Sacred Palace treated some of its maxims as contrary to opinions commonly received among theologians, but it was later corrected and has recently removed from the Roman Index (1900). Sa's life of John of Texeda, the Capuchin confessor of St. Francis Borgia, when Duke of Gandia, has not been published.

DE BACKER, Biblioth. des Ecrivains de la Compagnie de Jésus (Liège, 1853); HURTER, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1907).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Angel de Saavedra Remírez de Baquedano

Spanish poet and statesman, b. at Cordova, 10 March, 1791; d. at Madrid, 22 June, 1865. He was the second son of Juan Martín de Saavedra, Duque de Rivas, and succeeded to the title upon the death without issue of his elder brother in 1834. At eleven he entered the Seminario de Nobles at Madrid but left at sixteen to join the army. From 1808 to 1813 he took an active part in the Spanish War of Independence. From 1813 to 1820 he lived quietly in Seville, devoting his time to literary pursuits, and from 1820 to 1823 he distinguished himself as a member of the Cortes. He sided with the revolutionary party, and as a result, when Ferdinand VII came into power, he was forced to flee, escaping with difficulty to Gibraltar. From there he proceeded to London, and later to Malta where he remained five years during which he continued his literary activities, and then went to live in France. Upon the death of Ferdinand VII, he was able to return to Spain (1834). In 1836, he became minister of the interior in the cabinet headed by Isturiz, and in 1844 he was sent as ambassador to Naples where he remained until 1850. Besides being a poet of great merit, Saavedra had considerable skill as a painter, and during his exile in France, earned a living for himself and family by conducting a school for painting and by selling his pictures. But it is as a poet that he is best known. He published his first volume of “Poesias” in 1813 and in 1814, two tragedies, “Aliatur” and “El Duque de Aquitania”. Only the first was presented. The works which place him in the front rank of Spanish poets are “El moro expósito”, a narrative poem breathing a spirit of patriotism (1834), and the tragedy “Don Alvaro” (1835), presented with great success in Madrid and considered his best work. A complete edition of his works was published (5 vols., Madrid, 1854), under the title “Obras Completas”, and in 1885 a complete edition with illustrations appeared ar Barcelona in two volumes.

DE BENA in La Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, II (Madrid, 1848); CANETE, Autores dramaticos contemporaneos, I (Madrid, 1881).

VENTURA FUENTES

Saba and Sabeans

This Saba (Sheba) must not be confounded with Saba (Seba) in Ethiopia of Is., xliii, 3; xlv, 14. It lies in the Southern Arabian Jôf about 200 miles north-west of Aden. The Sabeans are mentioned in the Bible as a distant people (Joel, iii, 8), famous traders (Ez., xxvii,22-3; xxxviii, 13; Job, vi, 19), who exported gold (Is., lx,6; Ps., lxxiii, 15 (R.V.); Ez., xxxviii, 13), precious stones (Ez., xxvii, 22), perfumes (Jer., vi, 20), incense (Is.,lx, 6), and perhaps slaves (Joel, ibid.), and practised brigandage. The genealogies of Genesis connect them now with Dadan, as sons of Regma (x,7; cf. I Par., i, 9) and of Jecsan (xxv, 3; cf. I Par., i, 32), now with Asarmoth (Hadhramôt), as sons of Jecsan (x, 26-8, cf.,I Par., i, 20-22). These details point to two Sabas, one in the south contiguous to Hadhramot, another in the north near Taima (Job, i, 15; vi, 19) and El 'Ela (cf. “Comptes rendus de l'académie des Inscriptions” etc., June 1910); but which was the original home of the Sabeans, cannot yet be decided. Hommel indeed places it in the north, near Idumean Dedan, and identifies it with Aribi-Yareb (whose queens figure in Assyrian inscriptions),with the Saba, whose queen visited Solomon (III Kings, x), which is probably mentioned as tributary to Theglathphalasar III (745-27 B.C.), and whose ruler, Ithamara, paid tribute to Sargon in 715 B.C. Thence (according to Glaser) the Sabeans moved south in the eighth or ninth century and established their kingdom on the ruins of the Minaean power. This theory is plausible and solves the difficulty of III Kings, x; but the identification of Saba with Aribi-Yareb is arbitrary, and all present evidence disproves the existence of kings in Saba till much later. Sargon, who lavishes the title of King on his tributaries, refuses it to Ithamara, the Yethamara of Sabean inscriptions, and these inscriptions point to a long period of rule by Mukarribs (priest-kings), ten of whose names have been preserved. Their capital was Çirwah. Authorities agree in dating their rule from the beginning of the tenth century B.C., and in making the advent of the kings contemporaneous with the destruction of the Minaean kingdom. Here agreement ceases. Glaser, e.g. dates the Sabean kings from 820, Müller from 750, and they can certainly not be placed later than 500 B.C., since at least seventeen of them reigned before 115 B.C. At that date a new era begins. The Himayarites (Homeritae of classical geography) overthrew in that year the Kingdom of Saba, and founded the “Kingdom of Saba and Raidân”. In 25 B.C. the army of Aelius Gallus failed miserably before the walls of Marib, the Sabean capital. About A.D. 300 the ever-increasing Abyssinian immigrants overthrew the Himyarite dynasty, and inaugurated the “Kingdom of Saba, Raidan, Hadhramôt, and Yemen”, which, after yielding place for an interval to a Judaeo-Sabean kingdom and violent religious persecution (cf. Pereira, “Historia dos Martyres de Nagran”, Lisbon, 1899) was re-established by Byzantine intervention in 525. After the rout of the Viceroy Abraha at Mecca in 570, the Persians seized their opportunity, and Southern Arabia became a Persian province till its incorporation in Islam. Modern discoveries confirm the classical and Biblical accounts of Sabean prosperity. Ruins of fortresses and walled towns of temples and irrigation-works, cover the land. Of the immense dams the most famous is that of the capital, Marib, which did service, after repeated restoration, down to the sixth century of our era. Thanks to irrigation, agriculture flourished. Gold, too, abounded, with silver and precious spices. Brigandage reinforced the natural products. But the chief source of wealth was the trade route from India to Egypt and northern Syria, which passed through the Sabean capital (cf. Müller, “Der Islam im Morgen- und Abendland”, I, 24 sqq.). Accordingly, when, in the first century after Christ, the Ptolomies exchanged the Southern Arabian route for a direct road from Alexandria to Egypt, the decline of Sabean prosperity began. Thus the bursting of the dam of Marib was the consequence, not, as Arabic legend pretended, the cause, of the disintegration of the Sabean tribes. The Sabean polity seems to have been based on the feudal system. Two kings appear to have shared the supreme power, but the monarchy was not hereditary, and passed on the king's death to the first male born during the reign to one of the leading families. The heads of these families shared with the king the exclusive right to sanction the building of castles, and are even called the kings of their own tribes. Of other magistrates-e.g. the eponymous magistrates- we know little more than the names. A wide principle of individual equality seems to have prevailed; strangers were admitted as clients; slaves abounded. Women appear to enjoyed equal rights with their consorts and are sometimes called “mistress of the castle”. Concubinage prevailed, but not polygamy. Sabean art has in some respects merited high praise, but it lacks originality, and betrays at different periods the influence of the surrounding civilizations. The coins, the king's head with an owl on the reverse, are sometimes of fine workmanship (cf. Schlumberger, “Le trésor de San'a Daris”, 1880). The earliest date from the fifth century B.C. Many recent writers attribute to the Sabeans the invention of the Semitic alphabet. The supreme god of Saba was Il-Mukah, to whom was joined in the inferior capacity of spouse or daughter, the sun-goddess Shamsh. Other deities were Athtar, the morning or evening star, Ta'lab, “Patron of Riyâm”, Haubas, Rammâm, and others-names which may be merely epithets of the moon-god. Submission towards and intimate affinity to the deity is the characteristic of the Sabean religion. The inscriptions commemorate gratitude for success in arms, “man-slaying”, health, preservation, safe return, booty, and rich crops. Worshippers offer to the gods themselves and their children, register vows, and attest their fulfilment. Votive offerings consisted in gilt images of the object, and one king dedicated as many as thirty golden (“gilt”) statues on one occasion. We can only make a passing allusion to the predominant influence attributed by some savants to Southern Arabia on the formation of the Mosaic institutions. Especial stress is laid on the Arabian origin of the Divine name and of many religious terms, on the scruple of the Arabians about using the Divine name, their designation of priests as Levites, their laws of ceremonial purity, their imageless worship, their sin-offerings etc., especially when viewed in the light of Abraham's ancestry, and of the intimate connection of Moses with Midian. Apart, however, from the fact that the question belongs to the Minaean rather than to the Sabean problem, the materials at present at our disposal do not warrant any probable solution of the question.

Classical Geographers: GLASER, Skizze der Geschichte u. Geographic Arabiens (Berlin, 1890). Arabic Geographers: see especially Müller, Die Burgen u. Schölsser Südarabiens nach dem Iklîl des Hamdani (Vienna, 1879). Sabean Inscriptions: Corpus inscr. Semit., IV (Paris, 1889—); HOMMEL, Südarabische Chrestomathie (Munich, 1892); MULLER and MORDTMAN, Sabäische Denkmäler (Vienna, 1883); MULLER, Sudarabische Alterthumer im Kunsthistorische Hofmuseum (Vienna, 1889).
General Reference: HOMMEL, Aufsätze u. Abhandlungen (Munich, 1892); WEBER, Arabien vor dem Islam (Leipzig, 1901); Idem, Studien zur Sudarab. Altertumskunde, I-III (Berlin, 1901-7); GRIMME, Mohammed (Munster, 1895); KÖNIG, Fünf neue Landschaftenamen im a. Test. (Berlin, 1902); HARTMANN, Der islamische Orient, II (Leipzig, 1909); HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible.
For Biblical Aspect: HOMMEL, Ancient Hebrew Tradition (New York and London, 1897); IDEM in HILPRECHT, Explorations in Bible Lands (Edinburg, 1903), 741-52; LANDSDORFER, Die Bibel u. die südarab. Altertumsforschung (Munster, 1910); GRIMME in Zeitschrift der morgenländischen Geschichte, LXI, 3S sqq.
Sabaean Religion: NIELSEN, Die altarab. Mondreligion (Strasburg, 1904); IDEM, Der Sabäische Gott Il-Mukah (Leipzig, 1910).
Modern Explorations: HOMMEL in Hilprecht, op.cit., 697-726; WEBER, Forschungsreisen in Südarabien bis zum Auftreten Glasers (Leipzig,1906); IDEM, E. Glasers Forschungsreisen in Südarabien (Leipzig, 1908).

J.A. HARTINGER

Sacramentals

In instituting the sacraments Christ did not determine the matter and form down to the slightest detail, leaving this task to the Church, which should determine what rites were suitable in the administration of the sacraments. These rites are indicated by the word Sacramentalia, the object of which is to manifest the respect due to the sacrament and to secure the sanctification of the faithful. They belong to widely different categories, e. g.: substance, in the mingling of water with Eucharistic wine; quantity, in the triple baptismal effusion; quality, in the condition of unleavened bread; relation, in the capacity of the minister; time and place, in feast-days and churches; habit, in the liturgical vestments; posture, in genuflection, prostrations; action, in chanting etc. So many external conditions connect the sacramentals with the virtue of religion, their object being indicated by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, 15), that it is asserted that apart from their ancient origin and traditional maintenance ceremonies, blessings, lights, incense, etc. enhance the dignity of the Holy Sacrifice and arouse the piety of the faithful. Moreover the sacramentals help to distinguish the members of the Church from heretics, who have done away with the sacramentals or use them arbitrarily with little intelligence.

Sacramental rites are dependent on the Church which established them, and which therefore has the right to maintain, develop, modify, or abrogate them. The ceremonial regulation of the sacraments in Apostolic times is sufficiently proved by the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians with regard to the Eucharist: “Cetera autem, cum venero, disponam” [the rest I will set in order whin I come (I Cor., xi, 34)], which St. Augustine, on what ground we know not, supposes to refer to the obligation of the Eucharistic fast (Ep. liv, “Ad Januarium”, c. 6, n. 8, in P. L., XXXIII, 203). The Fathers of the Church enumerate ceremonies and rites, some of which were instituted by the Apostles, others by the early Christians (cf. Justin Martyr, “Apol. I”, n. 61, 65 in P. G., VI, 419, 427; Tertullian, “De baptismo:, vii in P. L., I, 1206; St. Basil, “De Spiritu Sancto”, I, xxvii, n. 67 in P. G., XXXII, 191). The Catholic Church, which is the heiress of the Apostles, has always used and maintained against heretics this power over sacramentals. To her and to her alone belongs the right to determine the matter, form, and minister of the sacramentals. The Church, that is, the supreme authority represented by its visible head, alone legislates in this matter, because the bishops no longer have in practice the power to modify of abolish by a particular legislation what is imposed on the universal Church. What concerns the administration of the sacraments is contained in detail in the Roman Ritual and the Episcopal Ceremoniale.

Apart from the ceremonies relating to the administration of the sacraments the Church has instituted others for the purpose of private devotion. To distinguish between them, the latter are named sacramentals because of the resemblance between their rites and those of the sacraments properly so-called. In ancient times the term sacrament alone was used, but numerous confusions resulted and the similarity of rites and terms led many Christians to regard both as sacraments. After Peter Lombard the use and definition of the word “sacramental” had a fixed character and was exclusively applicable to those rites presenting an external resemblance to the sacraments but not applicable to the sensible signs of Divine institution. St. Thomas Aquinas makes use of the terms sacra and sacramentalia (Summa I-II, Q. cviii, a. 2 ad 2um; III, Q. lxv, a. 1 ad 8um), which the theologians of a later period adopted, so that at present sacramentalia is exclusively reserved for those rites which are practiced apart from the administration of the seven sacraments, for which the word ceremonies is used.

The number of the sacramentals may not be limited; nevertheless, the attempt has been made to determine their general principles or rather applications in the verse: “Orans, tinctus, edens, confessus, dans, benedicens”.

• Orans indicates public prayer, whether liturgical or private;
• tinctus, the use of holy water and the unctions in use at various consecrations;
• edens, the eating of blessed foods;
• confessus, the general avowal of faults which is made in the Confiteor recited at Mass, at Communion, in the Divine Office;
• dans, alms;
• benedicens, papal and episcopal blessings etc., blessings of candles, ashes, palms etc.

Another distinction classifies sacramentals according to whether they are acts, e. g. the Confiteor mentioned above, or things, such as medals, holy water etc. The sacramentals do not produce sanctifying grace ex opere operato, by virtue of the rite or substance employed, and this constitutes their essential difference from the sacraments. The Church is unable to increase or reduce the number of sacraments as they were instituted by Christ, but the sacramentals do not possess this dignity and privilege. Theologians do not agree as to whether the sacramentals may confer any other grace ex opere operantis through the action of the one who uses them, but the negative opinion is more generally followed, for as the Church cannot confer sanctifying grace nor institute signs thereof, neither can she institute efficacious signs of the other graces which God alone can give. Moreover, as experience teaches, the sacramentals do not infallibly produce their effect. Finally in the euchologic formulas of the sacramentals the Church makes use, not of affirmative, but of deprecatory expressions, which shows that she looks directly to Divine mercy for the effect.

Besides the efficacy which the sacramentals possess in common with other good works they have a special efficacy of their own. If their whole value proceeded from the opus operantis, all external good works could be called sacramentals. The special virtue recognized by the Church and experienced by Christians in the sacramentals should consist in the official prayers whereby we implore God to pour forth special graces on those who make use of the sacramentals. These prayers move God to give graces which He would not otherwise give, and when not infallibly acceded to it is for reasons known to His Wisdom. God is aware of the measure in which He should bestow His gifts. All the sacramentals have not the same effect; this depends on the prayer of the Church which does not make use of the same urgency nor have recourse to the same Divine sources of merit. Some sacramentals derive no special efficacy from the prayer of the Church; such are those which are employed in worship, without a blessing, or even with a blessing which does not specify any particular fruit. This is the case with the blessing of vessels meant to contain the holy oils: “Give ear to our prayers, most merciful Father, and deign to bless and sanctify these purified vessels prepared for the use of the sacred ministry of Thy Church”. On the other hand, some sacramentals, among them one of those most frequently used, holy water, are the object of a benediction which details their particular effects.

One of the most remarkable effects of sacramentals is the virtue to drive away evil spirits whose mysterious and baleful operations affect sometimes the physical activity of man. To combat this occult power the Church has recourse to exorcism and sacramentals. Another effect is the delivery of the soul from sin and the penalties therefor. Thus in the blessing of a cross the Church asks that this sacred sign may receive the heavenly blessing in order that all those who kneel before it and implore the Divine Majesty may be granted great compunction and a general pardon of faults committed. This means remission of venial sins, for the sacraments alone, with perfect contrition, possess the efficacy to remit mortal sins and to release from the penalties attached to them. St. Thomas is explicit on this point: “The episcopal blessing, the aspersion of holy water, every sacramental unction, prayer in a dedicated church, and the like, effect the remission of venial sins, implicitly or explicitly” (Summa III, Q. lxxxvii, a. 3, ad 1um). Finally the sacramentals may be employed to obtain temporal favours, since the Church herself blesses objects made use of in every-day life, e. g. the blessing of a house on which is called down the abundance of heavenly dew and the rich fruitfulness of the earth; so likewise in the benediction of the fields, in which God is asked to pour down His blessings on the harvests, so that the wants of the needy may be supplied by the fertile earth.

H. LECLERCQ

Sacraments

Sacraments, outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification (Catechismus concil. Trident., n.4, ex S. Aug. “De Catechizandis rudibus”). The subject may be treated under the following headings: I. The necessity and the nature of the sacramental system
II. The nature of the sacraments of the new law
III. The origin (cause) of the sacraments
IV. The number of the sacraments
V. The effects of the sacraments
VI. The minister of the sacraments
VII. The recipient of the sacraments

I. NECESSITY AND NATURE

(1) In what sense necessary

Almighty God can and does give grace to men in answer to their internal aspirations and prayers without the use of any external sign or ceremony. This will always be possible, because God, grace, and the soul are spiritual beings. God is not restricted to the use of material, visible symbols in dealing with men; the sacraments are not necessary in the sense that they could not have been dispensed with. But, if it is known that God has appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on men, then in order to obtain those graces it will be necessary for men to make use of those Divinely appointed means. This truth theologians express by saying that the sacraments are necessary, not absolutely but only hypothetically, i.e., in the supposition that if we wish to obtain a certain supernatural end we must use the supernatural means appointed for obtaining that end. In this sense the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. 4) declared heretical those who assert that the sacraments of the New Law are superfluous and not necessary, although all are not necessary for each individual. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Christians in general that, whilst God was nowise bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual abd sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing with men. Writers on the sacraments refer to this as the necessitas convenientiae, the necessity of suitableness. It is not really a necessity, but the most appropriate manner of dealing with creatures that are at the same time spiritual and corporeal. In this assertion all Christians are united: it is only when we come to consider the nature of the sacramental signs that Protestants (except some Anglicans) differ from Catholics. “To sacraments considered merely as outward forms, pictorial representations or symbolic acts, there is generally no objection”, wrote Dr. Morgan Dix (“The sacramental system”, New York, 1902, p. 16). “Of sacramental doctrine this may be said, that it is co-extensive with historic Christianity. Of this there is no reasonable doubt, as regards the very ancient days, of which St. Chrysostom's treatise on the priesthood abd St. Cyril's catechetical lectures may be taken as characteristic documents. Nor was it otherwise with the more conservative of the reformed bodies of the sixteenth century. Martin Luther's Catechism, the Augsburg, and later the Westminster, Confessions are strongly sacramental in their tone, putting to shame the degenerate followers of those who compiled them” (ibid., p. 7, 8)

(2) Why the sacramental system is most appropriate

The reasons underlying a sacramental system are as follows:

• Taking the word “sacrament” in its broadest sense, as the sign of something sacred and hidden (the Greek word is “mystery”), we can say that the whole world is a vast sacramental system, in that material things are unto men the signs of things spiritual and sacred, even of the Divinity. “The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands” (Ps. xviii, 2). The invisible things of him [i.e. God], from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity” (Rom., i, 20).
• The redemption of man was not accomplished in an invisible manner. God renewed, through the Patriarchs and the Prophets, the promise of salvation made to the first man; external symbols were used to express faith in the promised Redeemer: “all these things happened to them [the Israelites] in figure” (I Cor., x, 11; Heb., x, 1). “So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman” (Gal., iv, 3, 4). The Incarnation took place because God dealt with men in the manner that was best suited to their nature.
• The Church established by the Saviour was to be a visible organization (see CHURCH: The Visibility of the Church): consequently it should have external ceremonies and symbols of things sacred.
• The principal reason for a sacramental system is found in man. It is the nature of man, writes St. Thomas (III:61:1), to be led by things corporeal and semse-perceptible to things spiritual and intelligible; now Divine Providence provides for everything in accordance with its nature (secundum modum suae conditionis); therefore it is fitting that Divine Wisdom should provide means of salvation for men in the form of certain corporeal and sensible signs which are called sacraments. (For other reasons see Catech. Conc. Trid., II, n.14.)

(3) Existence of sacred symbols

(a) No sacraments in the state of innocence. According ot St. Thomas (III:61:2) and theologians generally there were no sacraments before Adam sinned, i.e., in the state of original justice. Man's dignity was so great that he was raised above the natural condition of human nature. His mind was subject to God; his lower faculties were subject to the higher part of his mind; his body was subject to his soul; it would have been against the dignity of that state had he been dependent, for the acquisition of knowledge or of Divine grace, on anything beneath him, i.e., corporeal things. For this reason the majority of theologians hold that no sacraments would have been instituted even if that state had lasted for a long time.

(b) Sacraments of the law of nature. Apart from what was or might have been in that extraordinary state, the use of sacred symbols is universal. St. Augustine says that every religion, true or false, has its visible signs or sacraments. “In nullum nomen religionis, seu verum seu falsum, coadunari homines possunt, nisi aliquo signaculorum seu sacramentorum visibilium consortio colligantur” (Cont. Faust., XIX, xi). Commentators on the Scriptures and theologians almost unanimously assert that there were sacraments under the law of nature and under the Mosaic Law, as there are sacraments of greater dignity under the Law of Christ. Under the law of nature - so called not to exclude supernatural revelation but because at that time there existed no written supernatural law - salvation was granted through faith in the promised Redeemer, and men expressed that faith by some external signs. What those signs should be God did not determine, leaving this for the people, most probably to the leaders or heads of families, who were guided in their choice by an interior inspiration of the Holy Ghost. This is the conception of St. Thomas, who says that, as under the law of nature (when there was no written law), men were guided by interior inspiration in worshiping God, so also they determined what signs should be used in the external acts of worship (III:60:5, ad 3). Afterwards, however, as it was necessary to give a written law: (a) because the law of nature had been obscured by sin, and (b) because it was time to give a more explicit knowledge of the grace of Christ, then also it became necessary to determine what external signs should be used as sacraments (>III:60:5, ad 3; III:61:3, ad 2) This was not necessary immediately after the Fall, by reason of the fullness of faith and knowledge imparted to Adam. But about the time of Abraham, when faith had been weakened, many had fallen into idolatry, and the light of reason had been obscured by indulgence of the passions, even unto the commission of sins against nature, God intervened and appointed as a sign of faith the rite of circumcision (Gen., xvii; ST III:70:2, ad 1; see CIRCUMCISION).

The vast majority of theologians teach that this ceremony was a sacrament and that it was instituted as a remedy for original sin; consequently that it conferred grace, not indeed of itself (ex opere operato), but by reason of the faith in Christ which it expressed. “In circumcisione conferebatur gratia, non ex virtute circumcisionis, sed ex virtute fidei passionis Christi futurae, cujus signum erat circumcisio — quia scilicet justitia erat ex fide significata, non ex circumcisione significante” (ST III:70:4). Certainly it was at least a sign of something sacred, and it was appointed and determined by God himself as a sign of faith and as a mark by which the faithful were distinguished from unbelievers. It was not, however, the only sign of faith used under the law of nature. It is incredible, writes St. Augustine, that before circumcision there was no sacrament for the relief (justification) of children, although for some good reason the Scriptures do not tell us what that sacrament was (Cont. Jul., III, xi). The sacrifice of Melchisedech, the sacrifice of the friends of Job, the various tithes and oblations for the service of God are mentioned by St. Thomas (>III:61:3, ad 3; III:65:1, ad 7) as external observances which may be considered as the sacred signs of that time, prefiguring future sacred institutions: hence, he adds, they may be called sacraments of the law of nature.

(c) Sacraments of the Mosaic Law. As the time for Christ's coming drew nearer, in order that the Israelites might be better instructed God spoke to Moses, revealing to him in detail the sacred signs and ceremonies by which they were to manifest more explicitly their faith in the future Redeemer. Those signs and ceremonies were the sacraments of the Mosaic Law, “which are compared to the sacraments which were before the law as something determined to something undetermined, because before the law it had not been determined what signs men should use” (ST III:61:3, ad 2). With the Angelic Doctor (I-II:102:5) theologians usually divide the sacraments of this period into three classes:

1. The ceremonies by which men were made and signed as worshippers or ministers of God. Thus we have (a) circumcision, instituted in the time of Abraham (Gen., xvii), renewed in the time of Moses (Lev., xii, 3) for all people; and (b) the sacred rites by which the Levitical priests were consecrated.
2. The ceremonies which consisted in the use of things pertaining to the service of God, i.e. (a) the paschal lamb for all the people, and (b) the loaves of proposition for the ministers.
3. The ceremonies of purification from legal contamination, i.e. (a) for the people, various expiations, (b) for the priests, the washing of hands and feet, the shaving of the head, etc. St. Augustine says the sacraments of the Old Law were abolished because they had been fulfilled (cf. Matt., v.17), and others have been instituted which are more efficacious, more useful, easier to administer and to receive, fewer in number (“virtute majora, utilitate meliora, actu faciliora, numero pauciora”, Cont. Faust., XIX, xiii). The Council of Trent condemns those who say that there is no difference except in the outward rite between the sacraments of the Old Law and those of the New Law (Sess. VII, can. ii). The Decree for the Armenians, published by order of the Council of Florence, says that the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace, but only prefigured the grace which was to be given by the Passion of Christ. This means that they did not give grace themselves (i.e. ex opere operato) but only by reason of the faith in Christ which they represented - “ex fide significata, non ex circumcisione significante” >(ST I-II:102:5)

II. NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW LAW

(1) Definition of a sacrament

The sacraments thus far considered were merely signs of sacred things. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, accepted today by many Episcopalians, the sacraments of the Christian dispensation are not mere signs; they do not merely signify Divine grace, but in virtue of their Divine institution, they cause that grace in the souls of men. “Signum sacro sanctum efficax gratiae” - a sacrosanct sign producing grace, is a good, succinct definition of a sacrament of the New Law. Sacrament, in its broadest acceptation, may be defined as an external sign of something sacred. In the twelfth century Peter Lombard (d. 1164), known as the Master of the Sentences, author of the manual of systematized theology, gave an accurate definition of a sacrament of the New Law: A sacrament is in such a manner an outward sign of inward grace that it bears its image (i.e. signifies or represents it) and is its cause - “Sacramentum proprie dicitur quod ita signum est gratiae Dei, ei invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat” (IV Sent., d.I, n.2). This definition was adopted and perfected by the medieval Scholastics. From St. Thomas we have the short but very expressive definition: The sign of a sacred thing in so far as it sanctifies men — “Signum rei sacrae in quantum est sanctificans homines” (III:60:2).

All the creatures of the universe proclaim something sacred, namely, the wisdom and the goodness of God, as they are sacred in themselves, not as they are sacred things sanctifying men , hence they cannot be called sacraments in the sense in which we speak of sacraments (ibid., ad 1um). The Council of Trent includes the substance of these two definitions in the following: “Symbolum rei sacrae, et invisibilis gratiae forma visibilis, sanctificandi vim habens” - A symbol of something sacred, a visible form of invisible grace, having the power of sanctifying (Sess. XIII, cap.3). The “Catechism of the Council of Trent” gives a more complete definition: Something perceptible by the senses which by Divine institution has the power both to signify and to effect sanctity and justice (II, n.2). Catholic catechisms in English usually have the following: An outward sign of inward grace, a sacred and mysterious sign or ceremony, ordained by Christ, by which grace is conveyed to our souls. Anglican and Epscopalian theologies and catechisms give definitions which Catholics could accept.

In every sacrament three things are necessary: the outward sign; the inward grace; Divine institution. A sign stands for and represents something else, either naturally, as smoke represents fire, or by the choice of an intelligent being, as the red cross indicates an ambulance. Sacraments do not naturally signify grace; they do so because they have been chosen by God to signify mysterious effects. Yet they are not altogether arbitrary, because in some cases, if not in all, the ceremonies performed have a quasi-natural connection with the effect to be produced. Thus, pouring water on the head of a child readily brings to mind the interior purification of the soul. The word “sacrament” (sacramentum), even as used by profane Latin writers, signified something sacred, viz., the oath by which soldiers were bound, or the money deposited by litigants in a contest. In the writings of the Fathers of the Church the word was used to signify something sacred and mysterious, and where the Latins use sacramentum the Greeks use mysterion (mystery). The sacred and mysterious thing signified is Divine grace, which is the formal cause of our justification (see GRACE), but with it we must associate the Passion of Christ (efficient and meritorious cause) and the end (final cause) of our sanctification, viz., eternal ife. The significance of the sacraments according to theologians (e.g. >ST III:60:3) and the Roman Catechism (II, n.13) extends to these three sacred things, of which one is past, one present, and one future. The three are aptly expressed in St. Thomas's beautiful antiphon on the Eucharist: “O sacrum convivium, in quo Christus sumitur, recolitur memoria passionis ejus, mens impletur gratia, et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur - O sacred banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of the passion is recalled, the soul is filled with grace, and a pledge of future life is given to us”.

(2) Errors of Protestants

Protestants generally hold that the sacraments are signs of something sacred (grace and faith), but deny that they really cause Divine grace. Episcopalians, however, and Anglicans, especially the Ritualists, hold with Catholics that the sacraments are “effectual signs” of grace. In article XXV of the Westminster Confession we read: Sacraments ordained of God be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us by which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but strengthen and confirm our faith in Him” (cf. art. XXVII). “The Zwinglian theory”, writes Morgan Dix (op.cit., p.73), “that sacraments are nothing but memorials of Christ and badges of Christian profession, is one that can by no possible jugglery with the English tongue be reconciled with the formularies of our church.” Mortimer adopts and explains the Catholic formula “ex opere operato” (loc. cit., p. 122). Luther and his early followers rejected this conception of the sacraments. They do not cause grace, but are merely “signs and testimonies of God's good will towards us” (Augsburg Confessions); they excite faith, and faith (fiduciary) causes justification. Calvinists and Presbyterians hold substantially the same doctrine. Zwinglius lowered still further the dignity of the sacraments, making them signs not of God's fidelity but of our fidelity. By receiving the sacraments we manifest faith in Christ: they are merely the badges of our profession and the pledges of our fidelity. Fundamentally all these errors arise from Luther's newly-invented theory of righteousness, i.e. the doctrine of justification by faith alone (see GRACE). If man is to be sanctified not by an interior renovation through grace which will blot out his sins, but by an extrinsic imputation through the merits of Christ, which will cover his soul as a cloak, there is no place for signs that cause grace, and those used can have no other purpose than to excite faith in the Saviour. Luther's convenient doctrine on justification was not adopted by all his followers and it is not baldly and boldly proclaimed by all Protestants today; nevertheless they accept its consequences affecting the true notion of the sacraments.

(3) Catholic Doctrine

Against all innovators the Council of Trent declared: “If anyone say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be anathema” (Sess. viii, can.vi). “If anyone say that grace is not conferred by the sacraments ex opere operato but that faith in God's promises is alone sufficient for obtaining grace, let him be anathema” (ibid., can. viii; cf. can.iv, v, vii). The phrase “ex opere operato”, for which there is no equivalent in English, probably was used for the first time by Peter of Poitiers (D. 1205), and afterwards by Innocent III (d. 1216; de myst. missae, III, v), and by St. Thomas (d. 1274; IV Sent., dist. 1, Q.i, a.5). It was happily invented to express a truth that had always been taught and had been introduced without objection. It is not an elegant formula but, as St. Augustine remarks (In Ps. cxxxviii): It is better that grammarians should object than that the people should not understand. “Ex opere operato”, i.e. by virtue of the action, means that the efficacy of the action of the sacraments does not depend on anything human, but solely on the will of God as expressed by Christ's institution and promise. “Ex opere operantis”, i.e. by reason of the agent, would mean that the action of the sacraments depended on the worthiness either of the minister or of the recipient (see Pourrat, “Theology of the Sacraments”, tr. St. Louis, 1910, 162 sqq.). Protestants cannot in good faith object to the phrase as if it meant that the mere outward ceremony, apart from God's action, causes grace. It is well known that Catholics teach that the sacraments are only the instrumental, not the principal, causes of grace. Neither can it be claimed that the phrase adopted by the council does away with all dispositions necessary on the part of the recipient, the sacraments acting like infallible charms causing grace in those who are ill-disposed or in grievous sin. The fathers of the council were careful to note that there must be no obstacle to grace on the part of the recipients, who must receive them rite, i.e. rightly and worthily; and they declare it a calumny to assert that they require no previous dispositions (Sess. XIV, de poenit., cap.4). Dispositions are required to prepare the subject, but they are a condition (conditio sine qua non), not the causes, of the grace conferred. In this case the sacraments differ from the >sacramentals, which may cause grace ex opere operantis, i.e. by reason of the prayers of the Church or the good, pious sentiments of those who use them.

(4) Proofs of the Catholic Doctrine

In examining proofs of the Catholic doctrine it must be borne in mind that our rule of faith is not simply Scripture, but Scripture and tradition.

(a) In Sacred Scripture we find expressions which clearly indicate that the sacraments are more than mere signs of grace and faith: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John, iii, 5); “He saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost” (Tit., iii, 5); “Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts, viii, 17); “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life...For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John, vi, 55, 56). These and similar expressions (see articles on each sacrament) are, to say the least, very much exaggerated if they do not mean that the sacramental ceremony is in some sense the cause of the grace conferred.

(b) Tradition clearly indicates the sense in which they have been interpreted in the Church. From the numerous expressions used by the Fathers we select the following: “The Holy Ghost comes down from heaven and hovers over the waters, sanctifying them of Himself, and thus they imbibe the power of sanctifying” (Tertullian, De bapt., c.iv). “Baptism is the expiation of sins, the remission of crimes, the cause of renovation and regeneration” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, “Orat. in Bapt.”). “Explain to me the manner of nativity in the flesh and I will explain to you the regeneration of the soul...Throughout, by Divine power and efficacy, it is incomprehensible; no reasoning, no art can explain it” (ibid.) “He that passes through the fountain [baptism] shall not die but rises to new life” (Stt. Ambrose, De sacr., I, iv). “Whence this great power of water”, exclaims St. Augustine, “that it touches the body and cleanses the soul?” (Tr. 80 in Joann). “Baptism”, writes the same Father, “consists not in the merits of those by whom it is admintered, nor of those to whom it is administered, but in its own sanctity and truth, on account of Him who institutted it” (Cont. Cres., IV). The doctrine solemnly defined by the Council of Trent had been announced in previous councils, notably at Constantinople (381; Symb. Fid.), at Mileve (416; can.ii) in the Second Council of Orange (529; can. xy); and in the Counccil of Florence (1439; Decr. pro. Armen., see Denzinger-Bannwart, nn. 86, 102, 200, 695). The early Anglican Church held fast to the true doctrine: “Baptism is not only a sign of profession and a mark of difference, whereby christened men are discerned from those that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or New-Birth, whereby as by an instrument they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the church” (Art.XXVII).

(c) Theological argument.— The Westminster Confession adds: “The Baptism of children is in any wise to be retained in the church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ”. If baptism does not confer grace ex opere operato, but simply excites faith, then we ask: (1) Of what use would this be if the language used be not understood by the recipient, i.e. an infant or an adult that does not understand Latin? In such cases it might be more beneficial to the bystanders than to the one baptized. (2) In what does the baptism of Christ surpass the baptism of John, for the latter could excite faith? Why were those baptized by the baptism of John rebaptized with the baptism of Christ? (Acts, xix). (3) HOw can it be said that baptism is strictly necessary for salvation since faith can be excited and expressed in many other ways? Finally Episcopalians and Anglicans of today would not revert to the doctrine of grace ex opere operato unless they were convinced that the ancient faith was warranted by Scripture and Tradition.

(5) Matter and Form of the sacraments

Scholastic writers of the thirteenth century introduced into their explanations of the sacraments terms which were derived from the philosophy of Aristotle. William of Auxerre (d. 1223) was the first to apply to them the words matter (materia) and form (forma). As in physical bodies, so also in the sacramental rite we find two elements, one undetermined, which is called the matter, the other determining, called the form. For instance, water may be used for drinking, or for cooling or cleansing the body, but the words pronounced by the minister when he pours water on the head of the child, with the intention of doing what the Church does, determines the meaning of the act, so that it signifies the purification of the soul by grace. The matter and form (the res et verba) make up the external rite, which has its special significance and efficacy from the institution of Christ. The words are the more important element in the composition, because men express their thoughts and intentions principally by words. “Verba inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi” (St. Augustine, De doct. christ.”, II, iii; ST III:60:6). It must not be supposed that the things used for the acts performed, for they are included in the res, remarks St. Thomas (ST III:60:6, ad 2) have no significance. They too may be symbolical, e.g. anointing the body with oil relates to health; but their significance is clearly determined by the words. “In all the compounds of matter and form the determining element is the form: (ST III:60:7).

The terminology was somewhat new, the doctrine was old; the same truth had been expressed in former times in different words. Sometimes the form of the sacrament meant the whole external rite (St. Augustine, “De pecc. et mer.”, xxxiv; Conc. Milev., De bapt.). What we call the matter and form were referred to as “mystic symbols”; “the sign and the thing invisible”; the “word and the element” (St. Augustine, tr. 80 in Joann.). The new terminology immediately found favour. It was solemnly ratified by being used in the Decree for the Armenians, which was added to the Decrees of the Council of Florence, yet has not the value of a conciliar definition (see Denzinger-Bannwart, 695; Hurter, “Theol. dog. comp.”, I, 441; Pourrat, op.cit., p. 51). The Council of Trent used the words matter and form (Sess. XIV, cap. ii, iii, can. iv), but did not define that the sacramental rite was composed of these two elements. Leo XIII , in the “Apostolicae Curae” (13 Sept., 1896) made the scholastic theory the basis of his declaration, and pronounced ordinations performed according to the ancient Anglican rite invalid, owing to a defect in the form used and a lack of the necessary intention on the part of the ministers. The hylomorphistic theory furnishes a very apt comparoson and sheds much light on our conception of the external ceremony. Nevertheless our knowledge of the sacraments is not dependent on this Scholastic terminology, and the comparison must not be carried too far. The attempt to verify the comparison (of sacraments to a body) in all details of the sacramental rite will lead to confusing subtilities or to singular opinions, e.g., Melchior Cano's (De locis theol., VIII, v.3) opinion as to the minister of matrimony (see MARRIAGE; cf. Pourrat, op.cit., ii).

III. ORIGIN (CAUSE) OF THE SACRAMENTS

It might now be asked: in how far was it necessary that the matter and form of the sacraments should have been determined by Christ?

(1) Power of God

The Council of Trent defined that the seven sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ (Sess. VII, can.i). This settles the question of fact for all Catholics. Reason tells us that all sacraments must come originally from God. Since they are the signs of sacred things in so far as by these sacred things men are snctified (ST III:60:2); since the external rite (matter and form) of itself cannot give grace, it is evident that all sacraments properly so called must originate in Divine appointment. “Since the sanctification of man is in the power of God who sanctifies”, writes St. Thomas (ST III:60:2), “it is not in the competency of man to choose the things by which he is to be sanctified, but this must be determined by Divine institution”. Add to this that grace is, in some sense, a participation of the Divine nature (see GRACE) and our doctrine becomes unassailable: God alone can decree that by exterior ceremonies men shall be partakers of His nature.

(2) Power of Christ

God alone is the principal cause of the sacraments. He alone authoritatively and by innate power can give to external material rites the power to confer grace on men. Christ as God, equally with the Father, possessed this principal, authoritative, innate power. As man He had another power which St. Thomas calls “the power of the principal ministry” or “the power of excellence” (III:64:3). “Christ produced the interior effects of the sacraments by meriting them and by effecting them... The passion of Christ is the cause of our justification meritoriously and effectively, not as the principal agent and authoritatively but as an instrument, inasmuch as His Humanity was the instrument of His Divinity” (>III:64:3; cf. III:13:1, III:13:3). There is theological truth as well as piety in the old maxim: “From the side of Christ dying on the cross flowed the sacraments by which the Church was saved” (Gloss. Ord. in Rom.5: ST III:62:5). The principal efficient cause of grace is God, to whom the Humanity of Christ is as a conjoined instrument, the sacraments being instruments not joined to the Divinity (by hypostatic union): therefore the saving power of the sacraments passes from the Divinity of Christ, through His Humanity into the sacraments (ST III:62:5). One who weighs well all these words will understand why Catholics have great reverence for the sacraments. Christ's power of excellence consists in four things: (1) Sacraments have their efficacy from His merits and sufferings; (2) they are sanctified and they sanctify in His name; (3) He could and He did institute the sacraments; (4) He could produce the effects of the sacraments without the external ceremony (ST III:64:3). Christ could have communicated this power of excellence to men: this was not absolutely impossible (III:64:4). But, (1) had He done so men could not have possessed it with the same perfection as Christ: “He would have remained the head of the Church principally, others secondarily” (III:64:3). (2) Christ did not communicate this power, and this for the good of the faithful: (a) that they might place their hope in God and not in men; (b) that there might not be different sacraments, giving rise to divisions in the Church (III:64:1). This second reason is mentioned by St. Paul (I Cor., i, 12, 13): “every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

(3) Immediate or Mediate Institution

The Council of Trent did not define explicitly and formally that all the sacraments were instituted immediately by Christ. Before the council great theologians, e.g. Peter Lombard (IV Sent., d. xxiii), Hugh of St. Victor (De sac. II, ii) Alexander of Hales (Summa, IV, Q. xxiv, 1) held that some sacraments were instituted by the Apostles, using power that had been given to them by Jesus Christ. Doubts were raised especially about confirmation and extreme unction. St. Thomas rejects the opinion that confirmation was instituted by the Apostles. It was instituted by Christ, he holds, when he promised to send the Paraclete, although it was never administered whilst He was on earth, because the fullness of the Holy Ghost was not to be given until after the Ascension: “Christus instituit hoc sacramentum, non exhibendo, sed promittendo” (III. Q.lxii, a.1, ad 1um). The Council of TRent defined that the sacrament of Extreme Unction was instituted by Christ and promulgated by St. James (Sess. XIV, can.i). Some theologians, e.g. Becanus, Bellarmine, Vasquez, Gonet, etc. thought the words of the council (Sess. VII, can.i) were explicit enough to make the immediate institution of all the sacraments by Christ a matter of defined faith. They are opposed by Soto (a theologian of the council), Estius, Gotti, Tournely, Berti, and a host of others, so that now nearly all theologians unite in saying: it is theologically certain, but not defined (de fide) that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments of the New Law. In the decree “Lamentabili”, 3 July, 1907, Pius X condemned twelve propositions of the Modernists, who would attribute the origin of the sacraments to some species of evolution or development. The first sweeping proposition is this: “The sacraments had their origin in this that the Apostles, persuaded and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ”, (Demzinger-Bannwart, 2040). Then follow eleven propositions relating to each of the sacraments in order (ibid., 2041-51). These propositions deny that Christ immediately instituted the sacraments and some seem to deny even their mediate institution by the Saviour.

(4) What does Immediate Institution Imply? Power of the Church.

Granting that Christ immediately instituted all the sacraments, it does not necessarily follow that personally He determined all the details of the sacred ceremony, prescribing minutely every iota relating to the matter and the form to be used. It is sufficient (even for immediate institution) to say: Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some sacraments (e.g. baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined, e.g. to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, cap. ii) decalred that the Church had the power to change the “substance” of the sacraments. She would not be claiming power to alter the substance of the sacraments if she used her Divinely given authority to determine more precisely the matter and form in so far as they had not been determined by Christ. This theory (which is not modern) had been adopted by theologians: by it we can solve historical difficulties relating, principally, to confirmation and Holy orders.

(5) May we then say that Christ instituted some sacraments in an implicit state?

That Christ was satisfied to lay down the essential principles from which, after a more or less protracted development, would come forth the fully developed sacraments? This is an application of Newman's theory of development, according to Pourrat (op.cit., p.300), who proposes two other formulae; Christ instituted all the sacraments immediately, but did not himself give them all to the Church fully constituted; or Jesus instituted immediately and explicitly baptism and Holy Eucharist: He instituted immediately but implicitly the five other sacraments (loc.cit., p.301). Pourrat himself thinks the latter formula too absolute. Theologians probably will consider it rather dangerous, and at least “male sonans”. If it be taken to mean more than the old expression, Christ determined in genere only the matter and the form of some sacraments, it grants too much development. If it means nothing more than the expression hitherto in use, what is gained by admitting a formula which easily might be misunderstood?

IV. NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS

(1) Catholic Doctrine: Eastern and Western Churches

The Council of Trent solemnly defined that there are seven sacraments of the New Law, truly and properly so called, viz., baptism, confirmation, Holy Eucharist, penence, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony. The same enumeration had been made in the Decree for the Armenians by the Council of Florence (1439), in the Profession of Faith of Michael Palaelogus, offered to Gregory X in the Council of Lyons (1274) and in the council held at London, in 1237, under Otto, legate of the Holy See. According to some writers Otto of Bamberg (1139), the Apostle of Pomerania, was the first who clearly adopted the number seven (see Tanquerey, “De sacr.”). Most probably this honour belongs to Peter Lombard (d. 1164) who in his fourth Book of Sentences (d. i, n.2) defines a sacrament as a sacred sign which not only signifies but also causes grace, and then (d.ii, n.1) enumerates the seven sacraments. It is worthy of note that, although the great Scholastics rejected many of his theological opinions (list given in app. to Migne edition, Paris, 1841), this definition and enumeration were at once universally accepted, proof positive that he did not introduce a new doctrine, but merely expressed in a convenient and precise formula what had always been held in the Church. Just as many doctrines were believed, but not always accurately expressed, until the condemnation of heresies or the development of religious knowledge called forth a neat and precise formula, so also the sacraments were accepted and used by the Church for centuries before Aristotelian philosophy, applied to the systematic explanation of Christian doctrine, furnished the accurate definition and enumeration of Peter Lombard. The earlier Christians were more concerned with the use of sacred rites than with scientific formulae, being like the pious author of the “Imitation of Christ”, who wrote: “I had rather feel compunction than know its definition” (I, i).

Thus time was required, not for the development of the sacraments — except in so far as the CHurch may have determined what was left under her control by Jesus Christ - but for the growth and knowledge of the sacraments. For many centuries all signs of sacred things were called sacraments, and the enumeration of these signs was somewhat arbitrary. Our seven sacraments were all mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, and we find them all mentioned here and there by the Fathers (see THEOLOGY; and articles on each sacrament). After the ninth century, writers began to draw a distinction between sacraments in a general sense abd sacraments properly so called. The ill-fated Abelard (“Intro. ad Theol.”, I, i, and in the “Sic et Non”) and Hugh of St. Victor (De sacr., I, part 9, chap. viii; cf. Pourrat, op.cit., pp.34, 35) prepared the way for Peter Lombard, who proposed the precise formula which the Church accepted. Thenceforward until the time of the so-called Reformation the Eastern Church joined with the Latin Church in saying: by sacraments proper we understand efficacious sacred signs, i.e. ceremonies which by Divine ordinance signify, contain and confer grace; and they are seven in number. In the history of conferences and councils held to effect the reunion of the Greek with the Latin Church, we find no record of objections made to the doctrine of seven sacraments. On the contrary, about 1576, when the Reformers of Wittenberg, anxious to draw the Eastern Churches into their errors, sent a Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession to Jeremias, Patriarch of Constantinople, he replied: “The mysteries received in this same Catholic Church of orthodox Christians, and the sacred ceremonies, are seven in number - just seven and no more” (Pourrat, op.cit., p.289). The consensus of the Greek and Latin Churches on this subject is clearly shown by Arcadius, “De con. ecc. occident. et orient. in sept. sacr. administr.” (1619); Goar (q.v.) in his “Euchologion” by Martene (q.v.) in his work “De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus”, by Renaudot in his “Perpetuite de la foi sur sacrements” (1711), and this agreement of the two Churches furnishes recent writers (Episcopalians) with a strong argument in support of their appeal for the acceptance of seven sacraments.

(2) Protestant Errors

Luther's capital errors, viz. private interpretation of the Scriptures, and justification by faith alone, logically led to a rejection of the Catholic doctrine on the sacraments (see LUTHER; GRACE). Gladly would he have swept them all away, but the words of Scripture were too convincing and the Augsburg Confession retained three as “having the command of God and the promise of the grace of the New Testament”. These three, baptism, the Lord's Supper, and penance were admitted by Luther and also by Cranmer in his “Catechism” (see Dix, “op.cit.”, p. 79). Henry VIII protested against Luther's innovations and received the title “Defender of the Faith” as a reward for publishing the “Assertio septem sacramentorum” (re-edited by Rev. Louis O'Donovan, New York, 1908). Followers of Luther's principles surpassed their leader in opposition to the sacraments. Once granted that they were merely “signs and testimonies of God's good will towards us”, the reason for great reverence was gone. Some rejected all sacraments, since God's good will could be manifested without these external signs. Confession (penence) was soon dropped from the list of those retained. The Anabaptists rejected infant baptism, since the ceremony could not excite faith in children. Protestants generally retained two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, the latter being reduced by the denial of the Real Presence to a mere commemorative service. After the first fervour of destruction there was a reaction. Lutherans retained a ceremony of confirmation and ordination. Cranmer retained three sacraments, yet we find in the Westminster Confession: “There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ Our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures but yet have not like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible signs or ceremony ordained by God(art.XXV). The Wittenberg theologians, by way of compromise, had shown a willingness to make such a distinction, in a second letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but the Greeks would have no compromise (Pourrat, loc.cit., 290).

For more than two centuries the Church of England theoretically recognized only two “sacraments of the Gospel” yet permitted, or tolerated other five rites. In practice these five “lesser sacraments” were neglected, especially penence and extreme unction. Anglicans of the nineteenth century would have gladly altered or abolished the twenty-fifth article. There has been a strong desire, dating chiefly from the Tractarian Movement, and the days of Pusey, Newman, Lyddon, etc. to reintroduce all of the sacraments. Many Episcopalians and Anglicans today make heroic efforts to show that the twenty-fifth article repudiated the lesser sacraments only in so far as they had “grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles, and were administered 'more Romamensium' “, after the Roman fashion. Thus Morgan Dix reminded his contemporaries that the first book of Edward VI allowed “auricular and secret confession to the priest”, who could give absolution as well as “ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort”, but did not make the practice obligatory: therefore the sacrament of Absolution is not to be “obtruded upon men's consciences as a matter necessary to salvation” (op.cit., pp.99, 101, 102, 103). He cites authorities who state that “one cannot doubt that a sacramental use of anointing the sick has been from the beginning”, and adds, “There are not wanting, among the bishops of the American Church, some who concur in deploring the loss of thiss primitive ordinance and predicting its restoration among us at some propitious time” (ibid., p.105). At a convention of Episcopalians held at Cincinnati, in 1910, unsuccessful effort was made to obtain approbation for the practice of anointing the sick. High Church pastors and curates, especially in England, frequently are in conflict with their bishops because the former use all the ancient rites. Add to this the assertion made by Mortimer (op.cit., I, 122) that all the sacraments cause grace ex opere operato, and we see that “advanced” Anglicans are returning to the doctrine and the practices of the Old Church. Whether and in how far their position can be reconciled with the twenty-fifth article, is a question which they must settle. Assuredly their wanderings and gropings after the truth prove the necessity of having on earth an infallible interpreter of God's word.

(3) Division and Comparison of the Sacraments

(a) All sacraments were instituted for the spiritual good of the recipients; but five, viz. baptism, confirmation, penence, the Eucharist, and extreme unction, primarily benefit the individual in his private character, whilst the other two, orders and matrimony, primarily affect man as a social being, and sanctify him in the fulfillment of his duties tiowards the Church and society. By baptism we are born again, confirmation makes us strong, perfect Christians and soldiers. The Eucharist furnishes our daily spiritual food. Penance heals the soul wounded by sin. Extreme unction removes the last remnant of human frailty, and prepares the soul for eternal life, orders supplies ministers to the Church of God. Matrimony gives the graces necessary for those who are to rear children in the love and fear of God, members of the Church militant, future citizens of heaven. This is St. Thomas's explanation of the fitness of the number seven (III:55:1). He gives other explanations offered by the Schoolmen, but does not bind himself to any of them. In fact the only sufficient reason for the existence of seven sacraments, and no more, is the will of Christ: there are seven because He instituted seven. The explanations and adaptations of theologians serve only to excite our admiration and gratitude, by showing how wisely and beneficently God has provided for our spiritual needs in these seven efficacious signs of grace.

(b) Baptism and penance are called “sacraments of the dead”, because they give life, through sanctifying grace then called “first grace”, to those who are spiritually dead by reason of original or actual sin. The other five are “sacraments of the living”, because their reception presupposes, at least ordinarily, that the recipient is in the state of grace, and they give “second grace”, i.e. increase of sanctifying grace (q.v.). Nevertheless, since the sacraments always give some grace when there is no obstacle in the recipient, it may happen in cases explained by theologians that “second grace” is conferred by a sacrament of the dead, e.g. when one has only venial sins to confess receives absolution and that “first grace” is conferred by a sacrament of the living (see >ST III:72:7 ad 2; III:79:3). Concerning extreme unction St. James explicitly states that through it the recipient may be freed from his sins: “If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him” (James, v.15).

(c) Comparison in dignity and necessity. The Council of Trent decalred that the sacraments are not all equal in dignity; also that none are superfluous, although all are not necessary for each individual (Sess. VII, can.3, 4). The Eucharist is the first in dignity, because it contains Christ in person, whilst in the other sacraments grace is conferred by an instrumental virtue derived from Christ (ST III:56:3). To this reason St. Thomas adds another, namely, that the Eucharist is as the end to which the other sacraments tend, a centre around which they revolve (ST III:56:3). Baptism is always first in necessity; Holy orders comes next after the Eucharist in the order of dignity, confirmation being between these two. Penance and extreme unction could not have a first place because they presuppose defects (sins). Of the two penance is the first in necessity: extreme unction completes the work of penance and prepares souls for heaven. Matrimony has not such an important social work as orders (ST III:56:3, ad 1). If we consider necessity alone - the Eucharist being left out as our daily bread, and God's greatest gift - three are simply and strictly necessary, baptism for all, penance for those who fall into mortal sin after receiving baptism, orders for the Church. The others are not so strictly necessary. Confirmation completes the work of baptism; extreme unction completes the work of penance; matrimony sanctifies the procreation and education of children, which is not so important nor so necessary as the sanctification of ministers of the Church (ST III:56:3, ad 4).

(d) Episcopalians and Anglicans distinguish two great sacraments and five lesser sacraments because the latter “have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained by God” (art. XXXV). Then they should be classed among the sacramentals since God alone can be the author of a sacrament (see above III). On this point the language of the twenty-fifth article (“commonly called sacraments”) is more logical and straightforward than the terminology of recent Anglican writers. The Anglican Catechism calls baptism and Eucharist sacraments “generally (i.e. universally) necessary for salvation”. Mortimer justly remarks that this expression is not “entirely accurate”, because the Eucharist is not generally necessary to salvation in the same way as baptism (op.cit., I, 127). The other five he adds are placed in a lower class because, “they are not necessary to salvation in the same sense as the two other sacraments, since they are not necessary for everyone” (loc.cit., 128). Verily this is interpretation extraordinary; yet we should be grateful since it is more respectful than saying that those five are “such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures” (art. XXV). Confusion and uncertainty will be avoided by accepting the declaration of the Council of Trent (above).

V. EFFECTS OF THE SACRAMENTS

(1) Catholic Doctrine

(a) The principal effect of the sacrament is a two-fold grace: (1) the grace of the sacrament which is “first grace”, produced by the sacraments of the dead, or “second grace”, produced by the sacraments of the living (supra, IV, 3, b); (2) The sacramental grace, i.e., the special grace neede to attain the end of each sacrament. Most probably it is not a new habitual gift, but a special vigour or efficacy in the sanctifying grace conferred, including on the part of God, a promise, and on the part of man a permanent right to the assistance needed in order to act in accordance with the obligations incurred, e.g., to live as a good Christian, a good priest, a good husband or wife (cf. ST III:62:2).

(b) Three sacraments, baptism, confirmation and orders, besides grace, produce in the soul a character, i.e., an indelible spiritual mark by which some are consecrated as servants of God, some as soldiers, some as ministers. Since it is an indelible mark, the sacraments which impress a character cannot be received more than once (Conc. Trid., sess. VII, can.9; see CHARACTER).

(2) How the sacraments cause Grace: Theological controversies.

Few questions have been so hotly controverted as this one relative to the manner in which the sacraments cause grace (ST IV, Sent., d.1, Q.4, a.1.).

(a) All admit that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace ex opere operato, not ex opere operantis (above, II, 2, 3).

(b) All admit that God alone can be the principal cause of grace (above 3, 1).

(c) All admit that Christ as man, had a special power over the sacraments (above, 3, 2).

(d) All admit that the sacraments are, in some sense, the instrumental causes either of grace itself or of something else which will be a “title exigent of grace” (infra e). The principal cause is one which produces an effect by a power which it has by reason of its own nature or by an inherent faculty. An instrumental cause produces an effect, not by its own power, but by a power which it receives from the principal agent. When a carpenter makes a table, he is the principal cause, his tools are the instrumental causes. God alone can cause grace as the principal cause; sacraments can be no more than his instruments “for they are applied to men by Divine ordinance to cause grace in them” (ST III:62:1). No theologian today defends Occasionalism (see CAUSE) i.e. the system which taught that the sacraments caused grace by a kind of concomitance, they being not real causes but the causae sine quibus non: their reception being merely the occasion of conferring grace. This opinion, according to Pourrat (op.cit., 167), was defended by St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Durandus, Occam, and all the Nominalists, and “enjoyed a real success until the time of the Council of Trent, when it was transformed into the modern system of moral causality”. St. Thomas (>III:62:1, III:62:4; and “Quodlibeta”, 12, a, 14), and others rejected it on the ground that it reduced the sacraments to the condition of mere signs.

(e) In solving the problem the next step was the introduction of the system of dispositive instrumental causality, explained by Alexander of Hales (Summa theol., IV, Q.v, membr.4), adopted and perfected by St. Thomas (IV Sent., d.1, Q.i, a.4), defended by many theologians down to the sixteenth century, and revived later by Father Billot, S.J. (“De eccl. sacram.”, I, Rome, 1900). According to this theory the sacraments do not efficiently and immediately cause grace itself, but they cause ex opere operato and instrumentally, a something else - the character (in some cases) or a spiritual ornament or form - which will be a “disposition” entitling the soul to grace (“dispositio exigitiva gratiae”; “titulus exigitivus gratiae”, Billot, loc.cit.). It must be admitted that this theory would be most convenient in explaining “reviviscence” of the sacraments (infra, VII, c). Against it the following objections are made:

• From the time of the Council of Trent down to recent times little was heard of this system.
• The “ornament”, or “disposition”, entitling the soul to grace is not well explained, hence explains very little.
• Since this “disposition” must be something spiritual and of the supernatural order, and the sacraments can cause it, why can they not cause the grace itself?
• In his “Summa theologica” St. Thomas does not mention this dispositive causality: hence we may reasonably believe that he abandoned it.

(f) Since the time of the Council of Trent theologians almost unanimously have taught that the sacraments are the efficient instrumental cause of grace itself. The definition of the Council of Trent, that the sacraments “contain the grace which they signify”, that they “confer grace ex opere operato” (Sess. VII, can.6, 8), seemed to justify the assertion, which was not contested until quite recently. Yet the end of the controversy had not come. What was the nature of that causality? Did it belong to the physical or to the moral order? A physical cause really and immediately produces its effects, either as the principal agent or as the instrument used, as when a sculptor uses a chisel to carve a statue. A moral cause is one which moves or entreats a physical cause to act. It also can be principal or instrumental, e.g., a bishop who in person successfully pleads for the liberation of a prisoner is the principal moral cause, a letter sent by him would be the instrumental moral cause, of the freedom granted. The expressions used by St. Thomas seem clearly to indicate that the sacraments act after the manner of physical causes. He says that there is in the sacraments a virtue productive of grace (III:62:4) and he answers objections against attributing such power to a corporeal unstrument by simply stating that such power is not inherent in them and does not reside in them permanently, but is in them only so far and so long as they are instruments in the hands of Almighty God (loc.cit., ad um and 3 um). Cajetan, Suarez, and a host of other great theologians defend this system, which is usually termed Thomistic. The language of the Scripture, the expressions of the Fathers, the Decrees of the councils, they say, are so strong that nothing short of an impossibility will justify a denial of this dignity to the sacraments of the New Law. Many facts must be admitted which we cannot fully explain. The body of man acts on his spiritual soul; fire acts, in some way, on souls and on angels. The strings of a harp, remarks Cajetan (In III, Q.lxii) touched by an unskilled hand, produce nothing but sounds: touched by the hands of s skilful mmusician they give forth beautiful melodies. Why cannot the sacraments, as instruments in the hands of God, produce grace?

Many grave theologians were not convinced by these arguments, and another school, improperly called the Scotistic, headed by Melchior Cano, De Lugo, and Vasquez, embracing later Henno, Tournely, Franzelin, and others, adopted the system of instrumental moral causality. The principal moral cause of grace is the Passion of Christ. The sacraments are instruments which move or entreat God effectively and infallibly to give his grace to those who receive them with proper disposotions, because, says Melchior Cano, , “the price of the blood of Jesus Christ is communicated to them” (see Pourrat, op.cit., 192, 193). This system was further developed by Franzelin, who looks upon the sacraments as being morally an act of Christ (loc.cit., p.194). The Thomists and Suarez object to this system:

• Since the sacraments (i.e. the external rites) have no intrisic value, they do not, according to this explanation, exert any genuine causality; they do not really cause grace, God alone causes the grace: the sacrament do not operate to produce it; they are only signs or occasions of conferring it.
• The Fathers saw something mysterious and inexplicable in the sacraments. In this system wonders cease or are, at least, so much reduced that the expressions used by the Fathers seem altogether out of place.
• This thoery does not sufficiently distinguish, in efficacy, the sacraments of the Gospel from the sacraments of the Old Law (cf. Billuart, “Summa St. Thomae”, ed. Lequette, tome VI, p. 137). Nevertheless, because it avoids certain difficulties and obscurities of the physical causality theory, the system of moral causality has found many defenders, and today if we consider numbers alone, it has authority in its favour.

Recently both of these systems have been vigorously attacked by Father Billot (op.cit., 107 sq.), who proposes a new explanation. He revives the old theory that the sacraments do not immediately cause grace itself, but a disposition or title to grace (above e). This disposition is produced by the sacraments, neither physically nor morally, but imperatively. Sacraments are practical signs of an intentional order: they manifest God's intention to give spiritual benefits; this manifestation of the Divine intention is a title exigent of grace (op.cit., 59 sq., 123 sq.; Pourrat, op.cit., 194; Cronin in reviews, sup. cit.). Father Billot defends his opinions with remarkable acumen. Patrons of the physical causality gratefully note his attack against the moral causality, but object to the new explanation, that the imperative or the intentional causality, as distinct from the action of signs, occasions, moral or physical instruments (a) is conceived with difficulty and (b) does not make the sacraments (i.e. the external, Divinely appointed ceremonies) the real cause of grace. Theologians are perfectly free to dispute and differ as to the manner of instrumental causality. Lis est adhuc sub judice.

VI. MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENTS

(1) Men, Not Angels

It was altogether fitting that the ministration of the sacraments be given, not to the angels, but to men. The efficacy of the sacraments comes from the Passion of Christ, hence from Christ as a man; men, not angels, are like unto Christ in His human nature. Miraculously God might send a good angel to administer a sacrament (ST III:64:7).

(2) Ordination Requirements for the Ministers of Particular Sacraments

For administering baptism validly no special ordination is required. Any one, even a pagan, can baptize, provided that he use the proper matter and pronounce the words of the essential form, with the intention of doing what the Church does (Decr. pro Armen., Denzinger-Bannwart, 696). Ony bishops, priests, and in some cases, deacons may confer baptism solemnly (see BAPTISM). It is now held as certain that in matrimony the contracting parties are the ministers of the sacrament, because they make the contract and the sacrament is a contract raised by CHrist to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. Leo XIII, Encycl. “Arcanum”, 10 Febr., 1880; see MATRIMONY). For the validity of the other five sacraments the minister must be duly ordained. The Council of Trent anathematized those who said that all Christians could administer all the sacraments (Sess. VII, can.10). Only bishops can confer sacred orders (Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, can.7). Ordinarily only a bishop can give confirmation (see CONFIRMATION). The priestly order is required for the valid administration of penance and extreme unction (Conc. Trid., sess. XIV, can.10, can.4). As to the Eucharist, those only who have priestly orders can consecrate, i.e. change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Consecration presupposed, any one can distribute the Eucharistic species but, outside of very extraordinary circumstances this can be lawfully done only by bishops, priests, or (in some cases) deacons.

(3) Heretical or Schismatic Ministers

The care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of Christ. Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid orders, but their ministrations are sinful (see Billot, op.cit., thesis 16). Good faith would excuse the recipients from sin, and in cases of necessity the Church grants jurisdiction necessary for penance and extreme unction (see EXCOMMUNICATION: V, EFFECTS OF EXCOMMUNICATION).

(4) State of Soul of the Minister

Due reverence for the sacraments requires the minister to be in a state of grace: one who solemnly and officially administers a sacrament, being himself in a state of mortal sin, would certainly be guilty of a sacrilege (cf. ST III:64:6). Some hold that this sacrilege is committed even when the minister does not act officially or confer the sacrament solemnly. But from the controversy between St. Augustine and the Donatists in the fourth century and especially from the controversy between St. Stephen and St. Cyprian (q.v.) in the thitd century, we know that personal holiness or the state of grace in the minister is not a prerequisite for the valid administration of the sacrament. This has been solemnly defined in several general councils including the Council of Trent (Sess VII, can.12, ibid., de bapt., can.4). The reason is that the sacraments have their efficacy by Divine institution and through the merits of Christ. Unworthy ministers, validly conferring the sacraments, cannot impede the efficacy of signs ordained by Christ to produce grace ex opere operato (cf. St. Thomas, III:64:5, III:64:9). The knowledge of this truth, which follows logically from the true conception of a sacrament, gives comfort to the faithful, and it should increase, rather than diminish, reverence for those sacred rites and confidence in their efficacy. No one can give, in his own name, that which he does not possess; but a bank cashier, not possessing 2000 dollars in his own name, could write a draft worth 2, 000, 000 dollars by reason of the wealth of the bank which he is authorized to represent. Christ left to His Church a vast treasure purchased by His merits and sufferings: the sacraments are as credentials entitling their holders to a share in this treasure. On this subject, the Anglican Church has retained the true doctrine, which is neatly proved in article XXVI of the Westminster Confession: “Although in the visible church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil hath the chief authority in the ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the Word of God and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness nor the grace of God's gifts from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be administered by evil men” (cf. Billuart, de sacram., d.5, a.3, sol.obj.)

(5) Intention of the Minister

(a) To be a minister of the sacraments under and with Christ, a man must act as a man, i.e. as a rational being; hence it is absolutely necessary that he have the intention of doing what the Church does. This was declared by Eugene IV in 1439 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 695) and was solemnly defined in the council of Trent (Sess.VII, can.II). The anathema of Trent was aimed at the innovators of the sixteenth century. From their fundamental error that the sacraments were signs of faith, or signs that excited faith, it followed logically that their effect in no wise depended on the intention of the minister. Men are to be “ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God” (I Cor., iv, 1), and this they would not be without the intention, for it is by the intention, says St. Thomas (III:64:8, ad 1) that a man subjects and unites himself to the principal agent (Christ). Moreover, by rationally pronouncing the words of the form, the minister must determine what is not sufficiently determined or expressed by the matter applied, e.g. the significance of pouring water on the head of the child (ST III:64:8). One who is demented, drunk, asleep, or in a stupor that prevents a rational act, one who goes through the external ceremony in mockery, mimicry, or in a play, does not act as a rational minister, hence cannot administer a sacrament.

(b) The necessary object and qualities of the intention required in the minister of the sacrament are explained in the article INTENTION. Pourrat (op.cit., ch.7) gives a history of all controversies on this subject. Whatever may be said speculatively about the opinion of Ambrosius Catherinus (see POLITI, LANCELOT) who advocated the sufficiency of an external intention in the minister, it may not be followed in practice, because, outside of cases of neccessity, no one may follow a probable opinion against one that is safer, when there is question of something required for the validity of a sacrament (Innoc. XI, 1679; Denzinger-Bannwart, 1151).

(6) Attention in the Minister

Attention is an act of the intellect, viz. the application of the mind to what is being done. Voluntary distraction in one administering a sacrament would be sinful. The sin would however not be brave, unless (a) there be danger of making a serious mistake, or (b) according to the common opinion, the distraction be admitted in consecrating the Eucharistic species. Attention on the part of the minister is not necessary for the valid administration of a sacrament, because in virtue of the intention, which is presupposed, he can act in a rational manner, notwithstanding the distraction.

VII. RECIPIENT OF THE SACRAMENTS

When all conditions required by Divine and ecclesiastical law are complied with, the sacrament is received validly and licitly. If all conditions required for the essential rite are observed, on the part of the minister, the recipient, the matter and form, but some non-essential condition is not complied with by the recipient, the sacrament is received validly but not licitly; and if the condition wilfully neglected be grave, grace is not then conferred by the ceremony. Thus baptized persons contracting matrimony whilst they are in the state of mortal sin would be validly (i.e. really) married, but would not then receive sanctifying grace.

(1) Conditions for valid reception

(a) The previous reception of baptism (by water) is an essential condition for the valid reception of any other sacrament. Only citizens and members of the Church can come under her influence as such; baptism is the door by which we enter the Church and thereby become members of a mystical body united to Christ our head (Catech. Trid., de bapt., nn.5, 52).

(b) In adults, for the valid reception of any sacrament except the Eucharist, it is necessary that they have the intention of receiving it. The sacraments impose obligations and confer grace: Christ does not wish to impose those obligations or confer grace without the consent of man. The Eucharist is excepted because, in whatever state the recipient may be, it is always the body and blood of Christ (see INTENTION; cf. Pourrat, op.cit., 392).

(c) For attention, see above, VI, 6. By the intention man submits himself to the operation of the sacraments which produce their effects exopere operato, hence attention is not necessary for the valid reception of the sacraments. One who might be distracted, even voluntarily, during the conferring, e.g. of baptism, would receive the sacrament validly. It must be carefully noted, however, that in the case of matrimony the contracting parties are the ministers as well as the recipients of the sacraments; and in the sacrament of Penance, the acts of the penitent, contrition, confession, and willingness to accept a penance in satisfaction, constitute the proximate matter of the sacraments, according to the commonly received opinion. Hence in those cases such attention is required as is necessary for the valid application of the matter and form.

(2) Conditions for the Licit Reception

(a) For the licit reception, besides the intention and the attention, in adults there is required:

• for the sacraments of the dead, supernatural attrition, which presupposes acts of faith, hope, and repentance (see ATTRITION and JUSTIFICATION);
• for the sacraments of the living the state of grace. Knowingly to receive a sacrament of the living whilst one is in the state of mortal sin would be a sacrilege.

(b) For the licit reception it is also necessary to observe all that is prescribed by Divine or ecclesiastical law, e.g. as to time, place, the minister, etc. As the Church alone has the care of the sacraments and generally her duly appointed agents alone have the right to administer them, except baptism in some cases, and matrimony (supra VI, 2), it is a general law that application for the sacraments should be made to worthy and duly appointed ministers. (For exceptions see EXCOMMUNICATION.)

(3) Reviviscence of the Sacraments

Much attention has been given by theologians to the revival of effects which were impeded at the time when a sacrament was received. The question arises whenever a sacrament is received validly but unworthily, i.e. with an obstacle which prevents the infusion of Divine grace. The obstacle (mortal sin) is positive, when it is known and voluntary, or negative, when it is involuntary by reason of ignorance or good faith. One who thus receives a sacrament is said to receive it feignedly, or falsely (ficte), because by the very act of receiving it he pretends to be properly disposed; and the sacrament is said to be validum sed informe — valid, but lacking its proper form, i.e. grace or charity (see LOVE). Can such a person recover or eceive the effects of the sacraments? The term reviviscence (reviviscentia) is not used by St. Thomas in reference to the sacraments and it is not strictly correct because the effects in question being impeded by the obstacle, were not once “living” (cf. Billot, op.cit., 98, note). The expression which he uses >(III:69:10), viz., obtaining the effects after the obstacle has been removed, is more accurate, though not so convenient as the newer term.

(a) Theologians generally hold that the question does not apply to penance and the Holy Eucharist. If the penitent be not sufficiently disposed to receive grace at the time he confesses his sins the sacrament is not validly received because the acts of the penitent are a necessary part of the matter of this sacrament, or a necessary condition for its reception. One who unworthily receives the Eucharist can derive no benefit from that sacrament unless, perhaps, he repent of his sins and sacrilege before the sacred species have beeen destroyed. Cases that may occur relate to the five other sacraments.

(b) It is certain and admitted by all, that if baptism be received by an adult who is in the state of mortal sin, he can afterwards receive the graces of the sacrament, viz. when the obstacle is removed by contrition or by the sacrament of Penance. On the one hand the sacraments always produce grace unless there be an obstacle; on the other hand those graces are necessary, and yet the sacrament cannot be repeated. St. Thomas (III:69:10) and theologians find a special reason for the conferring of the effects of baptism (when the “fiction” has been removed) in the permanent character which is impressed by the sacrament validly administered. Reasoning from analogy they hold the same with regard to confirmation and Holy orders, noting however that the graces to be received are not so necessary as those conferred by baptism.

(c) The doctrine is not so certain when applied to matrimony and extreme unction. But since the graces impeded are very important though not strictly necessary, and since matrimony cannot be received again whilst both contracting parties are living, and extreme unction cannot be repeated whilst the same danger of death lasts, theologians adopt as more probable the opinion which holds that God will grant the graces of those sacraments when the obstacle is removed. The “reviviscence” of the effects of sacraments received validly but with an obstacle to grace at the time of their reception, is urged as a strong argument against the system of the physical causality of grace (supra, V, 2), especially by Billot (op.cit., thesis, VII, 116, 126). For his own system he claims the merit of establishing an invariable mode of causality, namely, that in every case by the sacrament validly received there is conferred a “title exigent of grace”. If there be no obstacle the grace is conferred then and there: if there be an obstacle the “title” remains calling for the grace which will be conferred as soon as the obstacle is removed (op.cit., th.VI, VII). To this his opponents reply that exceptional cases might well call for an exceptional mode of causality. In the case of three sacraments the character sufficiently explains the revival of effects (cf. ST III:66:1, III:69:9, III:69:10). The doctrine as applied to extreme unction and matrimony, is not certain enough to furnish a strong argument for or against any system. Future efforts of theologians may dispel the obscurity and uncertainty now prevailing in this interesting chapter.

D. J. KENNEDY

St. Saturninus

St. Saturninus was, says Tillemont, one of the most illustrious martyrs France has given to the Church. We possess only his Acts, which are very old, since they were utilized by St. Gregory of Tours. He was the first bishop of Toulouse, whither he went during the consulate of Decius and Gratus (250). Whether there were already Christians in the town or his preaching made numerous conversions, he soon had a little church. To reach it he had to pass before the capitol where there was a a temple, and according to the Acts, the pagan priests ascribed to his frequent passings the silence of their oracles. One day they seized him and on his unshakeable refusal to sacrifice to the idols they condemned him be tied by the feet to a bull which dragged him about the town until the rope broke. Two Christian women piously gathered up the remains and buried them in a deep ditch, that they might not be profaned by the pagans. His successors, Sts. Hilary and Exuperius, gave him more honourable burial. A church was erected where the bull stopped. It still exists, and is called the church of the Taur (the bull). The body of the saint was transferred at an early date and is still preserved in the Church of St. Sernin (or Saturninus), one of the most ancient and beautiful of Southern France. His feast was entered on the Hieronymian Martyrology for 29 November; his cult spread abroad. The account of his Acts was embellished with several details, and legends linked his name with the beginning of the churches of Eauze, Auch, Pamplona, and Amiens, but these are without historic foundations.

RUINART, Acta Martyrum (Ratisbon, 18569), 177-80; Gregorii Turonensis opera Hist. Francorum, ed. ARNDT AND KRUSCH, I (Hanover, 1884), xxxix; TILLEMONT, Hist. ecclesiastique, III (Paris, 1701), 297; LABAN, Vie de Saint Saturnin (Toulouse, 1864); DUCHESNE, Fastes épiscopaux de l ancienne Gaule (Paris, 1894), 25, 295.

ANTOINE DEGERT

Scapular

I. NAME, MEANING, AND ORIGIN

The scapular (from Lat., scapula, shoulder) forms a part, and now the most important part, of the habit of the monastic orders. Other orders and numerous religious congregations (both male and female) have also adopted the scapular from the monastic orders. It is usually worn over the habit or soutane. It consists essentially of a piece of cloth about the width of the breast from one shoulder to the other (i. e. about fourteen to eighteen inches), and of such a length that it reaches not quite to the feet in front and behind. There are also shorter forms of the scapular. In the middle is the opening for the head, the scapular thus hanging down from two narrow connecting segments resting on the shoulders. Originally the longitudinal segments of cloth were connected by cross segments passing under the arms — a form which exists even today. In former times also two segments of cloth hung over the shoulders, which they covered, and thus formed a cross with the longitudinal segments over the breast and back (cf. P. L., CIII, 1231, editorial note). This monastic scapular, like the whole monastic habit and indeed the liturgical vestments of the priest, developed from the ordinary clothing of the laity. And, just as the stole is the special sign of the priestly dignity and power, the scapular is now the sign of the monk. In the West, in the case of St. Benedict, the scapular was at first nothing else than a working garment or apron such as was then worn by agricultural labourers. Thus, in the Rule of St. Benedict, it was expressly termed “scapulare propter opera” (c. xxv in P. L. LXXVI, 771). From this developed the special monastic garment, to which a hood could be fastened at the back. In fact, the original scapular of the Dominican Order was so made that it acted also as a covering for the head, and thus as a hood. The scapular of the West corresponded to the analabus of the East.

Monastic formulae of profession of the West from the ninth century make no mention of the investment with the scapular. It was only gradually that it became one of the important part of the monastic habit. Later, like the analabus, it was solemnly presented during the clothing and the symbolism of the scapular is emphasized in the formula used during this ceremony. Especially the analabus but also the scapular was often called simply crux (cross) on account of its shape, and symbolism introduced accordingly. It was thus natural to term the scapular jugum Christi (the yoke of Christ); it was also called scutum (shield), as it was laid over the head, which it originally covered and protected with one portion (from which the hood afterwards developed). In the rules of the religious it is expressly prescribed under penalties that even at night the scapular must be worn, e.g. in the case of the Servites and Carmelites. For night the Carmelites have now a special smaller scapular which, however, is still much larger than the so called great scapular of the Third Order of St. Francis; it measures about twenty inches in length and ten in width. In the Constitutions of the Carmelite Order of 1369 (Cod. Vatic. lat. 3991 fol. 33 v.) it is appointed that each candidate of the order must bring with him his bed and in addition: “habeat etiam cum rauba sua parvum scapulare cum tunica ad jacendum” (cf . Wessels, “Analecta Ord. Carmel.”, Rome, 1911, p. 122). Perhaps the smaller scapular for the night is here hinted at or foreshadowed. Perhaps even the small scapular of the confraternity (that for the laity) may be suggested, since the reference is to persons coming from the world (novices) who should have this small scapular. It is likewise prescribed in the Constitutions of the Servites of 1257 “quod nullus accedat sine scapulari et tunica dormitum”. Again, after St. Benedict had declared in his Rule XXII: “Vestiti dormiant et cincti cingulis aut funibus”, it was prescribed in the “Consuetudines sublacenses”: “Vestiti autem dormiant id est ad minus in una tunica et scapulari et cincti ut sint parati surgere” (Albers, “Consuet. monasticae”, II, 126). This scapular thus appears to have been a portion of the night clothing of monks.

II. THE SCAPULAR OF THE THIRD ORDERS

To the first orders have been gradually added the second and third orders and the oblates, who receive the proper habit from the first orders. Early in the Middle Ages numerous lay persons had already joined the Benedictine Order as oblates, these often received from the first order the entire monastic habit which they wore either constantly in the world or at least during Divine Service. It was regarded as a great grace and privilege to be able to die and be buried m the monastic habit, which was frequently given to the dying or placed on the deceased before burial. In the revised statutes of the Oblates of the Benedictine Order, confirmed in 1891 and 1904, it is stated in conclusion: “The Oblates may be buried in the black habit of the order, with scapular and girdle, wherever the conditions allow the fulfilment of this pious wish”. In the first Rule of the Third Order of St.. Francis of 1221 (also in that of 1289), the investment is fairly exactly described, but there is no mention of a scapular. The first Rule of the Third Order of St. Dominic in the first half of the thirteenth century prescribed likewise a formal and complete investment. Here also there is no mention of the scapular. As in the case of the other third orders this made its appearance later, until finally it became usual to wear the scapular under one's ordinary clothing instead of the full habit of the order. By the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars of 20 December, 1616, it was declared that the Bizzoche who lived in the houses of relatives (and thus quite without restraint in the world), might wear the tertiary habit, but without supriectum, sottogola, and patientia (i. e., without veil, pectorale, and scapular). Later, the wearing of the special habit of an order became unusual, and the constant wearing of such was regarded as a privilege. Gradually, however the most distinctive article of the monastic habit the scapular, was given, and is in an ever smaller form. It has thus come to pass that the third orders for the laity, such as those of the Franciscans, Servites and Dominicans, wear to day as their special badge and habit a “large” scapular, consisting essentially of two segments of woollen cloth (about four and a half inches long and two and three eighths inches broad in the case of the Franciscan scapular, much longer and broader in the case of the Carmelite although no particular length or breadth is prescribed) connected with each other by two strings or bands. The best known scapular is that of the Third Order of St,. Francis, or, as it is simply called, the Scapular of St. Francis; it is brown, grey, or black in colour and has (at least generally) on one of the woollen segments the image of St. Francis and on the other that of the little church of Portiuncula. For these large scapulars the same general rules hold good as described in detail below in the case of the small scapulars. It is especially necessary that persons who desire to share in the indulgences and privileges of the third orders shall wear the scapulars constantly. However, the Congregation of Indulgences expressly declared on 30 April, 1885, that the wearing of the scapulars of smaller form and of the same size as those of the confraternities entitled one to gain the indulgences of the third order (cf. Constit.. Leonis XIII, “Misericors Dei Filius”, 30 May, 1883; “Acta S. Sed.”, XV, 513 sqq.).

III. THE SMALL SCAPULARS

Like the large scapulars the first and oldest small scapulars originated to a certain extent in the real monastic scapular. Pious lay persons of either sex attached themselves to the Servites for instance; many of those who were in a position to do so attached themselves to the third order with vows, but in the case of many others either this was impossible or the idea of doing so had as yet not occurred to them. In this manner developed, shortly after the foundation of the Servite Order, the Confraternity of the Servi B. Mariae Virginis. Similarly originated the Confraternity of Our Lady of Mount Carmel; that this existed in 1280 is proved by the still extant “Libro degli ordinamenti de la compagnia di Santa Maria del Carmine scritto nel 1280” (edited by Giulio Piccini at Bologna, 1867, in “Scelta di Curiosità letterarie”). The members of these confraternities were called the confratres and consores of the respective orders; they had special rules and participated in the spiritual goods of the order to which then belonged. It is probable also that many of those who could not be promoted to the third order or who were special benefactors of the first order received the habit of the order or a large scapular similar to that of the oblates, which they might wear when dying and in which they might be buried. It was only later and gradually that the idea developed of giving to everyone connected with the order the real scapular of the order in miniature as their badge to be always worn day and night over or under their ordinary clothing.

It was now that these confraternities developed into scapular confraternities in the modern sense. On account of the scapulars the faithful resorted ever more to these confraternities, especially after they had heard of the wonderful graces which members had received through the scapulars, and above all when the story of the apparition of the Blessed Virgin and of her promise to all who wore the Scapular of Mount Carmel faithfully until death became known. Consequently, the four oldest small scapulars are like wise the badges of four confraternities, attached respectively to the Carmelites, Servites, Trinitarians and Mercederians. Later on the Franciscans gave the members of their third order for the laity the large scapular, and founded also a Franciscan confraternity the members of which were given as their badge not a small scapular, but a girdle. The Dominicans likewise assigned to their third order the large scapular as its badge, and to their principal confraternity the rosary. Since 1903, however, there is a small scapular of St. Dominic provided with an indulgence but connected with no confraternity (“Analecta eccl.”, 1904, p. 261). The Benedictines, on the other hand founded a special confraternity in the latter half of the thirteenth century, and gave to its members a small scapular of St. Benedict. An attempt was later made to give the oblates of the Benedictines a larger scapular which could be worn constantly. However, the regulation which was already quoted from the new statutes of the Benedictines Oblates still remain in force.

In the course of time other orders received the faculty of blessing small scapulars and investing the faithful with them, although such scapulars were not always connected with a confraternity. Thus originated the Blue Scapular of the Theatines in the seventeenth century, in connexion with which a confraternity was not founded until the nineteenth century. The Fathers of the Precious Blood have a scapular and confraternity named after their order. Similarly the Camillians have the Confraternity and Scapular of Our Lady the Help of the Sick, and the Augustinians the Confraternity and Scapular of the Mother of Good Counsel, in which cases the scapular and confraternity are not inseparably united; finally the Capuchins have the Scapular of St. Joseph without a corresponding confraternity. The Lazarists have the Red, and the Passionists the Black Scapular of the Passion. Under Leo XIII originated in Rome the Scapular Confraternity of St. Michael the Archangel, which is attached not so much to an order as to the church in which it exists. Also under Leo XIII, in 1900, were approved the Scapular of the Sacred Heart, the Scapular of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary (both without a corresponding confraternity), and the Scapular of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which originated in 1877. These complete the list of the seventeen known small scapulars.

The history of the origin of the first four small scapulars is still to a great extent obscure. It is probable that the revival of the religious life in the sixteenth century (the Counter-Reformation) gave the chief impetus to the development of the scapulars, as to other institutions and practices (e. g., confraternities and novenas). To assign an exact date to the origin of the first small scapular is still impossible; it appears, however, that the Carmelite scapular antedated all the others, as a prototype well worthy of imitation, and had its origin the above mentioned scapular prescribed for wearing at night. At the end of the sixteenth century the scapular was certainly widespread, as is clear from the information given by the Carmelite Joseph Falcone in “La Cronica Carmelitana”, a book which was published at Piacenza in 1595. Before entering into further detail concerning the individual scapulars, we must give the general rules and regulations which apply to all the small scapulars.

IV. GENERAL ECCLESIASTICAL REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SMALL SCAPULARS

The small scapulars consist essentially of two quadrilateral segments of woolen cloth (about two and three-quarter inches long by two inches wide), connected with each other by two strings or bands in such a manner that, when the bands rest on the shoulders, the front segment rests before the breast, while the other hangs down an equal distance at the back. The two segments of cloth need not necessarily be equally large, various scapulars having the segment before the breast of the above dimensions while the segment at the back is much smaller. The material of these two essential parts of the scapular must be of woven wool; the strings or bands may be of any material, and of any one colour. The colour of the segments of woollen cloth depends on the colour of the monastic habit, which it to a certain extent represents, or on the mystery in honour of which it is worn. Here, however, it must be remarked that the so called Brown Scapular of the Carmelites may be black, and that the bands of the Red Scapular of the Passion must be of red wool. On either or both of the woollen segments may be sewn or embroidered becoming representations or other decorations (emblems, names etc.) of a different material. It is only in the case of the Red Scapular that the images are expressly prescribed.

Several scapulars may be attached to the same pair of strings or bands; each scapular must of course be complete, and must be attached to both bands. In many cases the five best-known of the early scapulars are attached to the same pair of bands this combination is then known as the “fivefold scapular”. The five are: the Scapular of the Most Blessed Trinity, that of the Carmelites, of the Servites, of the Immaculate Conception, and the Red Scapular of the Passion. When the scapulars are thus joined together, the bands must be of red wool, as required by the Red Scapular; it is customary to wear the Red Scapular uppermost and that of the Most Blessed Trinity undermost, so that the images specially prescribed in the case of the Red, and the small red and blue cross on the Scapular of the Blessed Trinity, may be visible.

Only at the original reception of any scapular is either the blessing or the investment with such by an authorized priest necessary. When a person needs a new scapular, he can put on an unblessed one. If the investment with a scapular be inseparably connected with reception into a confraternity, the reception and enrollment must take place on the same occasion as the blessing and investment. To share in the indulgences and privileges of a scapular, one must wear it constantly; it may be worn over or under one's clothing and may be laid aside for a short time, if necessary. Should one have ceased wearing the scapular for a long period (even through indifference), one gains none of the indulgences, during this time, but, by simply resuming the scapular, one again participates in the indulgences, privileges, etc. Every scapular, which is not merely an object of private devotion (for there are also such) but is also provided with an indulgence, must be approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, and the formula of blessing must be sanctioned by the Congregation of Rites. In this article we speak only of scapulars approved by the Church.

V. THE SCAPULAR MEDALS

Since 1910 and the regulation of the Holy Office of 16 December of that year (Acta Apost. Sedis, III, 22 sq.) it is permitted to wear, instead of one or more of the small scapulars a single medal of metal. This medal must have on one side a representation of Jesus Christ with His Most Sacred Heart and on the other an image of the Mother of God. All persons who have been validly invested with a blessed woollen scapular may replace such by this medal. The medal must be blessed by a priest possessing the faculty to bless and invest with the scapular or scapulars which the medal is to replace. The faculties to bless these medals are subject to the same conditions and limitations as the faculties to bless and invest with the corresponding scapulars. If the medal is to be worn instead of a number of different scapulars, it must receive the blessing that would be attached to each of them, i. e. as many blessings as the number of scapulars it replaces. For each blessing a sign of the Cross suffices. This medal must also be worn constantly, either about the neck or in some other seemly manner, and with it may be attained all the indulgences and privileges of the small scapulars without exception. Only the small (not the large) scapulars may be validly replaced by such medals.

VI. THE INDIVIDUAL SMALL SCAPULARS

The Scapular of the Most Blessed Trinity

The small white scapular, provided with the blue and red cross, is the badge of the members of the Confraternity of The Most Blessed Trinity. To Innocent III, who sanctioned the Order of the Trinitarians on 28 January, 1198, an angel is said to have appeared wearing a white garment and on his breast a cross of which the transverse shaft was blue and the longitudinal shaft red. The Trinitarian re accordingly assigned this as their habit. When later the faithful sought to associate themselves more closely with their order in confraternities the Trinitarians gave them as their outward badge the scapular described above. The red and blue cross is essential only on the front segment of woollen cloth which hangs before the breast. Each person who joins the Confraternity of the Blessed Trinity must be invested with this scapular and must constantly wear it. The indulgences of this confraternity were last approved by a Decree of the Congregation of Indulgences of 13 August, 1899. The General of the Trinitarians may communicate to other priests the faculty of receiving into the confraternity and of blessing and investing with the scapular.

The Scapular of our Lady of Ransom (B. Maria V. de Mercede redemptionis captivorum)

Like the Trinitarians, the Fathers of the Order of Our Lady of Mercy for the Ransom of Prisoners give the faithful a special scapular on their entering the confraternity erected by them. The order was founded by St. Peter Nolasco (1256). The scapular is of white cloth, and bears on the front part, which hangs over the breast, the picture of Our Lady of Ransom. The other part consists simply of a smaller segment of white cloth. The summary of indulgences of the confraternity was last approved by the Congregation of Indulgences on 30 July, 1868 (Rescr. auth. S. C. Indulg., pp. 483 sqq., n. 36). The General of the Mercedarians communicates to other priests the faculty of receiving into the confraternity and of blessing and investing with the scapular. In the “Bullar. Ord. B. M. V. de Mercede” (Barcelona, 1696), p. 16, mention is made of a Constitution of Urban IV issued at Viterbo on 25 March, 1263 granting afresh to the laity who wear the scapular of the order (habitum nostrum) in the world many graces and indulgences. We do no more than record this circumstance exactly as it is related in the “Bullarium”. However, the encyclical could not have been issued from Viterbo on 25 March, 1263, for Urban IV was at that time in Orvieto.

The Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel

Also known as the Brown Scapular, this is the best known, most celebrated, and most widespread of the small scapulars. It is spoken of as “the Scapular”, and the “feast of the Scapular” is that of Our Lady of Mount Carmel on 16 July. It is probably the oldest scapular and served as the prototype of the others. According to a pious tradition the Blessed Virgin appeared to >St. Simon Stock at Cambridge, England, on Sunday, 16 July, 1251. In answer to his appeal for help for his oppressed order, she appeared to him with a scapular in her hand and said: “Take, beloved son this scapular of thy order as a badge of my confraternity and for thee and all Carmelites a special sign of grace; whoever dies in this garment, will not suffer everlasting fire. It is the sign of salvation, a safeguard in dangers, a pledge of peace and of the covenant”. This tradition, however, appears in such a precise form for the first time in 1642, when the words of the Blessed Virgin were given in a circular of St. Simon Stock which he is said to have dictated to his companion secretary, and confessor, Peter Swanyngton. Although it has now been sufficiently shown that this testimony cannot be supported by historical documents, still its general content remains a reliable pious tradition; in other words, it is credible that St. Simon Stock was assured in a supernatural manner of the special protection of the Blessed Virgin for his whole order and for all who should wear the Carmelite habit, that the Blessed Virgin also promised him to grant special aid, especially in the hour of death, to those who in holy fidelity wore this habit in her honour throughout life, so that they should be preserved from hell. And, even though there is here no direct reference to the members of the scapular confraternity, indirectly the promise is extended to all who from devotion to the Mother of God should wear her habit or badge, like true Christians, until death, and be thus as it were affiliated to the Carmelite Order.

Heretofore no authenticated testimony has been discovered proving that the small scapular was known from the second half of the thirteenth century and was given to the members of the Confraternity of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. On the contrary there are many reasons for the view that the small scapular, as we now know it and in the form it has certainly had since the sixteenth century, is of much later origin. Zimmerman (Mon. hist. Carmelit.) and Saltet give very reasonable grounds for this view. In any case, the scapular was very widespread in European countries at the end of the sixteenth century, as is evident from “La cronica Carmelitana” of the Carmelite Joseph Falcone (Piacenza, 1595). In 1600 appeared at Palermo the “Giardino Carmelitano” of the Carmelite Egidio Leoindelicato da Sciacca (the approval is dated 1592). Towards the end the author gives after the formulas of benediction for the Fratelli and Sorelle della Compagnia della Madonna del Carmine (who receive the complete habit of the order) the formula for the blessing of the scapular for the Devoti della Compagnia Carrnelitana (pp. 239 sqq.). This is the earliest form of benediction for the small scapular with which we are acquainted. It is also noteworthy that the formula for the sisters contains no reference to the scapular, while in that for the brothers there is a special blessing for the scapular.

Nevertheless, even should we admit that the small scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel originated even as late as the beginning of the sixteenth century, yet the above promise, which is designated the first privilege of the Carmelite Scapular, remains unimpaired. For this privilege declares nothing else than that all those who out of true veneration and love for the Blessed Virgin constantly wear the scapular in a spirit of fidelity and confiding faith, after they have been placed by the Church itself with this habit or badge under the special protection of the Mother of God, shall enjoy this special protection in the matter and crisis which most concerns them for time and eternity. Whoever, therefore, even though he be now a sinner, wears the badge of the Mother of God throughout life as her faithful servant, not presumptuously relying on the scapular as on a miraculous amulet, but trustfully confiding in the power and goodness of Mary, may securely hope that Mary will through her powerful and motherly intercession procure for him all the necessary graces for true conversion and for perseverance in good. Such is the meaning and importance of the first privilege of the Carmelite Scapular, which is wont to be expressed in the words: “whoever wears the scapular until death, will be preserved from hell”. The second privilege of the scapular otherwise known as the Sabbatine privilege, may be briefly defined as meaning that Mary's motherly assistance for her servants in the Scapular Confraternity will continue after death, and will find effect especially on Saturday (the day consecrated to her honor), provided that the members fulfill faithfully the not easy conditions necessary for obtaining this privilege (see SABBATINE PRIVILEGE).

As regards the external form of the scapular, it should consist of two segments of brown woollen cloth; black, however, is also admissible. This scapular usually bears on one side the image of our Lady of Mount Carmel, but neither this nor any other image is prescribed. The authentic list of indulgences privileges, and indults of the Scapular Confraternity of Mount Carmel was last approved on 4 July, 1908, by the Congregation of Indulgences. It is noteworthy that this summary says nothing of the above-mentioned first privilege; what it says of the Sabbatine privilege is explained in the article on that subject. Concerning the often miraculous protection which Mary on account of this her badge has granted to pious members of the Scapular Confraternity in great perils of soul and body, there exist many records and reliable reports (some of recent times), to which it is impossible to refuse credence. Like the rosary, this scapular has become the badge of the devout Catholic and the true servant of Mary.

The Black Scapular of the Seven Dolours of Mary

Shortly after Alexander IV had sanctioned the Servite Order in 1255, many of the faithful of either sex associated themselves with the order in ecclesiastical confraternities in honour of the Seven Dolours of Mary. The members of this Confraternity of the Seven Dolours of Mary also wore in later times a scapular which, like the habit of the order, had to be of black cloth. In other respects nothing is prescribed concerning this scapular, although it usually bears on the front portion (over the breast) an image of the Mother of Sorrows. This scapular must likewise be worn constantly, if one wishes to gain the indulgences of the confraternity. The summary of indulgences was last approved by the Congregation of Indulgences on 7 March, 1888. Priests may obtain from the General of the Servites the faculty to receive the faithful into the confraternity and to bless and invest with the scapular.

The Blue Scapular of the Immaculate Conception

The Venerable Ursula Benicasa, foundress of the Order of Theatine Nuns, relates in her autobiography how the habit which she and her sisters were to wear in honour of the Immaculate Conception was revealed to her in a vision. When Jesus Christ had in return promised great favours for her order, she begged the same graces for all the faithful who should devoutly wear a small sky-blue scapular in honour of the Immaculate Conception and to secure the conversion of sinners. Her petition having been granted she herself disseminated such scapulars, after they had been blessed by a priest. This devotion bore such rich fruits that Clement X by the Brief of 30 January, 1671, expressly granted the faculty to bless and invest with this scapular. Clement XI granted certain indulgences for the wearing of the scapular and succeeding popes increased the number. The summary was approved by the Congregation of Indulgences first in 1845 and finally on 26 August 1882 (Rescr. auth. S. C. Indulg., pp. 574 sqq., n. 57). Only the blue woollen cloth is essential and necessary. The scapular usually bears on one portion a symbolization of the Immaculate Conception and on the other the name of Mary. In 1894 a confraternity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and Mother of God Mary was erected in the Theatine Church of S. Andrea della Valle at Rome. In the same year it was endowed with various indulgences, and then raised to an archconfraterity (cf. Analecta ecclesiastica, p. 189 sq.). According to the statutes of the confraternity admission is effected by the blessing and investing with the Blue Scapular, the presentation of the small chaplet of the Immaculate Conception, and the enrolling of the name in the register of the confraternity. However those who received the scapular before 18 September, 1894, are not obliged to have themselves enrolled in the confraternity. Similarly, priests who may have received the faculty only of blessing and investing with the scapular may continue to exercise it at present priests who receive this faculty from the General of the Theatines, receive simultaneously the faculty of admitting the faithful into the confraternity and must forward the names of those admitted to Rome or to some other canonically erected confraternity of this kind.

The Scapular of the Most Precious Blood

Priests who can receive the faithful into the Confraternity of the Precious Blood have also the faculty of blessing and investing these with this red scapular (or a red girdle). No special indulgences, however, are connected with the wearing of this scapular, and the wearing of it is left optional to the members of the confraternity. For the scapular it is prescribed only that it be of red cloth. The scapular as used in Rome bears on one portion a representation of the chalice with the Precious Blood adored by angels; the other segment which hangs at the back is simply a smaller portion of red cloth.

The Black Scapular of the Passion

It is related in the life of St. Paul of the Cross that before founding the Congregation of the Passionists he received in apparitions the black habit of the order with the badge on the breast. Later, after the foundation of the congregation, the Passionist Fathers gave the faithful who wished to associate themselves more closely with their order a black scapular in honour of the Passion of Christ. This bears an exact replica of the badge of the Passion, namely a heart above a cross, on which is written “Jesu XPI Passio” and below “sit semper in cordibus nostris”. The other portion of the scapular hanging at the back, consists simply of a small segment of black woollen cloth. At various times indulgences have been granted to the faithful who wear this scapular, the Summary being last approved by the Congregation of Indulgences on 10 May, 1877. The Superior-General of the Passionists communicates to other priests the faculty to bless and invest with the scapular.

The Red Scapular of the Passion

This scapular owes its origin to an apparition which Jesus Christ vouchsafed to a Sister of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul is 1846. Jesus Christ showed the sister a scapular, such as is worn, and promised to all who should wear it on every Friday a great increase of faith, hope, and charity. The apparition having been several times repeated, and finally in the following year reported to Pius IX, the latter sanctioned the scapular by a Rescript of 25 June, 1847, and granted the Priests of the Mission (the Lazarists) the faculty of blessing the scapular and investing the faithful with it. He simultaneously granted many indulgences for the wearing of the scapular. The Superior-General of the Lazarists can communicate the faculty of blessing and investing with this scapular to other regular or secular priests. The scapular and bands must both be of red woollen material. On one woollen segment Jesus Christ is represented on the Cross; at the foot of the Cross are the implements of the Passion, and about it are the words: “Holy Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ Save us.” On the other are represented the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and above these a cross with the inscription: “Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, protect us.” These images also are essential to the scapular (Acta S. Sedis XXX, 748).

Scapular of the Blessed Virgin Mary under the title of “Help of the Sick”

In the Church of St. Magdalen at Rome, belonging to the Clerks Regular of St. Camillus, a picture of the Blessed Virgin is specially venerated under the title of Help of the Sick. This picture is said to have been painted by the celebrated Dominican painter, Fra Angelico da Fiesole and before it Pope St. Pius V is said to have prayed for the victory of the Christian fleet during the battle of Lepanto. This picture suggested to a brother of the Order of St. Camillus. Ferdinand Vicari, the idea of founding a confraternity under the invocation of the Mother of God for the poor sick. He succeeded in his plan, the confraternity being canonically erected in the above-mentioned church on 15 June, 1860. At their reception, the members are given a scapular of black woollen cloth; the portion over the breast is a copy of the above picture of the Mother of God and at her feet Sts. Joseph and Camillus, the two other patrons of the sick and of the confraternity. On the small segment at the back is sewed a little red cloth cross; although this receives separate and special blessing for the sick, it does not constitute an essential portion of the scapular. The scapular is the badge of the confraternity, which received its indulgences from Pius IX and Leo XIII in 1860 and 1883; these were last ratified by a Rescript of the Congregation of Indulgences, 21 July, 1883.

The Scapular of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

This scapular originated with the Sons of the lmmaculate Heart of Mary in 1877, and was sanctioned and endowed with indulgences by Pius IX on 11 May of that year. The scapular was later approved by the Congregation of Rites in 1907, and its form more exactly decreed; in the same year it was assigned new indulgences. The superiorgeneral of the above congregation can communicate to other priests the faculty of blessing and investing with this scapular (“Acta Pontificia”, Rome, March 1911, appendix). The scapular is of white woollen cloth: on the portion which hangs before the breast is represented the burning heart of Mary, out of which grows a lily; the heart is encircled by a wreath of roses and pierced with a sword.

The Scapular of St. Michael the Archangel

While this scapular originated under Pius IX, who gave it his blessing, it was first formally approved under Leo XIII. In 1878 a confraternity in honour of St. Michael the Archangel w as founded in the Church of St. Eustachius at Rome, and in the following year in the Church of Sant' Angelo in Pescheria (Sancti Angeli in foro Piscium). In 1880 Leo XIII raised it to the rank of an archconfraternity, which was expressly called the Archconfraternity of the Scapular of St. Michael. At first (1878) the confraternity received indulgences from Leo XIII for seven years; the summary of indulgences of the Pious Association of St. Michael was last approved for ever by a Decree of the Congregation of Indulgences, 28 March, 1903. The scapular is so associated with the confraternity that each member is invested with it. The formula for blessing and investing with the scapular, given in the Rituale Romanum was first approved by the Congregation of Rites on 23 August, 1883. In outward form this scapular is different from the others, inasmuch as the two segments of cloth have the form of a small shield; of these one is made of blue and the other of black cloth, and of the bands likewise one is blue and the other black. Both portions of the scapular bear the well-known representation of the Archangel St. Michael slaying the dragon and the inscription “Quis ut Deus”.

The Scapular of St. Benedict

To associate the faithful, who were not Oblates of St. Benedict, in a certain measure with the Benedictine Order, a confraternity of St Benedict was founded in the second half of the nineteenth century, at first by the English Congregation. Reception is effected by the enrollment of the members and investment with a small blessed scapular of black cloth. One of the segments usually has a picture of St. Benedict but no picture is necessary. The confraternity was endowed with indulgences in 1882 and 1883.

The Scapular of the Mother of Good Counsel

At the petition of the Augustinian monks this scapular was approved and endowed with indulgences by Leo XIII in a Decree of the Congregation of Rites of 19-21 December, 1893. The faculty of blessing and investing with the scapular belongs primarily to the Augustinian monks, but the General of the Augustinians communicates this privilege to other priests. The two segments of cloth must be of white wool, though the bands are usually a hit this is not. essential. The segment of cloth which hangs before the breast bears the image of the Mother of Good Counsel (after the well-known picture in the Augustinian church at Genazzano) with the inscription: “Mother of Good Counsel”. On the other segment the papal arms (i. e., the tiara and the keys of Peter) with the inscription: “Son, follow her counsel. Leo III”.

The Scapular of St. Joseph

This scapular was approved for the Diocese of Verona by a Decree of the Congregation of Rites of 8 July, 1880. On 15 April, 1898, Leo XIII granted to the General of the Capuchins the faculty of blessing and investing the faithful everywhere with this scapular. From the Diocese of St-Claude in France this scapular (at first white) was spread by the Capuchins (cf. Analecta ord. Min. Capuc., IX, 1893, pp. 161 sqq.); but it was later decreed that the shape and colour of that used in Verona should be used. Nevertheless, owing to a mistake, a slight difference crept in, and it was expressly declared later by the Congregation of Indulgences that the scapular might be lawfully retained in the form now customary among the Capuchins. In this form, the two segments of woollen cloth are of a violet colour; to these are sewed two pieces of gold-coloured material (linen, cotton, etc.) of equal size. On the gold-coloured segment before the breast is the representation of St. Joseph with the Child Jesus on his right arm and the staff of lilies in his left hand, while underneath is the inscription: “St. Joseph, patron of the Church, pray for us.” On the other gold-coloured segment is represented the papal crown, the tiara, above it the dove as the symbol of the Holy Ghost, and underneath it a cross and the keys of Peter with the inscription: “Spiritus Domini ductor eius” (The Spirit of the Lord is his Guide). The bands are white. This scapular having been approved by the Congregation of Rites on 18 April, 1893, various indulgences were granted for all the faithful who wear it by a Rescript of the Congregation of Indulgences, 8 June, 1893 (“Acta S. Sedis”, XXXIV, 317).

The Scapular of The Most Sacred Heart of Jesus

The constant wearing of a small picture of the Heart of Jesus was already recommended by Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque, who herself made and distributed them. They were made of a small piece of white woollen cloth, on which was embroidered or sewed in red a picture of the Heart of Jesus. This badge was especially employed during the plague at Marseilles as a protection against the pest. During the terrors of the French Revolution it also served as a s d for the pious faithful. Although this badge is often called a scapular, it is not really such; consequently the conditions governing scapulars do not apply to it. It was only in 1872 that an indulgence was granted by Pius IX for the wearing of this badge. A real scapular of the Sacred Heart was first introduced in France in 1876 when it was approved by Decree of the Congregation of Rites and a special formula for blessing and investing with it appointed 4 April, 1900. This scapular consists of two segments of white woollen cloth connected in the usual manner by two strings; one segment bears the usual representation of the Sacred Heart, while the other bears that of the Blessed Virgin under the title of Mother of Mercy. By a Brief of 10 July, Leo XIII granted many indulgences for the pious wearing of this scapular.

The Scapular of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary

This is very similar to the Red Scapular of the Passion. Like the Scapulars of the Heart of Jesus, it was approved at the request of the Archbishop of Marseilles, by a Decree of the Congregation of Rites, 4 April, 1900. The two segments of cloth are of white wool, one bears the image of the Heart of Jesus with the well-known emblems and also the Heart of Mary pierced with a sword, underneath being the implements of the Passion; the other segment has a small cross of red material. Indulgences were granted for the wearing of this scapular in 1901, and increased by Pius X in 1906. The scapular owes its origin and spread to the Congregation of the Daughters of the Sacred Heart, founded at Antwerp in 1873 (Acta S. Sedis, XXXII, 633 sq.)

The Scapular of St. Dominic

On 23 November, 1903, this scapular was endowed by Pius X with an indulgence of 300 days in favour of all the faithful who wear it, as often as they devoutly kiss it. The scapular is thereby also approved. It is made of white wool, but the bands, as in the case of so many other scapulars may be of another material. No image is prescribed for the scapular, but the scapular given in the house of the Dominican General at Rome has on one side the picture of St. Dominic kneeling before the crucifix and on the other that of B. Reginald receiving the habit from the hands of the Mother of God. The General of the Dominicans communicates to other priests the faculty of blessing and investing with the scapular (“The Booklet of the Faculties”, Rome, 1909).

The Scapular of the Holy Face.

This scapular bears on a piece of white cloth the well-known picture connected with St. Veronica. This scapular is worn by the members of the Archconfraternity of the Holy Face. The members can, however, wear the picture on a medal or cross, in place of the scapular. The wearing of this picture is simply one of the pious practices of the archconfraternity, without any special indulgences.

JOSEPH HILGERS
In memory of Gloverdale Tarver Baker

Scotism and Scotists

I. SCOTISM

This is the name given to the philosophical and theological system or school named after John Duns Scotus (q.v.). It developed out of the Old Franciscan School, to which Haymo of Faversham (d. 1244), Alexander of Hales (d. 1245), John of Rupella (d. 1245), William of Melitora (d. 1260), St. Bonaventure (d. 1274), Cardinal Matthew of Aquasparta (d. 1289), John Pecham (d. 1292), Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard of Middletown (d. about 1300), etc. belonged. This school had at first but few peculiarities; it followed Augustinism (Platonism), which then ruled theology, and which was adopted not only by the Parisian professors belonging to the secular clergy (William of Auvergne, Henry of Ghent, etc.), but also by prominent teachers of the Dominican Order (Roland of Cremona, Robert Fitzacker, Robert of Kilwardby, etc.). These theologians knew and utilized freely all the writings of Aristotle, but employed the new Peripatetic ideas only in part or in an uncritical fashion, and intermingled with Platonic elements. Albertus Magnus and especially St. Thomas (d. 1274) introduced Aristoteleanism more widely into Scholasticism. The procedure of St. Thomas was regarded as an innovation, and called forth criticism, not only from the Franciscans, but also from the secular doctors and even many Dominicans. At this time appeared Scotus, the Doctor Subtilis, and found the ground already cleared for the conflict with the followers of Aquinas. He made indeed very free use of Aristoteleanism, much freer than his predecessors, but in its employment exercised sharp criticism, and in important points adhered to the teaching of the Older Franciscan School — especially with regard to the plurality of forms or of souls, the spiritual matter of the angels and of souls, etc., wherein and in other points he combatted energetically St. Thomas. The Scotism beginning with him, or what is known as the Later Franciscan School, is thus only a continuation or further development of the older school, with a much wider, although not exclusive acceptance of Peripatetic ideas, or with the express and strict challenge of the same (e.g. the view that matter is the principium individuationis). Concerning the relation of these schools to each other, or the relation of Scotus to Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure, consult the work of the Flemish Recollect, M. Hauzeur.

Concerning the character and teaching of Scotus we have already spoken in the special article, where it was stated that he has been unjustly charged with Indeterminism, excessive Realism, Pantheism, Nestorianism, etc. What has been there said holds good of Scotism in general, the most important doctrines of which were substantially developed by Scotus himself. Little new has been added by the Scotists to the teaching of their master; for the most part, they have merely, in accordance with the different tendencies of the day, restated its fundamental position and defended it. It will be sufficient here to mention two works in which the most important peculiarities of the Scotist theology are briefly set forth and defended — Johannes de Rada, “Controversiae theol. inter S. Thom. et Scotum” (1598- ); Kilian Kazen berger, “Assertiones centum ad mentem . . . Scoti” (new ed., Quaracehi, 1906). Reference may, however, be made to the influence which Scotism exercised on the teaching of the Church (i.e. on theology). It is especially noteworthy that none of the propositions peculiar to Scotus or Scotism has been censured by ecclesiastical authority, while the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was soon accepted by all schools, orders, and theologians outside the Dominican Order, and was raised to a dogma by Pius IX. The definition of the Council of Vienne of 1311 that all were to be regarded as heretics who declared “quod anima rationalis . . . non sit forma corporis humani per se et essentialiter” (the rational soul is not per se and essentially the form of the human body), was directed, not against the Scotist doctrine of the forma corporeitatis, but only against the erroneous view of Olivius; it is even more probable that the Scotists of the day suggested the passing of the Decree and formulated it (see B. Jansen, loc. cit., 289 sqq., 471 sqq.). Nominalism is older than Scotus, but its revival in Occamism may be traced to the one-sided exaggeration of some propositions of Scotus. The Scotist Formalism is the direct opposite of Nominalism, and the Scotists were at one with the Thomists in combatting the latter; Occam himself (d. about 1347) was a bitter opponent of Scotus. The Council of Trent defined as dogma a series of doctrines especially emphasized by the Scotists (e.g. freedom of the will, free co-operation with grace, meritoriousness of good works, the causality of the sacraments ex opere operato, the effect of absolution). In other points the canons were intentionally so framed that they do not affect Scotism (e.g. that the first man was constitutus in holiness and justice). This was also done at the Vatican Council. In the Thomistic-Molinistic controversy concerning the foreknowledge of God, predestination, the relation of grace to free will, the Scotists took little part. They either supported one of the parties, or took up a middle position, rejecting both the predetermination of the Thomists and the scientia media of the Molinists. God recognizes the free future acts in His essence, and provides a free decree of His will, which does not predetermine our free will, but only accompanies it.

Jesuit philosophers and theologians adopted a series of the Scotist propositions. Later authorities reject in part many of these propositions and partly accept them, or at least do not directly oppose them. This refers mostly to doctrines touching the deepest philosophical and theologieal questions, on which a completely certain judgment is difficult to obtain. The following are generally rejected: formalism with the distinctio formalis, the spiritual matter of angels and of the soul, the view that the metaphysical essence of God consists in radical infinity, that the relationes trinitariae are not a perfection simpliciter simplex; that the Holy Ghost would be a distinct Person from the Son, even though He proceeded from the Father alone; that the angels can naturaliter know the secreta cordium (secret thoughts); that the soul of Christ is formally holy and impeccable, not by the very fact of the hypostatic union, but through another gratia creata (the visio beatifica); that the merits of Christ are not simpliciter et intrinsece, but only extrinsece and secundum quid, infinite; that there are indifferent acts in individuo; that the gratia sanctificans and the charitas habitualis are the same habitus; that circumcision is a sacrament in the strict sense; that transubstantiation makes the Body of Christ present per modum adductionis, etc. Another series of propositions was misunderstood even by Catholie theologians, and then in this false sense rightly rejected — e.g. the doctrine of the univocatio entis, of the acceptation of the merits of Christ and man, etc. Of the propositions which have been accepted or at least favourably treated by a large number of scholars, we may mention: the Scotist view of the relation between essentia and existentia; that between ens and nihil the distance is not infinite but only as great as the reality that the particular ens possesses; that the accidens as such also possesses a separate existence (e.g. the accidentia of bread and wine in the Eucharist); that not only God, but also man can produce an esse simpliciter (e.g. man by generation); haecceitas as the principium individuationis. Also many propositions from psychology: e.g. that the powers of the soul are not merely accidents even natural and necessary of the soul, that they are not really distinct from the substance of the soul or from one another; that sense perception is not purely passive; that the intellect can recognize the singular directly, not merely indirectly; that the soul separated from the body forms its knowledge from things themselves, not merely from the ideas which it has acquired through life or which God infuses into it; that the soul is not united with the body for the purpose of acquiring knowledge through the senses but for the purpose of forming with it a new species, i.e. human nature; that the moral virtues are not necessarily inter se connexae, etc. Also many propositions concerning the doctrine of the angels: e.g. that the angels can be numerically distinct from one another, and therefore several angels can belong to the same species; that it is not merely through their activity or the application of their powers that angels can be in a given place; that they cannot go from place to place without having to traverse the intermediate space; that they do not acquire all natural knowledge from infused ideas only, but also through contemplation of things themselves; that their will must not necessarily will good or evil, according as it has once decided. Furthermore, that Adam in the state of innocence could sin venially; that mortal sin, as an offence against God, is not intrinsically and simpliciter, but only extrinsically infinite; that Christ would have become man, even if Adam had not sinned; that the human nature of Christ had its proper created existence; that in Christ there were two filiationes, or sonships, a human and a Divine; that the sacraments have only moral causality; that, formally and in the last analysis, heavenly bappiness consists not in the visio Dei, but in the fruitio; that in hell venial sin is not punished with everlasting punishment; etc.

Scotism thus exercised also positively a wholesome influence on the development of philosophy and theology; its importance is not, as is often asserted, purely negative — that is, it does not consist only in the fact that it exercised a wholesome criticism on St. Thomas and his school, and thus preserved science from stagnation. A comparison of the Scotist teaching with that of St. Thomas has been often attempted — for example, in the abovementioned work of Hauzeur at the end of the first volume; by Sarnano, “Conciliatio omnium controversiarum etc.” (1589- ). It may be admitted that in many cases the difference is rather in the terminology, or that a reconciliation is possible, if one emphasize certain parts of Scotus or St. Thomas, and pass over or tone down others. However, in not a few points the contradiction still remains. Generally speaking, Scotism found its supporters within the Franciscan Order; certainly, opposition to the Dominicans, i.e. to St. Thomas, made many members of the order disciples of Scotus. However, this does not mean that the foundation and development of Scotism is to be referred to the rivalry existing between the two orders. Even Aquinas found at first not a few opponents in his order, nor did all his fellow-Dominicans follow him in every particular (e.g. Durandus of St. Pourçain, d. 1332). The Scotist doctrines were also supported by many Minorites, of whose purity of purpose there can be no doubt, and of whom many have been included in the catalogue of saints and beati (e.g. Sts. Bernardine, John Capistran, Jacob of the March, Angelus of Chiavasso, etc.). Furthermore, Scotism found not a few supporters among secular professors and in other religious orders (e.g. the Augustinians, Servites, etc.), especially in England, Ireland, and Spain. On the other hand, not all the Minorites were Scotists. Many attached themselves to St. Bonaventure, or favoured an eclecticism from Scotus, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, etc. The Conventuals seem to have adhered most faithfully to Scotus, particularly at the University of Padua, where many highly esteemed teachers lectured. Scotism found least support among the Capuchins, who preferred St. Bonaventure. Besides Scotus, the order had other highly-prized teachers, such as Alexander of Hales, Richard of Middleton, and especially St. Bonaventure (proclaimed Doctor ecclesia by Sixtus V in 1587), the ascetico-mystical trend of whose theology was more suited to wide circles in the order than the critical, dispassionate, and often abstruse teaching of the Subtle Doctor. In Spain the martyred tertiary, Blessed Raymund Lullus (d. 1315), also had many friends. It may be said that the whole order as such never had a uniform and special school of Scotists; the teachers, preachers, etc. were never compelled to espouse Scotism. His disciples did indeed call Scotus “Doctor noster”, “Doctor (vel Magister) Ordinis”, but even among these many partly followed their own course (e.g. Petrus Aureolus), while Walter Burleigh (Burlaeus, d. about 1340) and still more so Occam were opponents of Scotus.

It is only at the end of the fifteenth or the beginning of the sixteenth century that a special Scotist School can be spoken of. The works of the master were then collected, brought out in many editions, commentated, etc. Since 1501 we also find numerous regulations of general chapters recommending or directly prescribing Scotism as the teaching of the order, although St. Bonaventure's writings were also to a great extent admitted (ef. Marian Fernández Garcia, “Lexicon scholasticum etc.”, Quaracchi, 1910; “B. Joan. Duns Scoti: De rerum principio etc. “, Quaracchi, 1910, preface article 3, nn. 46 sqq., where many regulations of 1501-1907 are given). Scotism appears to have attained its greatest popularity at the beginning of the seventeenth century; during the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries we even find special Scotist chairs, e.g. at Paris, Rome, Coimbra, Salamanca, Alcalá, Padua, and Pavia. In the eighteenth century it had still an important following, but in the nineteenth it suffered a great decline. One of the reasons for this was the repeated suppressions of the order in almost every country, while the recommendation of the teaching of St. Thomas by several popes could not be favourable to Scotism. It has even been asserted that it is now merely tolerated; but this statement is a priori improbable in regard to a school of which not a single proposition has been censured, and to which so many highly venerated men (bishops, cardinals, popes, and saints) have belonged; and it is still less probable in view of the approval of the various general statutes (repeated so often down to the present day), in which Scotism is at least recommended. In their Decrees Leo XIII and Pius X have recommended not alone St. Thomas, but also Scholasticism in general, and this includes also the Scotist School. In 1897 Leo XIII approved the “Constitutiones Generales Fratrum Minorum”, of which article 245 prescribes for the members of the order: “In doctrinis philosophicis et theologicis antiqae scholae Franciscanae inhaerere studeant, quin tamen ceteros scholasticos negligant” (In philosophical and theological doctrine they shall take care to follow the ancient Franciscan School, without, however, neglecting the other Schoolmen.) On 11 April, 1904, in a letter to the Minister General, Father Dionysius Schuler, Pius X expressed his pleasure at the revival of studies in the order in connexion with the Franciscan schools of the Middle Ages, and on 19 June, 1908, in a letter to the abovementioned Father Marian, praised his book, “Mentis in Deum quotidiana elevatio duce B. Joanne Duns Scoto etc.” (Quaracehi, 1907. See Marian, op. cit., n. 66.)

II. Scotists

Most Scotists are both philosophers and theologians.

Fourteenth Century

Pupils of Scotus: Francis Mayron (d. 1327), a very fruitful writer, who introduced the actus sorbonicus into the University of Paris, i.e. the uninterrupted disputation lasting the whole day. Petrus Aureolus (d. about 1322), Archbishop of Aix. William de Rubione (about 1333). Jerome de Atharia, Order of the Blessed Trinity (about 1323). Antonius Andreae (d. about 1320) from Aragon, a true disciple of Scotus, who is said to have written several treatises attributed to the master. John de Bassolis (d. about 1347). Alvarus Pelagius (d. about 1350). Bishop Petrus de Aquila (d. 1371), called Scotellus from his faithful adherence to Scotus, of whose teaching he issued a compendium (new ed., Levanti, 1907- ). Landulf Caraccioli (d. 1351), Archbishop of Amalfi. Nicolaus Bonet (Bovet), who went to Peking and died as Bishop of Malta in 1360; John Bacon, Carmelite (d. 1346).

Fifteenth Century

William Butler (d. 1410). Petrus de Candia (d. 1410 as Pope Alexander V). Nicolaus de Orbellis (d. about 1465), who wrote a commentary on the Sentences (many editions) William Vorilong (Vorlion etc., d. 1464), a celebrated theologian, who wrote a frequently quoted “Comm. super Sentent.”, but who also followed St. Bonaventure. Angelus Serpetri, General of the Order (d. 1454). William Gorris (about 1480), not a Franciscan, who composed the “Scotus pauperum”. Blessed Angelus of Chivasso (d. 1495), whose “Summa” (called Angelica) is extant in about thirty editions and contains a great deal of Scotist doctrine; it was publicly burned by Luther with the “Corpus juris canonici” in 1520. Antonius Sirretus (Sirectus, d. about 1490), famous for his “Formalitates”, to whieb several later Scotists wrote commentaries. Tartaretus (about 1495), rector of the University of Paris, and not a Franciscan; Elector Frederick III of Saxony had his philosophical commentaries introduced into the University of Wittenberg at his expense. Thomas Pencket, Augustinian (d. 1487), knew Scotus almost by heart, and edited his works. Francis Sampson, General of the Order (d. 1491), was called by Pope Sixtus IV, before whom he held a disputation, the most learned of all. Francis de Rovere (d. 1484 as Sixtus IV), who defended in a disputation before Pius II and also in his writings the doctrine that the blood shed by Christ on the Cross was released from the hypostatic union. Stephen Brulefer (d. about 1499), renowned professor in Paris and later a Franciscan, who wrote “Comm. in Bonavent. et Scotum” (often edited).

Sixteenth Century

This period is very rich in names. The following may be mentioned: Paul Scriptoris (d. 1505), professor at the University of Tübingen, who had as students all the other professors and many other members of religious orders. Nicholas de Nüsse (d. 1509). Mauritius a Portu (d. 1513 as Archbishop of Tuam, Ireland), who wrote a commentary on many works of Scotus. Francis Lichetus, General of the Order (d. 1520). Anthony Trombetta, Archbishop of Athens (d. 1518), who wrote and edited able Scotist works. Philip Varagius (about 1510). Johannes de Monte (about 1510). Gometius of Lisbon (d. 1513), re-edited the often issued fourteenth-century “Summa Astesana”. Frizzoli (d. 1520). James Almainus (about 1520), Parisian magister and not a Franciscan, favoured Gallicanism. Antonius de Fantes, physician, composed in 1530 a Scotus lexicon. Jerome Cadius (d. 1529). Le Bret (about 1527), wrote “Parvus Scotus”. Paduanus Barletta (about 1545). James Bargius (about 1560). Johannes Dovetus, who wrote in 1579 “Monotesseron formalitatum Scoti, Sieretti, Trombettae et Bruliferi”. Joseph Angles, bishop and celebrated moralist (d. 1587), wrote the often edited “Flores theol. “. Damian Giner issued the “Opus Oxoniense Scoti” in a more convenient form (1598). Cardinal Sarnanus (d. 1595), a highly distinguished scholar, wrote a commentary on some philosophical works of Scotus, and edited the works of many Scotists. Salvator Bartolucci (about 1586), also a zealous editor. Felix Perettus (d. 1590 as Sixtus V).

Seventeenth Century

Of very many names we may mention: Gothutius (about 1605). Guido Bartholucci (about 1610). Petrus Bonaventura (about 1607). Ruitz (about 1613) Smissing (d. 1626). Philip Faber (d. 1630). Albergonius, bishop (d. 1636). Centini, bishop (d. 1640). Matthaus de Sousa (about 1629). Merinero, bishop (about 1663). Francis Felix (about 1642). Vulpes (d. 1647) wrote “Summa” and “Commen. theologiae Scoti” in twelve folio volumes. Blondus, bishop (d. 1644) — Gavatius, archbishop (d. 1658). Wadding (d. 1657), a well-known annalist, edited with other Irishmen in the College of S. Isidore at Rome the complete works of Scotus (12 vols., Lyons, 1639), with the commentaries of Pitigianus of Arezzo (d. 1616), Poncius (d. 1660), Mauritius a Portu (Mac Caughwell), Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland (d. 1626), and Anthony Illckey (d. 1641); reprinted Paris, 1891-95. Bricemo, named on account of his keenness of intellect the Second Scotus, Bishop of Venezuela (d. 1667). Belluti (d. 1676), edited with Mastrius a highly prized “Philosophia ad mentem Scoti” (many editions). Mastrius himself (d. 1673) wrote a celebrated “Disputationes theol.” (many editions) and “Theologia ad mentem Scoti” (1671, etc.). Ferchius (d. 1666) wrote “Vita et apologia Scoti, etc.” Bruodinus (d. 1664). Herinckx (d. 1678), Bishop of Ypres. Stümel (d. 1681 at Fulda). Boivin, highly esteemed philosopher and theologian (several editions of works, 1678, etc.) Sannig (about 1690). Lambrecht (about 1696), named the Viennese Scotus. Bishop Gennari (d. 1684). Cardinal Brar `catius (d. 1693), held in high favour by several popes. Hernandez (d. 1695).-Macedo (d. 1681), a Portuguese, professor at Padua is said to have composed over one hundred writings and was renowned for his public disputations.

Eighteenth Century

Frassen (d. 1711) was for thirty years a celebrated professor at the Sorbonne and wrote “Scotus academicus seu universa theo Scoti” (many editions, 1672, etc.; last ed., Rome 1900- ), a very profound and lucid work. Du randus (d. 1720) wrote the great “Clypeus scotisticus (many editions). Dupasquier, “Summa phil.” an “Summa theol.” (about 1720; many editions). Hieronymus a Montefortino “Duns Scoti Summ. theol. ex universis opp. eius . . . juxta ordiner Summae Angelici Doctoris” (6 vols., 1728-34; new ed., Rome, 1900-03), a very able work. Panger (d 1732 at Augsburg), Scotist moralist. Kikh (d. 1769 at Munich), Scotist dogmatic theologian. Pérez López (d. 1724). Krisper (d. 1749). Hermann, Abbot of St. Trudbert, “Theologia sec. Scoti principia” (1720). Melgaco (1747). Bishop Sarmentero (d. 1775).

Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

In the nineteenth century, although Scotism was retained in the schools of the Franciscan Order in accordance with the statutes, we meet but few tractates secundum mentem Scoti, in any case no celebrated ones. The twentieth century appears to promise better. Father Fernández, a Spaniard, is a zealous Scotist. Beside the abovementioned writings, he has written a large “Scotus Lexicon”, and is at present (1911) issuing new edition of Scotus's “Comment. in Sentent.' Another zealous worker is Father Deodat-Marie de Basley; his fortnightly journal, “La bonne parole” (now entitled “Revue Duns Scot.”), contains much Scotistica. He is also engaged on the “Capitali opera B. Joan. Duns Scoti” (Le Havre, 1908) of which the “Praeparatio philosophica” and “Synthesis theologica credendorum” have already appeared. Father Parthenius Minges has explained and defended much of the Scotist doctrine in his “Compend. theolog. dogmat. specialis et generalis” (Munich, 1901-02), and in a number of other works.

PARTHENIUS MINGES

Self-Defense

Ethically the subject of self-defense regards the right of a private person to employ force against any one who unjustly attacks his life or person, his property or good name. While differing among themselves on some of the more subtle and less practical points comprised in this topic, our moralists may be said to be unanimous on the main principles and their application regarding the right of self-defense. The teaching may be summarized as follows:

I. Defense of Life and Person

Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose. If, for example, he can be driven off by a call for help or by inflicting a slight wound on him, he may not lawfully be slain. Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion. generally speaking one is not bound to preserve one's own life at the expense of the assailant's; one may, out of charity, forego one's right in the matter. Sometimes, however, one may be bound to defend one's own life to the utmost on account of one's duty of state or other obligations. The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own. For since each person has the right to defend his life unjustly attacked, what he can lawfully do through his own efforts he may also do through the agency of others. Sometimes, too, charity, natural affection, or official duty imposed the obligation of defending others. A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for that purpose are bound in justice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to them.

II. Defense of Property

It is lawful to defend one's material goods even at the expense of the agressor's life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however,we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust agressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the agressor's life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive a neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cummulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means; if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense.

III. Honor

Since it is lawful to take life in the legitimate defense of one's material goods, it is evidently also lawful to do so in defense of chastity which is a good of a much higher order. With regard to honor or reputation, it is not lawful to kill one to prevent an insult or an attack upon our reputation which we beleive he intends, or threatens. Nor may we take a life to avenge an insult already offered. The proceeding would not be defense of our honor or reputation, but revenge. Besides, in the general estimation honor and reputation may be sufficiently protected without taking the life of the offender.

Zigliara, Summa Philosophica, III, I, iii; St. Thomas, Summa Theolgica, II-II, Q lxvii, a. 7; Billuart, Cursus Theolgiae: in II-II St. Thomae, d. X, a. V.

JAMES J. FOX

St. Simon the Apostle

The name of Simon occurs in all the passages of the Gospel and Acts, in which a list of the Apostles is given. To distinguish him from St. Peter he is called (Matt., x, 4; Mark, iii, 18) Kananaios, or Kananites, and Zelotes (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). Both surnames have the same signification and are a translation of the Hebrew qana (the Zealous). The name does not signify that he belonged to the party of Zealots, but that he had zeal for the Jewish law, which practised before his call. Jerome and others wrongly assumed that Kana was his native place; were this so, he should have been called Kanaios. The Greeks, Copts, and Ethiopians identify him with Nathanael of Cana; the first-mentioned also identify him with the bridegroom of the marriage of Cana, while in the “Chronicon paschale” and elsewhere he is identified with Simon Clopas. The Abyssinians accordingly relate that he suffered crucifixion as the Bishop of Jerusalem, after he had preached the Gospel in Samaria. Where he actually preached the Gospel is uncertain. Almost all the lands of the then known world, even as far as Britain, have been mentioned; according to the Greeks, he preached on the Black Sea, in Egypt, Northern Africa, and Britain, while, according to the Latin “Passio Simonis et Judae”, the author of which was (Lipsius maintains) sufficiently familiar with the history of the Parthian Empire in the first century, Simon laboured in Persia, and was there martyred at Suanir. However, Suanir is probably to be sought in Colchis. According to Moses of Chorene, Simon met his death in Weriosphora in Iberia; according to the Georgians, he preached in Colchis. His place of burial is unknown. Concerning his relics our information is as uncertain as concerning his preaching. From Babylon to Rome and Toulouse we find traces of them; at Rome they are venerated under the Altar of the Crucifixion in the Vatican. His usual attribute is the saw, since his body was said to have been sawed to pieces, and more rarely the lance. He is regarded as the patron of tanners. In the Western Church he is venerated together with Jude (Thaddaeus); in the East separately. The Western Church keeps his feast on 28 October; the Greeks and Copts on 10 May.

KLEMENS LOEFFLER

St. Simon Stock

Born in the County of Kent, England, about 1165; died in the Carmelite monastery at Bordeaux, France, 16 May, 1265. On account of his English birth he is also called Simon Anglus. It is said that when twelve years old he began to live as a hermit in the hollow trunk of an oak, and later to have become an itinerant preacher until he entered the Carmelite Order which had just come to England. According to the same tradition he went as a Carmelite to Rome, and from there to Mt. Carmel, where he spent several years. All that is historically certain is that in 1247 he was elected the sixth general of the Carmelites, as successor to Alan, at the first chapter held at Aylesford, England. Notwithstanding his great age he showed remarkable energy as general and did much for the benefit of the order, so that he is justly regarded as the most celebrated of its generals. During his occupancy of the office the order became widely spread in southern and western Europe, especially in England; above all, he was able to found houses in the university cities of that era, as in 1248 at Cambridge, in 1253 at Oxford, in 1260 at Paris and Bologna. This action was of the greatest importance both for the growth of the institution and for the training of its younger members. Simon was also able to gain at least the temporary approbation of Innocent IV for the altered rule of the order which had been adapted to European conditions. Nevertheless the order was greatly oppressed, and it was still struggling everywhere to secure admission, either to obtain the consent of the secular clergy, or the toleration of other orders. In these difficulties, as Guilelmus de Sanvico (shortly after 1291) relates, the monks prayed to their patroness the Blessed Virgin. “And the Virgin Mary revealed to their prior that they were to apply fearlessly to Pope Innocent, for they would receive from him an effective remedy for these difficulties”. The prior followed the counsel of the Virgin, and the order received a Bull or letter of protection from Innocent IV against these molestations. It is an historical fact that Innocent IV issued this papal letter for the Carmelites under date of 13 January, 1252, at Perugia

Later Carmelite writers give more details of such a vision and revelation. Johannes Grossi wrote his “Viridarium” about 1430, and he relates that the Mother of God appeared to Simon Stock with the >scapular of the order in her hand. This scapular she gave him with the words: “Hoc erit tibi et cunctis Carmelitis privilegium, in hoc habitu moriens salvabitur” (This shall be the privilege for you and for all the Carmelites, that anyone dying in this habit shall be saved). On account of this great privilege many distinguished Englishmen, such as King Edward II, Henry, Duke of Lancaster, and many others of the nobility secretly work (clam portaverunt) the Carmelite scapular under their clothing and died with it on. In Grossi's narrative, however, the scapular of the order must be taken to mean the habit of the Carmelites and not as the small Carmelite scapular. As was the custom in medieval times among the other orders, the Carmelites gave their habit or at least their scapular to their benefactors and friends of high rank, that these might have a share in the privilege apparently connected with their habit or scapular by the Blessed Virgin. It is possible that the Carmelites themselves at that period wore their scapular at night in a smaller form just as they did at a later date and at the present time: namely, in about the form of the scapular for the present third order. If this is so they could give laymen their scapular in this form. At a later date, probably not until the sixteenth century, instead of the scapular of the order the small scapular was given as a token of the scapular brotherhood. Today the brotherhood regards this as its chief privilege, and one it owes to St. Simon Stock, that anyone who dies wearing the scapular is not eternally lost. In this way the chief privilege and entire history of the little Carmelite scapular is connected with the name of St. Simon Stock. There is no difficulty in granting that Grossi's narrative, related above, and the Carmelite tradition are worthy of belief, even though they have not the full value of historical proof (see SCAPULAR). That Simon himself was distinguished by special veneration of and love for the Virgin is shown by the antiphonies “Flos Carmeli” and “Ave Stella Matutina”, which he wrote, and which have been adopted in the breviary of the Calced Carmelites. Besides these antiphonies other works have been incorrectly attributed to him. The first biographical accounts of Simon belong to the year 1430, but these are not entirely reliable. However, he was not at this time publicly venerated as a saint; it was not until 1435 that his feast was put in the choral book s of the monastery at Bordeaux. It was introduced before 1458 into Ireland and, probably at the same time, into England; by a decree of the General Chapter of 1564 its celebration was commanded for the entire order.

JOSEPH HILGERS

Simplicius, Faustinus, and Beatrice

Martyrs at Rome during the Diocletian persecution (302 or 303). The brothers Simplicius and Faustinus were cruelly tortured on account of their Christian faith, beaten with clubs, and finally beheaded; their bodies were thrown into the Tiber. According to another version of the legend a stone was tied to them and they were drowned. Their sister Beatrice had the bodies drawn out of the water and buried. Then for seven months she lived with a pious matron named Lucina, and with her aid Beatrice succoured the persecuted Christians by day and night. Finally she was discovered and arrested. Her accuser was her neighbor Lucretius who desired to obtain possession of her lands. She courageously asserted before the judge that she would never sacrifice to demons, because she was a Christian. As punishment, she was strangled in prison. Her friend Lucina buried her by her brothers in the cemetery ad Ursum Pileatum on the road to Porto. Soon after this Divine punishment overtook the accuser Lucretius. When Lucretius at a feast was making merry over the folly of the martyrs, an infant who had been brought to the entertainment by his mother, cried out, “Thou hast committed murder and hast taken unjust possession of land. Thou art a slave of the devil”. And the devil at once took possession of him and tortured him three hours and drew him down into the bottomless pit. The terror of those present was so great that they became Christians. This is the story of the legend. Trustworthy Acts concerning the history of the two brothers and sister are no longer in existence. Pope Leo II (683-683) translated their relics to a church which he had built at Rome in honour of St. Paul. Later the greater part of the relics of the martyrs were taken to the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore. St. Simplicius is represented with a pennant, on the shield of which are three lilies called the crest of Simplicius; the lilies are a symbol of purity of heart. St. Beatrice has a cord in her hand, because she was strangled. The feast of the three saints is on 29 July.

Acta SS., July, VII, 34-37; Bibliotheca hagiographica latina (Brussels, 1898-1900), 1127-28.

KLEMENS LOFFLER

Richard Simpson

Born 1820; died near Rome, 5 April, 1876. He was educated at Oriel College, Oxford, and took his B. A. degree, 9 February, 1843. Being ordained an Anglican clergyman, he was appointed vicar of Mitcham in Surrey, but resigned this in 1845 to become a Catholic. After some years spent on the continent, during which time he became remarkably proficient as a linguist, he returned to England and became editor of “The Rambler”. When this ceased in 1862 he, with Sir John Acton, began the “Home and Foreign Review”, which was opposed by ecclesiastical authority as unsound and was discontinued in 1864. Afterwards Simpson devoted himself to the study of Shakespeare and to music. His works are: “Invocation of Saints proved from the Bible alone” (1849); “The Lady Falkland: her life” (1861); “Edmund Campion” (1867), the most valuable of his works; “Introduction to the Philosophy of Shakespeare's Sonnets” (1868); “The School of Shakespeare” (1872); and “Sonnets of Shakespeare selected from a complete setting, and miscellaneous songs” (1878). Though he remained a practical Catholic his opinions were very liberal and he assisted Mr. Gladstone in writing his pamphlet on “Vaticanism”. His papers in “The Rambler” on the English martyrs deserve attention.

COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; WARD, Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman (London, 1897); GASQUET, Lord Acton and His Circle (London, 1906).

EDWIN BURTON

Sin

The subject is treated under these heads:
I. Nature of sin
II. Division
III. Mortal Sin
IV. Venial Sin
V. Permission and Remedies
VI. The Sense of Sin

I. NATURE OF SIN

Since sin is a moral evil, it is necessary in the first place to determine what is meant by evil, and in particular by moral evil. Evil is defined by St. Thomas (De malo, 2:2) as a privation of form or order or due measure. In the physical order a thing is good in proportion as it possesses being. God alone is essentially being, and He alone is essentially and perfectly good. Everything else possesses but a limited being, and, in so far as it possesses being, it is good. When it has its due proportion of form and order and measure it is, in its own order and degree, good. (See GOOD.) Evil implies a deficiency in perfection, hence it cannot exist in God who is essentially and by nature good; it is found only in finite beings which, because of their origin from nothing, are subject to the privation of form or order or measure due them, and, through the opposition they encounter, are liable to an increase or decrease of the perfection they have: “for evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals; whence arises, among human beings at least, the suffering in which life abounds” (see EVIL).

According to the nature of the perfection which it limits, evil is metaphysical, physical, or moral. Metaphysical evil is not evil properly so called; it is but the negation of a greater good, or the limitation of finite beings by other finite beings. Physical evil deprives the subject affected by it of some natural good, and is adverse to the well-being of the subject, as pain and suffering. Moral evil is found only in intelligent beings; it deprives them of some moral good. Here we have to deal with moral evil only. This may be defined as a privation of conformity to right reason and to the law of God. Since the morality of a human act consists in its agreement or non-agreement with right reason and the eternal law, an act is good or evil in the moral order according as it involves this agreement or non-agreement. When the intelligent creature, knowing God and His law, deliberately refuses to obey, moral evil results.

Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, “De malo”, 8:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Rom. 14:23). In every sinful act two things must be considered, the substance of the act and the want of rectitude or conformity (St. Thomas, I-II:72:1). The act is something positive. The sinner intends here and now to act in some determined matter, inordinately electing that particular good in defiance of God's law and the dictates of right reason. The deformity is not directly intended, nor is it involved in the act so far as this is physical, but in the act as coming from the will which has power over its acts and is capable of choosing this or that particular good contained within the scope of its adequate object, i.e. universal good (St. Thomas, “De malo”, Q. 3, a. 2, ad 2um). God, the first cause of all reality, is the cause of the physical act as such, the free-will of the deformity (St. Thomas I-II:84:2; “De malo”, 3:2). The evil act adequately considered has for its cause the free-will defectively electing some mutable good in place of the eternal good, God, and thus deviating from its true last end.

In every sin a privation of due order or conformity to the moral law is found, but sin is not a pure, or entire privation of all moral good (St. Thomas, “De malo”, 2:9; I-II:73:2). There is a twofold privation; one entire which leaves nothing of its opposite, as for instance, darkness which leaves no light; another, not entire, which leaves something of the good to which it is opposed, as for instance, disease which does not entirely destroy the even balance of the bodily functions necessary for health. A pure or entire privation of good could occur in a moral act only on the supposition that the will could incline to evil as such for an object. This is impossible because evil as such is not contained within the scope of the adequate object of the will, which is good. The sinner's intention terminates at some object in which there is a participation of God's goodness, and this object is directly intended by him. The privation of due order, or the deformity, is not directly intended, but is accepted in as much as the sinner's desire tends to an object in which this want of conformity is involved, so that sin is not a pure privation, but a human act deprived of its due rectitude. From the defect arises the evil of the act, from the fact that it is voluntary, its imputability.

II. DIVISION OF SIN

As regards the principle from which it proceeds sin is original or actual. The will of Adam acting as head of the human race for the conservation or loss of original justice is the cause and source of >original sin. Actual sin is committed by a free personal act of the individual will. It is divided into sins of commission and omission. A sin of commission is a positive act contrary to some prohibitory precept; a sin of omission is a failure to do what is commanded. A sin of omission, however, requires a positive act whereby one wills to omit the fulfilling of a precept, or at least wills something incompatible with its fulfillment (I-II:72:5). As regards their malice, sins are distinguished into sins of ignorance, passion or infirmity, and malice; as regards the activities involved, into sins of thought, word, or deed (cordis, oris, operis); as regards their gravity, into mortal and venial. This last named division is indeed the mo st important of all and it calls for special treatment. But before taking up the details, it will be useful to indicate some further distinctions which occur in theology or in general usage.

Material and Formal Sin

This distinction is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not.

Internal Sins

That sin may be committed not only by outward deeds but also by the inner activity of the mind apart from any external manifestation, is plain from the precept of the Decalogue: “Thou shalt not covet”, and from Christ's rebuke of the scribes and pharisees whom he likens to “whited sepulchres... full of all filthiness” (Matt. 23:27). Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. v), in declaring that all mortal sins must be confessed, makes special mention of those that are most secret and that violate only the last two precepts of the Decalogue, adding that they “sometimes more grievously wound the soul and are more dangerous than sins which are openly committed”. Three kinds of internal sin are usually distinguished:

• delectatio morosa, i.e. the pleasure taken in a sinful thought or imagination even without desiring it;
• gaudium, i.e. dwelling with complacency on sins already committed; and
• desiderium, i.e. the desire for what is sinful.

An efficacious desire, i.e. one that includes the deliberate intention to realize or gratify the desire, has the same malice, mortal or venial, as the action which it has in view. An inefficacious desire is one that carries a condition, in such a way that the will is prepared to perform the action in case the condition were verified. When the condition is such as to eliminate all sinfulness from the action, the desire involves no sin: e.g. I would gladly eat meat on Friday, if I had a dispensation; and in general this is the case whenever the action is forbidden by positive law only. When the action is contrary to natural law and yet is permissible in given circumstances or in a particular state of life, the desire, if it include those circumstances or that state as conditions, is not in itself sinful: e.g. I would kill so-and-so if I had to do it in self-defence. Usually, however, such desires are dangerous and therefore to be repressed. If, on the other hand, the condition does not remove the sinfulness of the action, the desire is also sinful. This is clearly the case where the action is intrinsically and absolutely evil, e.g. blasphemy: one cannot without committing sin, have the desire - I would blaspheme God if it were not wrong; the condition is an impossible one and therefore does not affect the desire itself. The pleasure taken in a sinful thought (delectatio, gaudium) is, generally speaking, a sin of the same kind and gravity as the action which is thought of. Much, however, depends on the motive for which one thinks of sinful actions. The pleasure, e.g. which one may experience in studying the nature of murder or any other crime, in getting clear ideas on the subject, tracing its causes, determining the guilt etc., is not a sin; on the contrary, it is often both necessary and useful. The case is different of course where the pleasure means gratification in the sinful object or action itself. And it is evidently a sin when one boasts of his evil deeds, the more so because of the scandal that is given.

The Capital Sins or Vices

According to St. Thomas (II-II:153:4) “a capital vice is that which has an exceedingly desirable end so that in his desire for it a man goes on to the commission of many sins all of which are said to originate in that vice as their chief source”. It is not then the gravity of the vice in itself that makes it capital but rather the fact that it gives rise to many other sins. These are enumerated by St. Thomas (I-II:134:4) as vainglory (pride), avarice, gluttony, lust, sloth, envy, anger. St. Bonaventure (Brevil., III, ix) gives the same enumeration. Earlier writers had distinguished eight capital sins: so St. Cyprian (De mort., iv); Cassian (De instit. cænob., v, coll. 5, de octo principalibus vitiis); Columbanus (“Instr. de octo vitiis princip.” in “Bibl. max. vet. patr.”, XII, 23); Alcuin (De virtut. et vitiis, xxvii sqq.). The number seven, however, had been given by St. Gregory the Great (Lib. mor. in Job. XXXI, xvii), and it was retained by the foremost theologians of the Middle Ages.

It is to be noted that “sin” is not predicated univocally of all kinds of sin. “The division of sin into venial and mortal is not a division of genus into species which participate equally the nature of the genus, but the division of an analogue into things of which it is predicated primarily and secondarily” (St. Thomas, I-II:138:1, ad 1um). “Sin is not predicated univocally of all kinds of sin, but primarily of actual mortal sin ... and therefore it is not necessary that the definition of sin in general should be verified except in that sin in which the nature of the genus is found perfectly. The definition of sin may be verified in other sins in a certain sense” (St. Thomas, II, d. 33, Q. i, a. 2, ad 2um). Actual sin primarily consists in a voluntary act repugnant to the order of right reason. The act passes, but the soul of the sinner remains stained, deprived of grace, in a state of sin, until the disturbance of order has been restored by penance. This state is called habitual sin, macula peccati. reatus culpæ (I-II:137:6).

The division of sin into original and actual, mortal and venial, is not a division of genus into species because sin has not the same signification when applied to original and personal sin, mortal and venial. Mortal sin cuts us off entirely from our true last end; venial sin only impedes us in its attainment. Actual personal sin is voluntary by a proper act of the will. Original sin is voluntary not by a personal voluntary act of ours, but by an act of the will of Adam. Original and actual sin are distinguished by the manner in which they are voluntary (ex parte actus); mortal and venial sin by the way in which they affect our relation to God (ex parte deordinationis). Since a voluntary act and its disorder are of the essence of sin, it is impossible that sin should be a generic term in respect to original and actual, mortal and venial sin. The true nature of sin is found perfectly only in a personal mortal sin, in other sins imperfectly, so that sin is predicated primarily of actual sin, only secondarily of the others. Therefore we shall consider: first, personal mortal sin; second, venial sin.

III. MORTAL SIN

Mortal sin is defined by St. Augustine (Contra Faustum, XXII, xxvii) as “Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam”, i.e. something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law. This is a definition of sin as it is a voluntary act. As it is a defect or privation it may be defined as an aversion from God, our true last end, by reason of the preference given to some mutable good. The definition of St. Augustine is accepted generally by theologians and is primarily a definition of actual mortal sin. It explains well the material and formal elements of sin. The words “dictum vel factum vel concupitum” denote the material element of sin, a human act: “contra legem æternam”, the formal element. The act is bad because it transgresses the Divine law. St. Ambrose (De paradiso, viii) defines sin as a “prevarication of the Divine law”. The definition of St. Augustine strictly considered, i.e. as sin averts us from our true ultimate end, does not comprehend venial sin, but in as much as venial sin is in a manner contrary to the Divine law, although not averting us from our last end, it may be said to be included in the definition as it stands. While primarily a definition of sins of commission, sins of omission may be included in the definition because they presuppose some positive act (St. Thomas, I-II:71:5) and negation and affirmation are reduced to the same genus. Sins that violate the human or the natural law are also included, for what is contrary to the human or natural law is also contrary to the Divine law, in as much as every just human law is derived from the Divine law, and is not just unless it is in conformity with the Divine law.

Biblical Description of Sin

In the Old Testament sin is set forth as an act of disobedience (Gen., ii, 16-17; iii, 11; Is., i, 2-4; Jer., ii, 32); as an insult to God (Num., xxvii, 14); as something detested and punished by God (Gen., iii, 14-19; Gen., iv, 9-16); as injurious to the sinner (Tob., xii, 10); to be expiated by penance (Ps. 1, 19). In the New Testament it is clearly taught in St. Paul that sin is a transgression of the law (Rom., ii, 23; v, 12-20); a servitude from which we are liberated by grace (Rom., vi, 16-18); a disobedience (Heb., ii, 2) punished by God (Heb., x, 26-31). St. John describes sin as an offence to God, a disorder of the will (John, xii, 43), an iniquity (I John, iii, 4-10). Christ in many of His utterances teaches the nature and extent of sin. He came to promulgate a new law more perfect than the old, which would extend to the ordering not only of external but also of internal acts to a degree unknown before, and, in His Sermon on the Mount, he condemns as sinful many acts which were judged honest and righteous by the doctors and teachers of the Old Law. He denounces in a special manner hypocrisy and scandal, infidelity and the sin against the Holy Ghost. In particular He teaches that sins come from the heart (Matt., xv, 19-20).

Systems Which Deny Sin or Distort its True Notion

All systems, religious and ethical, which either deny, on the one hand, the existence of a personal creator and lawgiver distinct from and superior to his creation, or, on the other, the existence of free will and responsibility in man, distort or destroy the true biblico-theological notion of sin. In the beginning of the Christian era the Gnostics, although their doctrines varied in details, denied the existence of a personal creator. The idea of sin in the Catholic sense is not contained in their system. There is no sin for them, unless it be the sin of ignorance, no necessity for an atonement; Jesus is not God (see GNOSTICISM). Manichaeism (q.v.) with its two eternal principles, good and evil, at perpetual war with each other, is also destructive of the true notion of sin. All evil, and consequently sin, is from the principle of evil. The Christian concept of God as a lawgiver is destroyed. Sin is not a conscious voluntary act of disobedience to the Divine will. Pantheistic systems which deny the distinction between God and His creation make sin impossible. If man and God are one, man is not responsible to anyone for his acts, morality is destroyed. If he is his own rule of action, he cannot deviate from right as St. Thomas teaches (I:63:1). The identification of God and the world by Pantheism (q.v.) leaves no place for sin.

There must be some law to which man is subject, superior to and distinct from him, which can be obeyed and transgressed, before sin can enter into his acts. This law must be the mandate of a superior, because the notions of superiority and subjection are correlative. This superior can be only God, who alone is the author and lord of man. Materialism, denying as it does the spirituality and the immortality of the soul, the existence of any spirit whatsoever, and consequently of God, does not admit sin. There is no free will, everything is determined by the inflexible laws of motion. “Virtue” and “vice” are meaningless qualifications of action. Positivism places man's last end in some sensible good. His supreme law of action is to seek the maximum of pleasure. Egotism or altruism is the supreme norm and criterion of the Positivistic systems, not the eternal law of God as revealed by Him, and dictated by conscience. For the materialistic evolutionists man is but a highly-developed animal, conscience a product of evolution. Evolution has revolutionized morality, sin is no more.

Kant in his “Critique of Pure Reason” having rejected all the essential notions of true morality, namely, liberty, the soul, God and a future life, attempted in his “Critique of the Practical Reason” to restore them in the measure in which they are necessary for morality. The practical reason, he tells us, imposes on us the idea of law and duty. The fundamental principle of the morality of Kant is “duty for duty's sake”, not God and His law. Duty cannot be conceived of alone as an independent thing. It carries with it certain postulates, the first of which is liberty. “I ought, therefore I can”, is his doctrine. Man by virtue of his practical reason has a consciousness of moral obligation (categorical imperative). This consciousness supposes three things: free will, the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, otherwise man would not be capable of fulfilling his obligations, there would be no sufficient sanction for the Divine law, no reward or punishment in a future life. Kant's moral system labours in obscurities and contradictions and is destructive of much that pertains to the teaching of Christ. Personal dignity is the supreme rule of man's actions. The notion of sin as opposed to God is suppressed. According to the teaching of materialistic Monism, now so widespread, there is, and can be, no free will. According to this doctrine but one thing exists and this one being produces all phenomena, thought included; we are but puppets in its hands, carried hither an thither as it wills, and finally are cast back into nothingness. There is no place for good and evil, a free observance or a wilful transgression of law, in such a system. Sin in the true sense is impossible. Without law and liberty and a personal God there is no sin.

That God exists and can be known from His visible creation, that He has revealed the decrees of His eternal will to man, and is distinct from His creatures (Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion”, nn. 178 2, 1785, 1701), are matters of Catholic faith and teaching. Man is a created being endowed with free will (ibid., 793), which fact can be proved from Scripture and reason (ibid., 1041-1650). The Council of Trent declares in Sess. VI, c. i (ibid., 793) that man by reason of the prevarication of Adam has lost his primeval innocence, and that while free will remains, its powers are lessened (see ORIGINAL SIN).

Protestant Errors

Luther and Calvin taught as their fundamental error that no free will properly so called remained in man after the fall of our first parents; that the fulfillment of God's precepts is impossible even with the assistance of grace, and that man in all his actions sins. Grace is not an interior gift, but something external. To some sin is not imputed, because they are covered as with a cloak by the merits of Christ. Faith alone saves, there is no necessity for good works. Sin in Luther's doctrine cannot be a deliberate transgression of the Divine law. Jansenius, in his “Augustinus”, taught that according to the present powers of man some of God's precepts are impossible of fulfilment, even to the just who strive to fulfil them, and he further taught that grace by means of which the fulfilment becomes possible is wanting even to the just. His fundamental error consists in teaching that the will is not free but is necessarily drawn either by concupiscence or grace. Internal liberty is not required for merit or demerit. Liberty from coercion suffices. Christ did not die for all men. Baius taught a semi-Lutheran doctrine. Liberty is not entirely destroyed, but is so weakened that without grace it can do nothing but sin. True liberty is not required for sin. A bad act committed involuntarily renders man responsible (propositions 50-51 in Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion”, nn. 1050-1). All acts done without charity are mortal sins and merit damnation because they proceed from concupiscence. This doctrine denies that sin is a voluntary transgression of Divine law. If man is not free, a precept is meaningless as far as he is concerned.

Philosophical Sin

Those who would construct a moral system independent of God and His law distinguish between theological and philosophical sin. Philosophical sin is a morally bad act which violates the natural order of reason, not the Divine law. Theological sin is a transgression of the eternal law. Those who are of atheistic tendencies and contend for this distinction, either deny the existence of God or maintain that He exercises no providence in regard to human acts. This position is destructive of sin in the theological sense, as God and His law, reward and punishment, are done away with. Those who admit the existence of God, His law, human liberty and responsibility, and still contend for a distinction between philosophical and theological sin, maintain that in the present order of God's providence there are morally bad acts, which, while violating the order of reason, are not offensive to God, and they base their contention on this that the sinner can be ignorant of the existence of God, or not actually think of Him and His law when he acts. Without the knowledge of God and consideration of Him, it is impossible to offend Him. This doctrine was censured as scandalous, temerarious, and erroneous by Alexander VIII (24 Aug., 1690) in his condemnation of the following proposition: “Philosophical or moral sin is a human act not in agreement with rational nature and right reason, theological and mortal sin is a free transgession of the Divine law. However grievous it may be, philosophical sin in one who is either ignorant of God or does not actually think of God, is indeed a grievous sin, but not an offense to God, nor a mortal sin dissolving friendship with God, nor worthy of eternal punishment” (Denzinger-Bannwart, 1290).

This proposition is condemned because it does not distinguish between vincible and invincible ignorance, and further supposes invincible ignorance of God to be sufficiently common, instead of only metaphysically possible, and because in the present dispensation of God's providence we are clearly taught in Scripture that God will punish all evil coming from the free will of man (Rom., ii, 5-11). There is no morally bad act that does not include a transgression of Divine law. From the fact that an action is conceived of as morally evil it is conceived of as prohibited. A prohibition is unintelligible without the notion of some one prohibiting. The one prohibiting in this case and binding the conscience of man can be only God, Who alone has power over man's free will and actions, so that from the fact that any act is perceived to be morally bad and prohibited by conscience, God and His law are perceived at least confusedly, and a wilful transgression of the dictate of conscience is necessarily also a transgression of God's law. Cardinal de Lugo (De incarnat., disp. 5, lect. 3) admits the possibility of philosophical sin in those who are inculpably ignorant of God, but he holds that it does not actually occur, because in the present order of God's providence there cannot be invincible ignorance of God and His law. This teaching does not necessarily fall under the condemnation of Alexander VIII, but it is commonly rejected by theologians for the reason that a dictate of conscience necessarily involves a knowledge of the Divine law as a principle of morality.

Conditions of Mortal Sin: Knowledge, Free Will, Grave Matter

Contrary to the teaching of Baius (prop. 46, Denzinger-Bannwart, 1046) and the Reformers, a sin must be a voluntary act. Those actions alone are properly called human or moral actions which proceed from the human will deliberately acting with knowledge of the end for which it acts. Man differs from all irrational creatures in this precisely that he is master of his actions by virtue of his reason and free will (I-II:1:1). Since sin is a human act wanting in due rectitude, it must have, in so far as it is a human act, the essential constituents of a human act. The intellect must perceive and judge of the morality of the act, and the will must freely elect. For a deliberate mortal sin there must be full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will in a grave matter. An involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin. The gravity of the matter is judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of councils and popes, and also from reason. Those sins are judged to be mortal which contain in themselves some grave disorder in regard to God, our neighbour, ourselves, or society. Some sins admit of no lightness of matter, as for example, blasphemy, hatred of God; they are always mortal (ex toto genere suo), unless rendered venial by want of full advertence on the part of the intellect or full consent on the part of the will. Other sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft.

Imputability

That the act of the sinner may be imputed to him it is not necessary that the object which terminates and specifies his act should be directly willed as an ends or means. It suffices that it be willed indirectly or in its cause, i.e. if the sinner foresees, at least confusedly, that it will follow from the act which he freely performs or from his omission of an act. When the cause produces a twofold effect, one of which is directly willed, the other indirectly, the effect which follows indirectly is morally imputable to the sinner when these three conditions are verified:

• first, the sinner must foresee at least confusedly the evil effects which follow on the cause he places;
• second, he must be able to refrain from placing the cause;
• third, he must be under the obligation of preventing the evil effect.

Error and ignorance in regard to the object or circumstances of the act to be placed, affect the judgment of the intellect and consequently the morality and imputability of the act. Invincible ignorance excuses entirely from sin. Vincible ignorance does not, although it renders the act less free (see IGNORANCE). The passions, while they disturb the judgment of the intellect, more directly affect the will. Antecedent passion increases the intensity of the act, the object is more intensely desired, although less freely, and the distrubance caused by the passions may be so great as to render a free judgment impossible, the agent being for the moment beside himself (I-II:6:7, ad 3um). Consequent passion, which arises from a command of the will, does not lessen liberty, but is rather a sign of an intense act of volition. Fear, violence, heredity, temperament and pathological states, in so far as they affect free volition, affect the malice and imputability of sin. From the condemnation of the errors of Baius and Jansenius (Denz.-Bann., 1046, 1066, 1094, 1291-2) it is clear that for an actual personal sin a knowledge of the law and a personal voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.

Malice

The true malice of mortal sin consists in a conscious and voluntary transgression of the eternal law, and implies a contempt of the Divine will, a complete turning away from God, our true last end, and a preferring of some created thing to which we subject ourselves. It is an offence offered to God, and an injury done Him; not that it effects any change in God, who is immutable by nature, but that the sinner by his act deprives God of the reverence and honor due Him: it is not any lack of malice on the sinner's part, but God's immutability that prevents Him from suffering. As an offence offered to God mortal sin is in a way infinite in its malice, since it is directed against an infinite being, and the gravity of the offence is measured by the dignity of the one offended (St. Thomas, III:1:2, ad 2um). As an act sin is finite, the will of man not being capable of infinite malice. Sin is an offence against Christ Who has redeemed man (Phil., iii, 18); against the Holy Ghost Who sanctifies us (Heb., x, 29), an injury to man himself, causing the spiritual death of the soul, and making man the servant of the devil. The first and primary malice of sin is derived from the object to which the will inordinately tends, and from the object considered morally, not physically. The end for which the sinner acts and the circumstances which surround the act are also determining factors of its morality. An act which, objectively considered, is morally indifferent, may be rendered good or evil by circumstances, or by the intention of the sinner. An act that is good objectively may be rendered bad, or a new species of good or evil may be added, or a new degree. Circumstances can change the character of a sin to such a degree that it becomes specifically different from what it is objectively considered; or they may merely aggravate the sin while not changing its specific character; or they may lessen its gravity. That they may exercise this determining influence two things are necessary: they must contain in themselves some good or evil, and must be apprehended, at least confusedly, in their moral aspect. The external act, in so far as it is a mere execution of a voluntary efficacious internal act, does not, according to the common Thomistic opinion, add any essential goodness or malice to the internal sin.

Gravity

While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John, xix, 11; Matt., xi, 22; Luke, vi), and also from reason. Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, “De malo”, Q. ii, a. 9; I-II, Q. lxxiii, a. 5).

Specific and numeric distinction of Sin

Sins are distinguished specifically by their formally diverse objects; or from their opposition to different virtues, or to morally different precepts of the same virtue. Sins that are specifically distinct are also numerically distinct. Sins within the same species are distinguished numerically according to the number of complete acts of the will in regard to total objects. A total object is one which, either in itself or by the intention of the sinner, forms a complete whole and is not referred to another action as a part of the whole. When the completed acts of the will relate to the same object there are as many sins as there are morally interrupted acts.

Subject causes of Sin

Since sin is a voluntary act lacking in due rectitude, sin is found, as in a subject, principally in the will. But, since not only acts elicited by the will are voluntary, but also those that are elicited by other faculties at the command of the will, sin may be found in these faculties in so far as they are subject in their actions to the command of the will, and are instruments of the will, and move under its guidance (I-II, Q. lxxiv).

The external members of the body cannot be effective principles of sin (I-II, Q. lxxiv, a. 2, ad 3um). They are mere organs which are set in activity by the soul; they do not initiate action. The appetitive powers on the contrary can be effective principles of sin, for they possess, through their immediate conjunction with the will and their subordination to it, a certain though imperfect liberty (I-II, Q. lvi, a. 4, ad 3um). The sensual appetites have their own proper sensible objects to which they naturally incline, and since original sin has broken the bond which held them in complete subjection to the will, they may antecede the will in their actions and tend to their own proper objects inordinately. Hence they may be proximate principles of sin when they move inordinately contrary to the dictates of right reason.

It is the right of reason to rule the lower faculties, and when the disturbance arises in the sensual part the reason may do one of two things: it may either consent to the sensible delectation or it may repress and reject it. If it consents, the sin is no longer one of the sensual part of man, but of the intellect and will, and consequently, if the matter is grave, mortal. If rejected, no sin can be imputed. There can be no sin in the sensual part of man independently of the will. The inordinate motions of the sensual appetite which precede the advertence of reason, or which are suffered unwillingly, are not even venial sins. The temptations of the flesh not consented to are not sins. Concupiscence, which remains after the guilt of original sin is remitted in baptism, is not sinful so long as consent is not given to it (Coun. of Trent, sess. V, can. v). The sensual appetite of itself cannot be the subject of mortal sin, for the reason that it can neither grasp the notion of God as an ultimate end, nor avert us from Him, without which aversion there cannot be mortal sin. The superior reason, whose office it is to occupy itself with Divine things, may be the proximate principle of sin both in regard to its own proper act, to know truth, and as it is directive of the inferior faculties: in regard to its own proper act, in so far as it voluntarily neglects to know what it can and ought to know; in regard to the act by which it directs the inferior faculties, to the extent that it commands inordinate acts or fails to repress them (I-II, Q. lxxiv, a. 7, ad 2um).

The will never consents to a sin that is not at the same time a sin of the superior reason as directing badly, by either actually deliberating and commanding the consent, or by failing to deliberate and impede the consent of the will when it could and should do so. The superior reason is the ultimate judge of human acts and has an obligation of deliberating and deciding whether the act to be performed is according to the law of God. Venial sin may also be found in the superior reason when it deliberately consents to sins that are venial in their nature, or when there is not a full consent in the case of a sin that is mortal considered objectively.

Causes of Sin

Under this head, it is needful to distinguish between the efficient cause, i.e. the agent performing the sinful action, and those other agencies, influences or circumstances, which incite to sin and consequently involve a danger, more or less grave, for one who is exposed to them. These inciting causes are explained in special articles on OCCASIONS OF SIN and TEMPTATION. Here we have to consider only the efficient cause or causes of sin. These are interior and exterior. The complete and sufficient cause of sin is the will, which is regulated in its actions by the reason, and acted upon by the sensitive appetites. The principal interior causes of sin are ignorance, infirmity or passion, and malice. Ignorance on the part of the reason, infirmity and passion on the part of the sensitive appetite, and malice on the part of the will. A sin is from certain malice when the will sins of its own accord and not under the influence of ignorance or passion.

The exterior causes of sin are the devil and man, who move to sin by means of suggestion, persuasion, temptation and bad example. God is not the cause of sin (Counc. of Trent, sess. VI, can. vi, in Denz.-Bann., 816). He directs all things to Himself and is the end of all His actions, and could not be the cause of evil without self-contradiction. Of whatever entity there is in sin as an action, He is the cause. The evil will is the cause of the disorder (I-II, Q. lxxix, a. 2). One sin may be the cause of another inasmuch as one sin may be ordained to another as an end. The seven capital sins, so called, may be considered as the source from which other sins proceed. They are sinful propensities which reveal themselves in particular sinful acts. Original sin by reason of its dire effects is the cause and source of sin in so far as by reason of it our natures are left wounded and inclined to evil. Ignorance, infirmity, malice, and concupiscence are the consequences of original sin.

Effects of Sin

The first effect of mortal sin in man is to avert him from his true last end, and deprive his soul of sanctifying grace. The sinful act passes, and the sinner is left in a state of habitual aversion from God. The sinful state is voluntary and imputable to the sinner, because it necessarily follows from the act of sin he freely placed, and it remains until satisfaction is made (see PENANCE). This state of sin is called by theologians habitual sin, not in the sense that habitual sin implies a vicious habit, but in the sense that it signifies a state of aversion from God depending on the preceding actual sin, consequently voluntary and imputable. This state of aversion carries with it necessarily in the present order of God's providence the privation of grace and charity by means of which man is ordered to his supernatural end. The privation of grace is the “macula peccati” (St. Thomas, I-II, Q. lxxxvi), the stain of sin spoken of in Scripture (Jos., xxii, 17; Isaias, iv, 4; 1 Cor., vi, 11). It is not anything positive, a quality or disposition, an obligation to suffer, an extrinsic denomination coming from sin, but is solely the privation of sanctifying grace. There is not a real but only a conceptual distinction between habitual sin (reatus culpæ) and the stain of sin (macula peccati). One and the same privation considered as destroying the due order of man to God is habitual sin, considered as depriving the soul of the beauty of grace is the stain or “macula” of sin.

The second effect of sin is to entail the penalty of undergoing suffering (reatus pænæ). Sin (reatus culpæ) is the cause of this obligation (reatus pænæ ). The suffering may be inflicted in this life through the medium of medicinal punishments, calamities, sickness, temporal evils, which tend to withdraw from sin; or it may be inflicted in the life to come by the justice of God as vindictive punishment. The punishments of the future life are proportioned to the sin committed, and it is the obligation of undergoing this punishment for unrepented sin that is signified by the “reatus poenæ” of the theologians. The penalty to be undergone in the future life is divided into the pain of loss (pæna damni) and the pain of sense (pæna sensus). The pain of loss is the privation of the beatific vision of God in punishment of turning away from Him. The pain of sense is suffering in punishment of the conversion to some created thing in place of God. This two-fold pain in punishment of mortal sin is eternal (I Cor., vi, 9; Matt., xxv, 41; Mark, ix, 45). One mortal sin suffices to incur punishment. (See HELL.) Other effects of sins are: remorse of conscience (Wisdom, v, 2-13); an inclination towards evil, as habits are formed by a repetition of similar acts; a darkening of the intelligence, a hardening of the will (Matt., xiii, 14-15; Rom., xi, 8); a general vitiating of nature, which does not however totally destroy the substance and faculties of the soul but merely weakens the right exercise of its faculties.

IV. VENIAL SIN

Venial sin is essentially different from mortal sin. It does not avert us from our true last end, it does not destroy charity, the principle of union with God, nor deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, and it is intrinsically reparable. It is called venial precisely because, considered in its own proper nature, it is pardonable; in itself meriting, not eternal, but temporal punishment. It is distinguished from mortal sin on the part of the disorder. By mortal sin man is entirely averted from God, his true last end, and, at least implicitly, he places his last end in some created thing. By venial sin he is not averted from God, neither does he place his last end in creatures. He remains united with God by charity, but does not tend towards Him as he ought. The true nature of sin as it is contrary to the eternal law, repugnant namely to the primary end of the law, is found only in mortal sin. Venial sin is only in an imperfect way contrary to the law, since it is not contrary to the primary end of the law, nor does it avert man from the end intended by the law. (St. Thomas, I-II, Q. lxxxviii, a. 1; and Cajetan, I-II, Q. lxxxviii, a. 1, for the sense of the præter legem and contra legem of St. Thomas).

Definition

Since a voluntary act and its disorder are of the essence of sin, venial sin as it is a voluntary act may be defined as a thought, word or deed at variance with the law of God. It retards man in the attainment of his last end while not averting him from it. Its disorder consists either in the not fully deliberate choosing of some object prohibited by the law of God, or in the deliberate adhesion to some created object not as an ultimate end but as a medium, which object does not avert the sinner from God, but is not, however, referable to Him as an end. Man cannot be averted from God except by deliberately placing his last end in some created thing, and in venial sin he does not adhere to any temporal good, enjoying it as a last end, but as a medium referring it to God not actually but habitually inasmuch as he himself is ordered to God by charity. “Ille qui peccat venialiter, inhæret bono temporali non ut fruens, quia non constituit in eo finem, sed ut utens, referens in Deum no n actu sed habitu” (I-II, Q. lxxxviii, a. 1, ad 3). For a mortal sin, some created good must be adhered to as a last end at least implicitly. This adherence cannot be accomplished by a semi-deliberate act. By adhering to an object that is at variance with the law of God and yet not destructive of the primary end of the Divine law, a true opposition is not set up between God and that object. The created good is not desired as an end. The sinner is not placed in the position of choosing between God and creature as ultimate ends that are opposed, but is in such a condition of mind that if the object to which he adheres were prohibited as contrary to his true last end he would not adhere to it, but would prefer to keep friendship with God. An example may be had in human friendship. A friend will refrain from doing anything that of itself will tend directly to dissolve friendship while allowing himself at times to do what is displeasing to his friends without destroying friendship.

The distinction between mortal and venial sin is set forth in Scripture. From St. John (I John, v, 16-17) it is clear there are some sins “unto death” and some sins not “unto death”, i.e. mortal and venial. The classic text for the distinction of mortal and venial sin is that of St. Paul (I Cor., iii, 8-15), where he explains in detail the distinction between mortal and venial sin. “For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it; because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” By wood, hay, and stubble are signified venial sins (St. Thomas, I-II:89:2) which, built on the foundation of a living faith in Christ, do not destroy charity, and from their very nature do not merit eternal but temporal punishment. “Just as”, says St. Thomas, [wood, hay, and stubble] “are gathered together in a house and do not pertain to the substance of the edifice, so also venial sins are multiplied in man, the spiritual edifice remaining, and for these he suffers either the fire of temporal tribulations in this life, or of purgatory after this life and nevertheless obtains eternal salvation.” (ibid.)

The suitableness of the division into wood, hay, and stubble is explained by St. Thomas (iv, dist. 21, Q. i, a. 2). Some venial sins are graver than others and less pardonable, and this difference is well signified by the difference in the inflammability of wood, hay, and stubble. That there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins is of faith (Counc. of Trent, sess. VI, c. xi and canons 23-25; sess. XIV, de poenit., c. v). This distinction is commonly rejected by all heretics ancient and modern. In the fourth century Jovinian asserted that all sins are equal in guilt and deserving of the same punishment (St. Aug., “Ep. 167”, ii, n. 4); Pelagius (q.v.), that every sin deprives man of justice and therefore is mortal; Wyclif, that there is no warrant in Scripture for differentiating mortal from venial sin, and that the gravity of sin depends not on the quality of the action but on the decree of predestination or reprobation so that the worst crime of the predestined is infinitely less than the slightest fault of the reprobate; Hus, that all the actions of the vicious are mortal sins, while all the acts of the good are virtuous (Denz.-Bann., 642); Luther, that all sins of unbelievers are mortal and all sins of the regenerate, with the exception of infidelity, are venial; Calvin, like Wyclif, bases the difference between mortal sin and venial sin on predestination, but adds that a sin is venial because of the faith of the sinner. The twentieth among the condemned propositions of Baius reads: “There is no sin venial in its nature, but every sin merits eternal punishment” (Denz.-Bann., 1020). Hirscher in more recent times taught that all sins which are fully deliberate are mortal, thus denying the distinction of sins by reason of their objects and making the distinction rest on the imperfection of the act (Kleutgen, 2nd ed., II, 284, etc.).

Malice of Venial Sin

The difference in the malice of mortal and venial sin consists in this: that mortal sin is contrary to the primary end of the eternal law, that it attacks the very substance of the law which commands that no created thing should be preferred to God as an end, or equalled to Him, while venial sin is only at variance with the law, not in contrary opposition to it, not attacking its substance. The substance of the law remaining, its perfect accomplishment is prevented by venial sin.

Conditions

Venial sin is committed when the matter of the sin is light, even though the advertence of the intellect and consent of the will are full and deliberate, and when, even though the matter of the sin be grave, there is not full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will. A precept obliges sub gravi when it has for its object an important end to be attained, and its transgression is prohibited under penalty of losing God's friendship. A precept obliges sub levi when it is not so directly imposed.

Effects

Venial sin does not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, or diminish it. It does not produce a macula, or stain, as does mortal sin, but it lessens the lustre of virtue — “In anima duplex est nitor, unus quiden habitualis, ex gratia sanctificante, alter actualis ex actibus virtutem, jamvero peccatum veniale impedit quidem fulgorem qui ex actibus virtutum oritur, non autem habitualem nitorem, quia non excludit nec minuit habitum charitatis” (I-II, Q. lxxxix, a. 1). Frequent and deliberate venial sin lessens the fervour of charity, disposes to mortal sin (I-II, Q. lxxxviii, a. 3), and hinders the reception of graces God would otherwise give. It displeases God (Apoc., ii, 4-5) and obliges the sinner to temporal punishment either in this life or in Purgatory. We cannot avoid all venial sin in this life. “Although the most just and holy occasionally during this life fall into some slight and daily sins, known as venial, they cease not on that account to be just” (Counc. of Trent, sess. VI, c. xi). And canon xxiii says: “If any one declare that a man once justified cannot sin again, or that he can avoid for the rest of his life every sin, even venial, let him be anathema”, but according to the common opinion we can avoid all such as are fully deliberate. Venial sin may coexist with mortal sin in those who are averted from God by mortal sin. This fact does not change its nature or intrinsic reparability, and the fact that it is not coexistent with charity is not the result of venial sin, but of mortal sin. It is per accidens, for an extrinsic reason, that venial sin in this case is irreparable, and is punished in hell. That venial sin may appear in its true nature as essentially different from mortal sin it is considered as de facto coexisting with charity (I Cor., iii, 8-15). Venial sins do not need the grace of absolution. They can be remitted by prayer, contrition, fervent communion, and other pious works. Nevertheless it is laudable to confess them (Denz.-Bann., 1539).

V. PERMISSION OF SIN AND REMEDIES.

Since it is of faith that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all good it is difficult to account for sin in His creation. The existence of evil is the underlying problem in all theology. Various explanations to account for its existence have been offered, differing according to the philosophical principles and religious tenets of their authors. Any Catholic explanation must take into account the defined truths of the omnipotence, omniscience, and goodness of God; free will on the part of man; and the fact that suffering is the penalty of sin. Of metaphysical evil, the negation of a greater good, God is the cause inasmuch as he has created beings with limited forms. Of physical evil (malum pænæ) He is also the cause. Physical evil, considered as it proceeds from God and is inflicted in punishment of sin in accordance with the decrees of Divine justice, is good, compensating for the violation of order by sin. It is only in the subject affected by it that it is evil.

Of moral evil (malum culpæ) God is not the cause (Counc. of Trent, sess. VI, can. vi), either directly or indirectly. Sin is a violation of order, and God orders all things to Himself, as an ultimate end, consequently He cannot be the direct cause of sin. God's withdrawal of grace which would prevent the sin does not make Him the indirect cause of sin inasmuch as this withdrawal is affected according to the decrees of His Divine wisdom and justice in punishment of previous sin. He is under no obligation of impeding the sin, consequently it cannot be imputed to Him as a cause (I-II:79:1). When we read in Scripture and the Fathers that God inclines men to sin the sense is, either that in His just judgment He permits men to fall into sin by a punitive permission, exercising His justice in punishment of past sin; or that He directly causes, not sin, but certain exterior works, good in themselves, which are so abused by the evils wills of men that here and now they commit evil; or that He gives them the power of accomplishing their evil designs. Of the physical act in sin God is the cause inasmuch as it is an entity and good. Of the malice of sin man's evil will is the sufficient cause. God could not be impeded in the creation of man by the fact that He foresaw his fall. This would mean the limiting of His omnipotence by a creature, and would be destructive of Him. He was free to create man even though He foresaw his fall, and He created him, endowed him with free will, and gave him sufficient means of persevering in good had he so willed. We must sum up our ignorance of the permission of evil by saying in the words of St. Augustine, that God would not have permitted evil had He not been powerful enough to bring good out of evil. God's end in creating this universe is Himself, not the good of man, and somehow or other good and evil serve His ends, and there shall finally be a restoration of violated order by Divine justice. No sin shall be without its punishment. The evil men do must be atoned for either in this world by penance (see PENANCE) or in the world to come in purgatory or hell, according as the sin that stains the soul, and is not repented of, is mortal or venial, and merits eternal or temporal punishment. (See EVIL.) God has provided a remedy for sin and manifested His love and goodness in the face of man's ingratitude by the Incarnation of His Divine Son (see INCARNATION); by the institution of His Church to guide men and interpret to them His law, and administer to them the sacraments, seven channels of grace, which, rightly used, furnish an adequate remedy for sin and a means to union with God in heaven, which is the end of His law.

VI. SENSE OF SIN.

The understanding of sin, as far as it can be understood by our finite intelligence, serves to unite man more closely to God. It impresses him with a salutary fear, a fear of his own powers, a fear, if left to himself, of falling from grace; with the necessity he lies under of seeking God's help and grace to stand firm in the fear and love of God, and make progress in the spiritual life. Without the acknowledgment that the present moral state of man is not that in which God created him, that his powers are weakened; that he has a supernatural end to attain, which is impossible of attainment by his own unaided efforts, without grace there being no proportion between the end and the means; that the world, the flesh, and the devil are in reality active agents fighting against him and leading him to serve them instead of God, sin cannot be understood. The evolutionary hypothesis would have it that physical evolution accounts for the physical origin of man, that science knows no condition of man in which man exhibited the characteristics of the state of original justice, no state of sinlessness. The fall of man in this hypothesis is in reality a rise to a higher grade of being. “A fall it might seem, just as a vicious man sometimes seems degraded below the beasts, but in promise and potency, a rise it really was” (Sir O. Lodge, “Life and Matter”, p. 79). This teaching is destructive of the notion of sin as taught by the Catholic Church. Sin is not a phase of an upward struggle, it is rather a deliberate, wilful refusal to struggle. If there has been no fall from a higher to a lower state, then the teaching of Scripture in regard to Redemption and the necessity of a baptismal regeneration is unintelligible. The Catholic teaching is the one that places sin in its true light, that justifies the condemnation of sin we find in Scripture.

The Church strives continually to impress her children with a sense of the awfulness of sin that they may fear it and avoid it. We are fallen creatures, and our spiritual life on earth is a warfare. Sin is our enemy, and while of our own strength we cannot avoid sin, with God's grace we can. If we but place no obstacle to the workings of grace we can avoid all deliberate sin. If we have the misfortune to sin, and seek God's grace and pardon with a contrite and humble heart, He will not repel us. Sin has its remedy in grace, which is given us by God, through the merits of His only-begotten Son, Who has redeemed us, restoring by His passion and death the order violated by the sin of our first parents, and making us once again children of God and heirs of heaven. Where sin is looked on as a necessary and unavoidable condition of things human, where inability to avoid sin is conceived as necessary, discouragement naturally follows. Where the Catholic doctrine of the creation of man in a superior state, his fall by a wilful transgression, the effects of which fall are by Divine decree transmitted to his posterity, destroying the balance of the human faculties and leaving man inclined to evil; where the dogmas of redemption and grace in reparation of sin are kept in mind, there is no discouragement. Left to ourselves we fall, by keeping close to God and continually seeking His help we can stand and struggle against sin, and if faithful in the battle we must wage shall be crowned in heaven. (See CONSCIENCE; JUSTIFICATION; SCANDAL.)

DOGMATIC WORKS: ST. THOMAS, Summa theol., I-II, QQ. lxxi-lxxxix; IDEM, Contra gentes, tr. RICKABY, Of God and His Creatures (London, 1905); IDEM, Quaest. disputatae: De malo in Opera omnia (Paris, 1875); BILLUART, De peccatis (Paris, 1867-72); SUAREZ, De pecc. in Opera omnia (Paris, 1878); SALMANTICENSES, De pecc. in Curs. theol. (Paris, 1877); GONET, Clypeus theol. thom. (Venice, 1772); JOHN OF ST. THOMAS, De pecc. in Curs. theol. (Paris, 1886); SYLVIUS, De pecc. (Antwerp, 1698); Catechismu s Romanus, tr. DONOVAN, Catechism of the Council of Trent (Dublin, 1829); SCHEEBEN, Handbuch d. kath. Dogmatik (Freiburg, 1873-87); MANNING, Sin and its Consequences (New York, 1904); SHARPE, Principles of Christianity (London, 1904); IDEM, Evil, its Nature and Cause (London, 1906) ; BIL LOT, De nat. et rat. peccati personalis (Rome, 1900); TANQUEREY, Synopsis theol., I (New York, 1907).

A.C. O'NEIL

Gugliemo Sirleto

Cardinal and scholar, born at Guardavalle near Stilo in Calabria, 1514; died at Rome, 6 October, 1585. The son of a physician, he received an excellent education, made the acquaintance of distinguished scholars at Rome, and became an intimate friend of Cardinal Marcello Cervino, later Pope Marcellus II. He prepared for Cervino, who was President of the Council of Trent in its initial period, extensive reports on all the important questions presented for discussion. After his appointment as custodian of the Vatican Library, Sirleto drew up a complete descriptive catalogue of its Greek manuscripts and prepared a new edition of the Vulgate. Paul IV named him prothonotary and tutor to two of his nephews. After this pope's death he taught Greek and Hebrew at Rome, numbering St. Charles Barromeo among his students. During the concluding period of the Council of Trent, he was, although he continued to reside at Rome, the Constant and most heeded adviser of the cardinal-legates. He was himself created cardinal in 1565, became Bishop of San Marco in Calabria in 1566, and a Squillace in 1568. An order of the papal secretary of state, however, enjoined his residence at Rome, where he was named, in 1570, librarian of the Vatican Library. His influence was paramount in the execution of the scientific undertakings decreed by the Council of Trent. He collaborated in the publication of the Roman Catechism, presided over the Commissions for the reform of Roman Breviary and Missal, and directed the work of the new edition of the Roman Martyrology. Highly appreciative of Greek culture, he entertained all friendly relations with the East and encouraged all efforts tending to ecclesiastical reunion. He was attended in his last illness by St. Philip Neri and was buried in the presence of Sixtus V.

HURTER, Nomenclator Lit., I (2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1892), 95-6; BÄUMER-BIRON, Hist. du bréviaire, II (Paris, 1905), 169-71, passim.

N. A. WEBER

Jacques Sirmond

One of the greatest scholars of the seventeenth century, born at Riom in the Department of Puy-de-Dome, France, October, 1559; died in Paris, 7 October 1651. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1576 and was appointed in 1581 professor of classical languages in Paris, where he numbered St. Francis de Sales among his pupils. Called to Rome in 1590, he was for sixteen years private secretary to the Jesuit superior general, Aquaviva, devoting his leisure moments during the same period to the study of the literary and historical treasures of antiquity. He entertained intimate relations with several learned men then present at Rome, among them Bellarmine and particularly Baronius, whom he was helpful in the composition of the “Annales”. In 1608 he returned to Paris, and in 1637 became confessor to King Louis XIII. His first literary production appeared in 1610, and from that date until the end of this life almost every year witnessed the publication of some new work. The results of his literary labours are chiefly represented by editions of Greek and Latin Christian writings. Theodoret of Cyrus, Ennodius, Idatius of Gallicia, Sidonius Apollinaris, Theodulph of Orleans, Paschasius Radbertus, Flodoard, and Hincmar of Rheims are among the writers whose works he edited either completely or in part. Of great importance were his editions of the capitularies of Charles the Bald and successors and the ancient councils of France: “Karoli Calvi et successorum aliquot Franciae regum Capitula” (Paris, 1623); “Concilia antiqua Galliae” (Paris, 1629). His collected works, a complete list of which will be found in de Backer-Sommervogel (VII, 1237-60), were published in Paris in 1696 and again at Venice in 1728.

DE BACKER-SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. De la comp. de Jésus, VII (Brussels, 1896), 1237-61; COLOMIÈS, Vie du Père Sirmond (La Rochelle, 1671); CHALMERS, Biog. Dict. (London, 1816), s. v.

N. A. WEBER

Pope Sisinnius

Date of birth unknown; died 4 Feb., 708, Successor of John VII, he was consecrated probably 15 Jan., 708, and died after a brief pontificate of about three weeks; he was buried in St. Peter's. He was a Syrian by birth and the son of one John. Although he was so afflicted with gout that he was unable even to feed himself, he is nevertheless said to have been a man of strong character, and to have been able to take thought for the good of the city. He gave orders to prepare lime to repair the walls of Rome, and before he died consecrated a bishop for Corsica.

Liber Pontificalis, I, 338: MANN, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, I, pt. ii (St. Louis and London, 1902), 124.

HORACE K. MANN

Buenaventura Sitjar

Born at Porrera, Island of Majorca, 9 December, 1739; died at San Antonio, Cal., 3 Sept., 1808. In April, 1758, he received the habit of St. Francis. After his ordination he joined the College of San Fernando, Mexico. In 1770 he was assigned to California, arriving at San Diego, 21 May, 1771. He was present at the founding of the Mission of San Antonio, and was appointed first missionary by Father Junipero Serra. He toiled there until his death, up to which time 3400 Indians had been baptized. Father Sitjar mastered the Telame Language, spoken at the Mission of San Antonio, and compiled a vocabulary with Spanish explanations, published at New York in 1861. Though the list of words is not as long as Arroyo de la Cuesta's dictionary of 2884 words and sentences in the Mutsun idiom of Mission San Juan Bautista, Sitjar's gives the pronunciation and fuller explanations. He also left a journal of exploring expedition which he accompanied in 1795. His body was interred in the sanctuary of the church.

Archives of Mission of Santa Barbara; Records of Mission San Antonio; SITJAR, Vocabulary, in SHEA'S Library of American Linguistics (New York, 1861); ENGELHARDT, The Franciscans in California (Harbor Springs, 1897); BANCROFT, California, II (San Fancisco, 1886).

ZEPHYRIN ENGELHARDT

Pope St. Sixtus I

Pope St. Sixtus I (in the oldest documents, Xystus is the spelling used for the first three popes of that name), succeeded St. Alexander and was followed by St. Tolesphorus. According to the “Liberian Catalogue” of popes, he ruled the Church during the reign of Adrian “a conulatu Nigri et Aproniani usque Vero III et Ambibulo”, that is, from 117 to 126. Eusebius, who in his “Chronicon” made use of a catalogue of popes different from the one he used in his “Historia ecclesiastica”, states in his “Chronicon” that Sixtus I was pope from 114 to 124, while in his “History” he makes him rule from 114 to 128. All authorities agree that he reigned about ten years. He was a Roman by birth, and his father's name was Pastor. According to the “Liber Pontificalis” (ed. Duchesne, I, 128), he passed the following three ordinances: (1) that none but sacred ministers are allowed to touch the sacred vessels; (2) that bishops who have been summoned to the Holy See shall, upon their return, not be received by their diocese except on presenting Apostolic letters; (3) that after the Preface in the Mass the priest shall recite the Sanctus with the people. The “Felician Catalogue” of popes and the various martyrologies give him the title of martyr. His feast is celebrated on 6 April. He was buried in the Vatican, beside the tomb of St. Peter. His relics are said to have been transferred to Alatri in 1132, though O Jozzi (“Il corpo di S. Sisto I., papa e martire rivendicato alla basilica Vaticana”, Rome, 1900) contends that they are still in the Vatican Basilica. Butler (Lives of the Saints, 6 April) states that Clement X gave some of his relics to Cardinal de Retz, who placed them in the Abbey of St. Michael in Lorraine. The Xystus who is commemorated in the Canon of the Mass is Xystus II, not Xystus I.

Acta SS., April, I, 531-4; Liber Pontificatis, ed. DUCHESNE, I (Paris, 1886), 128; MARINI, Cenni storici popolari sopra S. Sisto I, papa e martire, e suo culto in Aletri (Foligno, 1884); DE PERSIIS, Del pontificato di S. Sisto I, papa e martire, della translazione delle sue reliquie da Roma ecc., memorie (Alatri, 1884); BARMBY in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Sixtus (2) I.

MICHAEL OTT

Ardo Smaragdus

Hagiographer, died at the Benedictine monastery of Aniane, Herault, in Southern France, March, 843. He entered this monastery when still a boy and was bought up under the direction of Abbot St. Benedict of Aniane. On account of his piety and talents he was ordained and put at the head of the school at his monastery. In 794 he accompanied his abbot to the Council of Frankfort and in 814 was made abbot in place of Benedict, who on the invitation of Louis-le-Debonnaire had taken up his abode at the imperial Court at Aix-la-Chapelle. Smaragdus was honoured as a saint in his monastery. He is the author of a life of St. Benedict of Aniane which he wrote at the request of the monks of Cornelimünster near Aix-la-Chapelle, where Abbot Benedict had died. It was written in 822, and is one of the most reliable hagiological productions of that period. Mabillon edited it in his “Acta SS. of the Benedictine Order” (saeculum IV, I, 192-217), whence it was reprinted in P. L., CIII, 353-84.

MICHAEL OTT

Solomon

Our sources for the study of the life, reign, and character of Solomon are III Kings I-ix; and II Par. i-ix. Solomon (Heb. “peaceful”), also called Jedidiah, i. e., “beloved of Yahweh”, was the second son of David by his wife Bathsheba, and the acknowledged favourite of his father. This may have been due partly to the fact that he, as a late offspring, considerably younger than David's other sons, was born in his father's old age, and partly to the intense love of David for Bathsheba and the beautiful qualities of Solomon himself. Solomon was not the logical heir to the throne, but David conferred it upon him instead of his older brothers, and in doing so he committed no wrong according to Israelitish ideas. Solomon was eighteen years old when he ascended the throne, or at least no older than this, and his successful reign of forty years speaks well for his intelligence, ability, and statesmanship. His reign offers a striking contrast to that of his father. It was almost entirely devoid of incident, and was marked by none of the vicissitudes of fortune which were so notable a feature in the career of David. Enjoying for the most part peaceful relations with foreign powers, and set free from the troubles that menaced him at home, Solomon was enabled to devote himself fully to the internal organization of his kingdom and the embellishment of his Court. In particular he gave much attention to the defence of the country (including the construction of fortresses), the administration of justice, the development of trade, and the erection of a national temple to the Almighty.

The territory over which sovereignty is claimed for Solomon by the historian of III Kings extended from the Euphrates to the River of Egypt (el Arish), or, to name the cities at the limits of his realms, from Tiphsah (Thapsacus) to Gaza (III Kings, iv, 24). The account of his reign shows that even his fathers dominions were not retained by him unimpaired. But if some of the outlying portions of David's empire, such as Damascus and Edom, were lost by Solomon, the integrity of the actual soil of Israel was secured alike by the erection of fortresses in strong positions (including Hazor, Megiddo, one or both of the Beth-horons, and Baalath) and by the maintenance of a large force of war-chariots. Of the cities selected for fortification Hazor guarded the northern frontier, Megiddo protected the plain of Esdraelon, whilst the Beth-horons, with Baalath, commanded the Valley of Aijalon, thus defending the capitol against an attack from the maritime plain. Additional security in this direction was obtained by the acquisition of Gezer. This city had hitherto been left in the hand of the Canaanites, and came into Solomon's power by a marriage alliance with Egypt. Under David, Israel had become a factor to be reckoned with in Eastern politics, and the Pharaoh found it prudent to secure its friendship. The Pharoah was probably Psieukhannit (Psebkhan) II, the last king of the 21st dynasty, who had his capitol at Zoan (Tanis), and ruled over the Delta. Solomon wedded his daughter; and the Egyptian sovereign, having attacked and burnt Gezer and destroyed the Canaanites inhabitants, bestowed it as a dowry upon the princess. It was now rebuilt and made a fortified city of Solomon. In Jerusalem itself additional defences were constructed, and the capitol was further adorned by the erection of the temple and the royal palaces described below. In view of the trade route to the Red Sea, which the possession of the ports of Edom gave to Israel, Tamara (perhaps Tamar) was likewise fortified. Cities had also to be built for the reception and support of the force of chariots and cavalry which the king maintained, and which he seems to have been the first to introduce into the armies of Israel. This force is stated to have consisted of 1400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen (III Kings, x, 26). The numbers of the foot-soldiery are not given, perhaps because, being a militia and not a standing army, it was only mustered when there was occasion for its services; but the levies available were, probably, not inferior to those which the nation could raise at the close of David's reign.

Solomon's foreign policy was one of international friendship and peace. His relation with the Pharaoh of Egypt has already been alluded to, and the same may be said of his relation with his other great neighbour, Hiram, King of Tyre, and lord of the Phoenician Riviera which lies between Lebanon and the sea. To him belonged the famous Cedar forests, and the no less famous artisans of Gabal were his subjects. Solomon formed with him a commercial treaty, surrendering certain towns on the northern frontier (III Kings, ix, 11) in exchange for floats of timber conveyed to Jappa and skilled workmen lent him for wood-carving, stone-fashioning, and bronze-casting. What Solomon gained by the alliance was knowledge of the Phoenician manner of trading. As ruler of Edom he had possession of the port of Eloth, at the head of the Gulf of Akaba. Here he built ships and sent his own servants, under Phoenician masters, to trade with Arabia. The profits went into the king's coffers. As Arabia was a gold-producing country, we need not suppose that South Africa was reached by these fleets. Whether the commerce of India reached him by this route is not certain. The list of products imported has sometimes been interpreted in this sense. But one or two obscure words in a comparatively late text can hardly establish the conclusion. The money value of the importations, four hundred and twenty talents in a single voyage, must be viewed with suspicion.

Solomon's internal policy was one of justice and concentration of power and authority. In the administration of justice David's policy and reign of remissness and incoherence was improved upon by Solomon's stern administration and equanimity. He also took steps to make the royal authority stronger, more efficient, and more far-reaching, chiefly, as far as out records go, with a view to the collection of revenue and the maintenance of an army, which latter, apparently, he did not know how to use. We have a longer list of ministers. David's government included a commander-in-chief, a captain of the mercenary guard, a superintendent of forced labour, a recorder, a scribe and priests, and a “king's friend”. In addition to these, Solomon had a superintendent of prefects and a master of the household. A more striking innovation was the division of the country into twelve districts, each under a royal representative or prefect, charged with the duty of provisioning the Court month by month. This division largely ignored the ancient tribes, and seems to show that the tribal system was passing away. Like most powerful rulers, Solomon signalized his reign by numerous splendid buildings, and for this purpose made extensive use of the corvee or forced labour. This again led to increased exertion of authority by the central government; and, incidentally, the complete subjugation of the Canaanites was shown by the fact that they had to bear the main portion of this burden. According to our present biblical data, Solomon went beyond any ancient monarch in the luxury of the harem. The enormous number of wives (700) and concubines (300) attributed to him must be made up by counting all the female slaves of the palace among the concubines. Even then the figure must be grossly exaggerated. Klostermann has wisely remarked that the two items are not in the right proportion, and he is inclined, and we think with good reason, to suspect that 70 wives and 300 concubines was the original statement of the sacred narrator.

The building operations of Solomon were on a large scale and of a remarkable magnitude and splendour. Besides the erection of a magnificent temple he succeeded in emulating the great kings of Western Asia and Egypt by building for himself in the city of Jerusalem, palaces, houses, and gardens. (See TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM.) In the erection of these, thirteen years were spent as well as a large sum of money, while thousands of labourers and craftsmen were employed. The royal residence embraced several distinct structures:

1. the house of the forest of Lebanon (so named from the quantity of cedar-wood used in it), which measured 100x50x30 cubits, and rested upon three rows (so Sept.) of pillars (each row being composed of fifteen columns) in addition to the external walls;
2. the porch of pillars, 50x30 cubits;
3. the porch of the throne (to which the last-mentioned may have served as an ante-chamber), forming a judgment hall where the king's throne of ivory and gold (III Kings, x, 18-20) was placed when he dispensed justice;
4. the palace of Pharaoh's daughter, probably included within the court just named.

All these were built of costly hewn stone, the wood employed being cedar. Of Solomon's closing years nothing further is recorded. His reign is stated to have lasted forty years; but it is probable that this is merely a round number employed to indicate a considerable period (perhaps a full generation) and the actual duration of his rule is unknown. The year of his death may be approximately fixed between 938 and 916 B. C., a date arrived at from a consideration of the number of years assigned by the Bible to his successors, corrected by the chronology of certain Assyrian inscriptions.

In the view of the Hebrew historian, Solomon was unsurpassed for sagacity and knowledge. On his accession to the throne, it is related that Jehovah appeared to him at Gibeon in a dream, and bade him choose a boon; and the young king, instead of asking for long life or riches or success in war, prayed to be endowed with an understanding heart that he might judge the people committed to him. His request was granted; ;and riches and honour were added thereto, with a promise of length of days if he kept Jehovah's commandments. In consequence of this endowment, he was reputed to be wiser than all men; people flocked from all quarters to hear his wisdom; and the Queen of Sheba, in particular, came to prove him with hard questions. He was at once a philosopher and a poet. He spake 3000 proverbs; his songs were 1005; and his utterances embraced references alike to the vegetable and the animal kingdoms. So great, indeed, was his reputation for practical insight that in later times the bulk of the Hebrew Gnomic literature was ascribed to him. In the light of after-events, it is impossible fully to endorse the historian's estimate of his sagacity, or even to clear his memory from imputations of criminal folly. To his oppressive exactions, in furtherance of his schemes of luxury and magnificence, was due the discontent which in the reign of his son broke his kingdom in two, and ultimately led to the destruction in detail of the Hebrew nation by the power of Assyria and Babylon. It is clear likewise that, besides being fond of display, he was voluptuous and sensual, and that he was led by his wives and concubines to worship strange gods.

The fact that Solomon's reign was passed in tranquillity, except for the attempts of Edom and Damascus to regain their independence, testifies to the care he displayed for the defence of the realm. That he showed no ambition to undertake foreign conquests redounds to his credit; after the exhausting wars of David the nation needed repose. And if he spent his people's wealth lavishly, his commercial policy may have helped to produce that wealth, and perhaps even given to the Jewish people that impulse towards trade which has been for centuries so marked a trait in their character. Nor can the indirect effects of the commerce he fostered be overlooked, inasmuch as it brought the people into closer contact with the outside world and so enlarged their intellectual horizon. And in two other respects he profoundly influenced his nation's after-history, and thereby mankind in general. In the first place, whatever the burdens which the construction of the temple entailed upon the generation that saw it erected, it eventually became the chief glory of the Jewish race. To it, its ritual, and its associations, was largely due the stronger hold which, after the disruption, the religion of Jehovah had upon Judah as contrasted with Northern Israel; and when Judah ceased to be a nation, the reconstructed temple became in a still higher degree the guardian of the Hebrew faith and hope. And secondly, the Book of Proverbs, though parts are expressly ascribed to other authors than Solomon, and even those sections which are attributed to him may be complex of origin, is nevertheless the product of Solomon's spirit and example, and much that it contains may actually have proceeded from him. And as Proverbs served as a model for many works of a similar character in later times, some of which, as has been said, were popularly ascribed to him (Ecclesiastes, Wisdom), the debt which the world of literature indirectly owes to the Hebrew king is considerable. The works named do not exhaust the list of productions with which Solomon's name is connected. The Song of Songs is attributed to him; two of the Canonical psalms are entitled his; and a book of Psalms of quite late date also goes by his name.

GABRIEL OUSSANI

Son of God

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The title “son of God” is frequent in the Old Testament. The word “son” was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. Thus, “a son of strength” was a hero , a warrior, “son of wickedness” a wicked man, “sons of pride” wild beasts, “son of possession” a possessor, “son of pledging” a hostage, “son of lightning” a swift bird, “son of death” one doomed to death, “son of a bow” an arrow, “son of Belial” a wicked man, “sons of prophets” disciples of prophets etc. The title “son of God” was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called “sons of God” (Job, i, 6; ii, 1; Ps. lxxxviii, 7; Wisd., ii, 13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deut., xiv, l); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: “And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me” (Ex., iv, 22 sq.).

The leaders of the people, kings, princes, judges, as holding authority from God, were called sons of God. The theocratic king as lieutenant of God, and especially when he was providentially selected to be a type of the Messias, was honoured with the title “Son of God”. But the Messias, the Chosen One, the Elect of God, was par excellence called the Son of God (Ps. ii, 7). Even Wellhausen admits that Ps. ii is Messianic (see Hast., Dict. the Bible”, lV, 571). The prophecies regarding the Messias became clearer as time went on, and the result is ably summed up by Sanday (ibid.): “ The Scriptures of which we have been speaking mark so many different contributions to the total result, but the result, when it is attained, has the completeness of an organic whole. A Figure was created — projected as it were upon the clouds—which was invested with all the attributes of a person. And the minds of men were turned toward it in an attitude of expectation. It makes no matter that the lines of the Figure are drawn from different originals. They meet at last in a single portraiture. And we should never have known how perfectly they meet if we had not the Old Testament picture to compare with that of the Old Testament. The most literal fulfilment of prediction would not be more conclusive proof that all the course of the world and all the threads of history are in one guiding Hand.” The Messias besides being the Son of God was to be called Emmanuel (God with us) Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, Prince of Peace (Is., viii, 8; ix, ) (see MESSIAS).

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The title “the Son of God” is frequently applied to Jesus Christ in the Gospels and Epistles. In the latter it is everywhere employed as a short formula for expressing His Divinity (Sanday); and this usage throws light on the meaning to be attached to it in many passages of the Gospels. The angel announced: “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High... the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke, i, 32, 35). Nathaniel, at his first meeting, called Him the Son of God (John, i, 49). The devils called Him by the same name, the Jews ironically, and the Apostles after He quelled the storm In all these cases its meaning was equivalent to the Messias, at least. But much more is implied in the confession of St. Peter, the testimony of the Father, and the words of Jesus Christ.

Confession of St. Peter

We read in Matt., xvi, 15, 16: ''Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” The parallel passages have: “Thou art the Christ” (Mark, viii, 29), “The Christ of God” (Luke ,ix,20). There can be no doubt that St. Matthew gives the original form of the expression, and that St. Mark and St. Luke in giving “the Christ” (the Messias), instead, used it in the sense in which they understood it when they wrote, viz. as equivalent to “the incarnate Son of God” (see Rose, VI). Sanday, writing of St. Peter's confession, says: “the context clearly proves that Matthew had before him some further tradition, possibly that of the Logia, but in any case a tradition that has the look of being original “ (Hastings, “Dict. of the Bible”). As Rose well points out, in the minds of the Evangelists Jesus Christ was the Messias because He was the Son of God, and not the Son of God because He was the Messias.

Testimony of the Father

(1) At the Baptism. “And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying- This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt., iii, 16, 17). “And there came a voice from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased” (Mark, i, 11; Luke, iii, 22).

(2) At the Transfiguration. “And lo, a voice out of the cloud saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him” (Matt., xvii, 5; Mark, ix, 6; Luke, ix, 35). Though Rose admits that the words spoken at the Baptism need not necessarily mean more than what was suggested by the Old Testament, viz. Son of God is equal to the Messias, still, as the same words were used on both occasions, It is likely they had the same meaning in both cases. The Transfiguration took place within a week after St. Peter's Confession. And the words were used in the meaning in which the three disciples would then understand them; and at the Baptism it is probable that only Christ, and perhaps the Baptist, heard them, so that it is not necessary to interpret them according to the current opinions of the crowd. Even so cautious a critic a the Anglican Professor Sanday writes on thee passage: “And if, on the occasions in question, the Spirit of God did intimate prophetically to chosen witnesses, more or fewer, a revelation couched partly in the language of the ancient Scriptures, it would by no means follow that the meaning of the revelation was limited to the meaning of the older Scriptures. On the contrary, it would be likely enough that the old words would be charged with new meaning—that, indeed the revelation...would yet be in substance a new revelation.... And we may assume that to His (Christ's) mind the announcement 'Thou art my Son' meant not only all that it ever meant to the most enlightened seers of the past, but, yet more, all that the response of His own heart told Him that it meant in the present.... But it is possible, and we should be justified in supposing—not by way of dogmatic assertion but by way of pious belief—in view of the later history and the progress of subsequent revelation, that the words were intended to suggest a new truth, not hitherto made known, viz. that the Son was Son not only in the sense of the Messianic King, or of an Ideal People, but that the idea of sonship was fulfilled in Him in a way yet more mysterious and yet more essential; in other words, that He was Son, not merely in prophetic revelation, but in actual transcendent fact before the foundation of the world” (Hastings, “Dict. of the Bible”).

Testimony of Jesus Christ

(1) The Synoptics. The key to this is contained in His words, after the Resurrection: “I ascend to my Father and to your Father” (John, xx, 17). He always spoke of MY Father, never of OUR Father. He said to the disciples: “Thus then shall YOU pray: Our Father”, etc. He everywhere draws the clearest possible distinction between the way in which God was His Father and in which He was the Father of all creatures. His expressions clearly prove that He claimed to be of the same nature with God; and His claims to Divine Sonship are contained very clearly in the Synoptic Gospels, though not as frequently as in St. John.

“Did you not know, that I must be about my father's business” (Luke, ii, 49); “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me you, that work iniquity” (Matt., vii, 21-23). “Everyone therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt., x, 32). “At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father; for so hath it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal HIM. Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you” (Matt., xi, 25-30; Luke, x, 21, 22). In the parable of the wicked husbandmen the son is distinguished from all other messengers: “Therefore having yet one son, most dear to him; he also sent him unto them last of all, saying: They will reverence my son. But the husbandmen said one to another: This is the heir; come let us kill him” (Mark, xii, 6). Compare Matt., xxii, 2, “The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son.” In Matt., xvii, 25, He states that as Son of God He is free from the temple tax. “David therefore himself calleth him Lord, and whence is he then his son?” (Mark, xii, 37). He is Lord of the angels. He shall come “in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty. And he shall send his angels” (Matt., xxiv, 30, 31). He confessed before Caiphas that he was the Son of the blessed God (Mark, xiv, 61-2). “Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost... and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt., xxviii, 19, 20).

The claims of Jesus Christ, as set forth in the Synoptic Gospels, are so great that Salmon is justified in writing (Introd. to New Test., p. 197): “We deny that they [Christ's utterances in the Fourth Gospel] are at all inconsistent with what is attributed to Him in the Synoptic Gospels. On the contrary, the dignity of our Saviour's person, and the duty of adhering to Him, are as strongly stated in the discourses which St. Matthew puts into His mouth as in any later Gospel.... The Synoptic Evangelists all agree in representing Jesus as persisting in this claim [of Supreme Judge] to the end, and finally incurring condemnation for blasphemy from the high-priest and the Jewish Council.... It follows that the claims which the Synoptic Gospels represent our Lord a making for Himself are so high...that, if we accept the Synoptic Gospels as truly representing the character of our Lord's language about Himself, we certainly have no right to reject St. John's account, on the score that he puts too exalted language about Himself into the mouth of our Lord.”

(2) St. John's Gospel. It will not be necessary to give more than a few passages from St. John's Gospel. “My Father worketh until now; and I work.... For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things which he himself doth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that you may wonder. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whom he will. For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son. That all may honour the Son, as they honour the Father” (v, 17, 20-23). “And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that everyone who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day” (vi, 40). “Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee.... And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee” (xvi, 1, 5).

(3) St. Paul. St. Paul in the Epistles, which were written much earlier than most of our Gospels, clearly teaches the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that He was the true Son of God; and it is important to remember that his enemies the Judaizers never dared to attack this teaching, a fact which proves that they could not find the smallest semblance of a discrepancy between his doctrines on this point and that of the other Apostles.

LEPIN, Jésus Messie et Fils de Dieu (Paris, 1906); also Eng. tr. (Philadelphia); ROSE, Studies on the Gospels (London, 1903); SANDAY, Hist. Dict. Bible

C. AHERNE

Son of Man

In the Old Testament “son of man” is always translated in the Septuagint without the article as anthropou.

It is employed (1) as a poetical synonym for man, or for the ideal man, e. g. “God is not as a man, that he should lie nor as a son of man, that he should be changed” (Num., xxiii, 19). “Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that shall lay hold on this” (Is., ivi, 2). “Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand: and upon the son of man whom thou hast confirmed for thyself” (Ps. ixxix, 18).

(2) The Prophet Ezechiel is addressed by God as “son of man more than ninety times, e. g. “Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak to thee” (Ezech., ii, 1). This usage is confined to Ezechiel except one passage in Daniel, where Gabriel said: “Understand, O son of man, for in the time of the end the vision shall be fulfilled” (Dan., viii, 17).

(3) In the great vision of Daniel after the appearance of the four beasts, we read: “I beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and lo, one like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented him before him. And he gave him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him: his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom shall not be destroyed” (vii, 13 sq.). The person who appears here as son of man is interpreted by many non-Catholics as representing the Messianic kingdom, but there is no thing to prevent the passage from being taken to represent not only the Messianic kingdom, but par excellence the Messianic king. In the explanation, verse 17, the four beasts are “four kings” R.V., not “four kingdoms” as translated by D. V., though they appear to signify four kingdoms as well for the characteristics of oriental kingdoms were identified with the characters of their kings. So when it is said in verse 18: “But the saints of the most high God shall take the kingdom: and they shall possess the kingdom for ever and ever”, the king is no more excluded here than in the case of the four beasts. The “son of man” here was early interpreted of the Messias, in the Book of Henoch, where the expression is used almost as a Messianic title, though there is a good deal in Drummond's argument that even here it was not used as a Messianic title notwithstanding the fact that it was understood of the Messias. It has to be added that in the time of Christ it was not very widely, if at all, known as a Messianic title.

The employment of the expression in the Gospels is very remarkable. It is used to designate Jesus Christ no fewer than eighty-one times — thirty times in St. Matthew, fourteen times in St. Mark, twenty-five times in St. Luke, and twelve times in St. John. Contrary to what obtains in the Septuagint, it appears everywhere with the article, as ho huios tou anthropou. Greek scholars are agreed that the correct translation of this is “the son of man”, not “the son of the man”. The possible ambiguity may be one of the reasons why it is seldom or never found in the early Greek Fathers as a title for Christ. But the most remarkable thing connected with “the Son of Man” is that it is found only in the mouth of Christ. It is never employed by the disciples or Evangelists, nor by the early Christian writers. It is found once only in Acts, where St. Stephen exclaims: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God” (vii, 55). The whole incident proves that it was a well-known expression of Christ's. Though the saying was so frequently employed by Christ, the disciples preferred some more honorific title and we do not find it at all in St. Paul nor in the other Epistles. St. Paul perhaps uses something like an equivalent when he calls Christ the second or last Adam. The writers of the Epistles, moreover, probably wished to avoid the Greek ambiguity just alluded to.

The expression is Christ's, in spite of the futile attempts of some German Rationalist and others to show that He could not have used it. It was not invented by the writers of the Gospels to whom it did not appear to be a favourite title, as they never use it of Christ themselves. lt was not derived by them from what is asserted was a false interpretation of Daniel, because it appears in the early portions of the public ministry where there is no reference to Daniel. The objection that Christ could not have used it in Aramaic because the only similar expression was bar-nasha, which then meant only “man” bar having by that time lost its meaning of “son”, is not of much weight. Only little is known of the Aramaic spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ and as Drummond points out special meaning could be given to the word by the emphasis with which it was pronounced, even if bar-nasha had lost its primary meaning in Palestine, which is not at all proved. As the same writer shows, there were other expressions in Aramaic which Christ could have employed for the purpose, and Sanday suggests that He may have occasionally spoken in Greek.

The early Fathers were of the opinion that the expression was used out of humility and to show Christ's human nature, and this is very probable considering the early rise of Docetism. This is also the opinion of Cornelius a Lapide. Others, such as Knabenbauer, think that He adopted a title which would not give umbrage to His enemies, and which, as time went on, was capable of being applied so as to cover His Mesianic claims—to include everything that had been foretold of the representative man, the second Adam, the suffering servant of Jehovah, the Messianic king.

Jésus Messie et Fils de Dieu (Paris, 1906); ROSE, Studies on the Gospels (London, 1903), DRUMMOND, The Jour. of Theol. Studies, Il (1901), 350, 539; HARTL, Anfang und Ende des Titels “Menchensohn” in Bibl. Zeitschrift (Freiburg, 1909), 342.

C. AHERNE

Venerable Robert Southwell

Poet, Jesuit, martyr; born at Horsham St. Faith's, Norfolk, England, in 1561; hanged at Tyburn, 21 February, 1595. His grandfather, Sir Richard Southwell, had been a wealthy man and a prominent courtier in the reign of Henry VIII. It was Richard Southwell who in 1547 had brought the poet Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, to the block, and Surrey had vainly begged to be allowed to “fight him in his shirt”. Curiously enough their respective grandsons, Father Southwell and Philip, Earl of Arundel, were to be the most devoted of friends and fellow-prisoners for the Faith. On his mother's side the Jesuit was descended from the Copley and Shelley families, whence a remote connexion may be established between him an the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. Robert Southwell was brought up a Catholic, and at a very early age was sent to be educated at Douai, where he was the pupil in philosophy of a Jesuit of extraordinary austerity of life, the famous Leonard Lessius. After spending a short time in Paris he begged for admission into the Society of Jesus—a boon at first denied. This disappointment elicited from the boy of seventeen some passionate laments, the first of his verses of which we have record. On 17 Oct., 1578, however, he was admitted at Rome, and made his simple vows in 1580. Shortly after his noviceship, during which he was sent to Tournai, he returned to Rome to finish his studies, was ordained priest in 1584, and became prefect of studies in the English College. In 1586 he was sent on the English mission with Father Henry Garnett, found his first refuge with Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and was known under the name of Cotton.

Two years afterwards he became chaplain to the Countess of Arundel and thus established relations with her imprisoned husband, Philip, Earl of Arundel, the ancestor of the present ducal house of Norfolk, as well as with Lady Margaret Sackville, the earl's half-sister. Father Southwell's prose elegy, “Triumphs over Death”, was addressed to the earl to console him for this sister's premature death, and his “Hundred Meditations on the love of God”, originally written for her use, were ultimately transcribed by another hand, to present to her daughter Lady Beauchamp. Some six years were spent in zealous and successful missionary work, during which Father Southwell lay hidden in London, or passed under various disguises from one Catholic house to another. For his better protection he affected an interest in the pursuits of the country gentlemen of his day (metaphors taken from hawking are common in his writings), but his attire was always sober and his tastes simple. His character was singularly gentle, and he has never been accused of taking any part either in political intrigues or in religious disputes of a more domestic kind. In 1592 Father Southwell was arrested at Uxendon Hall, Harrow, through the treachery of an unfortunate Catholic girl, Anne Bellamy, the daughter of the owner of the house. The notorious Topcliffe, who effected the capture, wrote exultingly to the queen: “I never did take so weighty a man, if he be rightly used”. But the atrocious cruelties to which Southwell was subjected did not shake his fortitude. He was examined thirteen times under torture by members of the Council, and was long confined in a dungeon swarming with vermin. After nearly three years in prison he was brought to trial and the usual punishment of hanging and quartering was inflicted.

Father Southwell's writings, both in prose and verse, were extremely popular with his contemporaries, and his religious pieces were sold openly by the booksellers though their authorship was known. Imitations abounded, and Ben Jonson declared of one of Southwell's pieces, “The Burning Babe”, that to have written it he would readily forfeit many of his own poems. “Mary Magdalene's Tears”, the Jesuit's earliest work, licensed in 1591, probably represents a deliberate attempt to employ in the cause of piety the euphuistic prose style, then so popular. “Triumphs over Death”, also in prose, exhibits the same characteristics; but this artificiality of structure is not so marked in the “Short Rule of Good Life”, the “Letter to His Father”, the “Humble Supplication to Her Majesty”, the “Epistle of Comfort” and the “Hundred Meditations”. Southwell's longest poem, “St. Peter's Complaint” (132 six-line stanzas), is imitated, though not closely, from the Italian “Lagrime di S. Pietro” of Luigi Tansillo. This with some other smaller pieces was printed, with license, in 1595, the year of his death. Another volume of short poems appeared later in the same year under the title of “Maeoniae”. The early editions of these are scarce, and some of them command high prices. A poem called “A Foure-fold Meditation”, which was printed as Southwell's in 1606, is not his, but was written by his friend the Earl of Arundel. Perhaps no higher testimony can be found of the esteem in which Southwell's verse was held by his contemporaries than the fact that, while it is probable that Southwell had read Shakespeare, it is practically certain that Shakespeare had read Southwell and imitated him.

HERBERT THURSTON

Salminius Hermias Sozomen

One of the famous historians of the early Church, born at Bethelia, a small town near Gaza in Palestine, in the last quarter of the fourth century; died probably in 447 or 448. What the epithet Salaminius means cannot be determined. The supposition that it had some connection with Salamis in Cyprus has no foundation. On the authority of Sozomen himself (“Hist. eccl.”, V, xv) we learn that his grandfather became a Christian through witnessing miracle wrought by St. Hilarion. Through many years of persecution the family remained faithful, and Sozomen thus enjoyed the advantage of being trained in a Christian household. His early education was directed by the monks in his native place. It is impossible to ascertain what curriculum he followed in these monastic schools, but his writings give clear evidence of the thoroughness with which he was grounded in Greek studies. A reference to Berytos has led to the mistaken supposition that he pursued legal studies in the famous law school of that place. Wherever his professional training was acquired, he settled in Constantinople, probably about the beginning of the fifth century, to commence his career as a lawyer. While thus engaged he conceived the project of writing a history of the Church. A preliminary study containing a summary of the history of Christianity from the Ascension to 323 had been lost. He purposed to continue the history of Eusebius, and to deal with the period between 323 and 439. The period actually covered in his work ends at 425. Sozomen dedicated his work (Historia ecclesiastica) to Theodosius the Younger. It is divided into nine books, distributed according to the reigns of Constantine (323-37); III and IV the reigns of his sons (337-61); books V and VI the reigns of Julian, Jovian, Valentinian I, and Valens (361-75); books VII and VIII the reigns of Gratian, Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius (375-408). Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius (375-408). Book IX deals with the reign of Theodosius the Younger (408-39). As the work of Socrates appeared at the same time as that of Sozomen and dealt with the same subject and the same period, an important question arises as to the relation, if any, which existed between the two authors. There can be no doubt that the work of Socrates antedated that of Sozomen, and that the latter made use of the work of his predecessor. The extent of this dependence cannot be accurately determined. At most it would appear that, while Sozomen used the work of Socrates as a guide, as well in regard to materials as to order, and while at times he did not hesitate to use it as a secondary source, he was, nevertheless, neither an indiscriminate borrower nor a plagiarist. In some matters, however, as in regard to the Novatians, Sozomen is entirely dependent on Socrates. The ninth book, which Sozomen expressly declared would terminate at the year 439, is manifestly incomplete. There is no reason to think that portion of it has been lost. It is more likely that, because of advancing age or some other cause, he was unable to carry the work to the date he had set before himself. Internal evidence points to the fact that Sozomen undertook to write his history about 443, and that what he succeeded in doing was accomplished in a comparatively short time.

The work of Sozomen suffers in many ways by comparison with that of Socrates. Though the style is reputed to be better, the construction of the work is inferior, and the author's grasp of the significance of historical movements is less sure. Nevertheless, Sozomen made a painstaking effort to be acquainted with all the sources of information on the subjects which he touched, and he had a passionate desire for the truth. He was filled with a profound conviction of the Providential purpose of Christianity, and of its mission, under Divine guidance, for the regulation of the affairs of mankind. In doctrinal matters he aimed constantly at being in thorough accord with the Catholic party, and was a consistent opponent of heresy in all its forms. But, while he maintained a constant attitude of hostility to Arianism, Gnosticism, Montanism, Apollinarianism, etc., he never assailed the leaders of these heresies or allowed himself to indulge in bitter personal attacks. “Let it not be accounted strange”, he says, “if I have bestowed commendations upon the leaders or enthusiasts of the above-mentioned heresies. I admire their eloquence and their impressiveness in discourse. I leave their doctrine to be judged by those whose right it is” (III, xv). The work of Zosomen is interesting and valuable for many reasons. In the first place he pays more attention than any of the older historians to the missionary activity of the Christians, and to him we are indebted for much precious information about the introduction of Christianity among the Armenians, the Saracens, the Goths, and other peoples. The history is especially rich in information regarding the rise and spread of monasticism. His account of the labours of the early founders of monasteries and monastic communities, though sympathetic, cannot be said to be overdrawn. The history as a whole is fairly comprehensive, and though his treatment of affairs in the Western Church is not full, his pages abound in facts not available elsewhere and in documentary references of the highest importance. In his attitude towards the Church, in his treatment of the Scriptures, and in his views of the hierarchy and ecclesiastical order and dignity, he is always animated by feelings of submission and respect. There are many faults and shortcomings in his work. Of many of these he himself was conscious, but it was not in his power to correct them. Frequently it was hard for him to know the truth because of the mass of divergent evidence with which he had to deal, frequently there was not enough evidence, but in every case he aimed at expressing the truth and at making his work serve some useful purpose in the defence or elucidation of Christian ideas. The work of Sozomen was printed at Paris in 1544. There are later editions by Christophorson and Ictrus (Cologne, 1612) and be Valesius (Paris, 1668). The text of Valesius was reprinted by Hussey (Oxford, 1860), and by Migne (P. G., LXVII). There is an excellent English translation by Hartranft, with a learned though somewhat diffuse introduction, in the “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers”, II (New York, 1890).

PATRICK J. HEALY

Spire

(From the Anglo-Saxon word spir, meaning “a stalk” or “shoot”). A tapering construction — in plan conical, pyramidal, octagonal, or hexagonal — crowning a steeple or tower, or surmounting a building, and usually developed from the cornice; often pierced by ornamental openings and, where there were ribs, enriched with crockets. Sometimes an open lantern was interposed between the steeple, tower, or roof and the spire. On the continent the architects aimed to make the steeple and spire one, merging them into each other, while in England they openly confessed it was a separate structure by masking its point of origin behind a plain or pierced parapet, or ornamental battlements. A spire properly belongs to Pointed architecture and hence has never been fully developed except in Gothic buildings. As early as the twelfth century they took on different forms, and almost everywhere, from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century, became the terminating construction of every church steeple, tower, or lantern, and also those of secular buildings, more especially in Germany and France. Their decorative value was very great, more particularly in varying and enriching the sky-line of the buildings which they crowned, and by the numerous variations of forms and variety of types employed. These forms from such simple examples as that surmounting the south tower of Chartres Cathedral to that of Burgos, where the whole structure is an openwork of tracery. In England Norman churches were without spires, but with the coming in of Early English short ones were introduced; Decorated Gothic called for much higher ones, and the Perpendicular still higher. The earlier spires were generally built of timber, and they were always so when the building was roofed with wood.

These early timber spires were, as a rule, not very tall, but later they reached a greater elevation; that which crowned old St. Paul's in London is said to have been 527 feet in height. The most lofty spires now in existence — such as those of Salisbury, Coventry, and Norwich — are all of stone. In Central here are many, and in fact wherever suitable stone was easily obtainable. In the north of England, however, in Scotland, and in Wales among the mountains the bell-gable takes the place of a spire, no doubt because the large area of the thinly populated parishes made it necessary to keep the bells uncovered, so that they might be more widely heard. The most beautiful examples of existing spires are to be seen at Chartres, Reims, Laon, Freiburg, Ratisbon, cologne, Antwerp, Vienna, Burgos, and Salisbury. On some of these buildings there are several spires, in many instances built at different periods: the south spire of Chartres, culminating in a pinnacle 350 feet above the ground, was erected in 1175, while the north spire, with its apex 380 feet above the ground, was not finished until 1513. The so-called spires of the Renaissance and those built by Sir Christopher Wren are not true spires, but merely steeples terminating in a point.

CARYL COLEMAN

Spirit

(Lat. spiritus, spirare, “to breathe”; Gk. pneuma; Fr. esprit; Ger. Geist). As these names show, the principle of life was often represented under the figure of a breath of air. The breath is the most obvious symptom of life, its cessation the invariable mark of death; invisible and impalpable, it stands for the unseen mysterious force behind the vital processes. Accordingly we find the word “spirit” used in several different but allied senses: (1) as signifying a living, intelligent, incorporeal being, such as the soul; (2) as the fiery essence or breath (the Stoic pneuma) which was supposed to be the universal vital force; (3) as signifying some refined form of bodily substance, a fluid believed to act as a medium between mind and the grosser matter of the body. The hypothesis of “spirits” in this sense was familiar to the Scholastic age, in fact down to the end of the eighteenth century, “animal spirits”, “vital spirits”, “natural spirits” were acknowledged agencies in all physiological phenomena (cf. Vesalius, Descartes, Harvey, Erasmus, Darwin, etc.) “Magnetic” spirits were employed by Mesmer in his theory in very much the same way as modern Spiritists invoke the “ether” of the physicists.

In Psychology, “spirit” is used (with the adjective “spiritual”) to denote all that belongs to our higher life of reason, art, morality, and religion as contrasted with the life of mere sense-perception and passion. The latter is intrinsically dependent on matter and conditioned by its laws; the former is characterized by freedom or the power of self-determination; “spirit” in this sense is essentially personal. Hegelianism, indeed, in its doctrines of Subjective, Objective, and Absolute Spirit, tries to maintain the categories of spiritual philosophy (freedom, self-consciousness and the like), in a Monistic framework. But such conceptions demand the recognition of individual personality as an ultimate fact.

In Theology, the uses of the word are various. In the New Testament, it signifies sometimes the soul of man (generally its highest part, e. g., “the spirit is willing”), sometimes the supernatural action of God in man, sometimes the Holy Ghost (“ the Spirit of Truth Whom the world cannot receive”). The use of this term to signify the supernatural life of grace is the explanation of St. Paul's language about the spiritual and the carnal man and his enumeration of the three elements, spirit, soul, and body, which gave occasion to the error of the Trichotomists (1 Thess., v, 23, Eph., iv, 23).

Matter has generally been conceived as in one sense or another the limitation of spirit. Hence, finite spirits were thought to require a body as a principle of individuation and limitation; only God, the Infinite Spirit, was free from all admixture of matter. Thus, when we find the angels described as asomatoi or auloi, in the writings of the Fathers, this properly means only that the angels do not possess a gross, fleshly body; it does not at all imply a nature absolutely immaterial. Such Scripture expressions as “bread of angels”, “they shall shine as the angels”, as well as the apparitions of these heavenly beings, were adduced as proofs of their corporeality. So speak Sts. Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Hilary, Origen and many other Fathers. Even in Scholastic times, the degree of immateriality that belongs to finite spirits was disputed. St. Thomas teaches the complete simplicity of all spiritual natures, but the Scotists, by means of their famous materia primo prima, introduced a real composition, which they conceived to be necessary to a created nature. As regards the functions of spirits in the world, and their active relations to the visible order of things, see GUARDIAN ANGELS and DEMONOLOGY. Scripture abounds in instances of their dealings with men, chiefly in the character of intermediaries between God and His servants. They are the heralds who announce his commands, and often too the ministers who execute His justice. They take a benevolent interest in the spiritual good of men (Luke, xv, 10). For these reasons, the Church permits and encourages devotion to the angels.

BERKELEY, Siris in Works, II. See also bibliographies, SPIRITUALISM; SOUL.

MICHAEL MAHER
JOSEPH BOLLAND

Spiritism

Spiritism is the name properly given to the belief that the living can and do communicate with the spirits of the departed, and to the various practices by which such communication is attempted. It should be carefully distinguished from >Spiritualism, the philosophical doctrine which holds, in general, that there is a spiritual order of beings no less real than the material and, in particular, that the soul of man is a spiritual substance. Spiritism, moreover, has taken on a religious character. It claims to prove the preamble of all religions, i. e., the existence of a spiritual world, and to establish a world-wide religion in which the adherents of the various traditional faiths, setting their dogmas aside, can unite. If it has formulated no definite creed, and if its representatives differ in their attitudes toward the beliefs of Christianity, this is simply because Spiritism is expected to supply a new and fuller revelation which will either substantiate on a rational basis the essential Christian dogmas or show that they are utterly unfounded. The knowledge thus acquired will naturally affect conduct, the more so because it is hoped that the discarnate spirits, in making known their condition, will also indicate the means of attaining to salvation or rather of progressing, by a continuous evolution in the other world, to a higher plane of existence and happiness.

THE PHENOMENA

These are classified as physical and psychical. The former include: production of raps and other sounds; movements of objects (tables, chairs) without contact or with contact insufficient to explain the movement: “apports” i. e., apparitions of visible agency to convey them; moulds, i. e., impressions made upon paraffin and similar substances; luminous appearances, i. e., vague glimmerings or light or faces more or less defines; levitation, i. e., raising of objects from the ground by supposed supernormal means; materialization or appearance of a spirit in visible human form; spirit-photography, in which the feature or forms of deceased persons appear on the plate along with the likeness of a living photographed subject. The psychical, or significative, phenomena are those which express ideas or contain messages. To this class belong: table-rapping in answer to questions; automatic writing; slate-writing; trance-speaking; clairvoyance; descriptions of the spirit-world; and communications from the dead.

HISTORY

For an account of Spiritistic practices in antiquity see NECROMANCY. The modern phase was ushered in by the exhibitions of mesmerism and clairvoyance. In its actual form, however, Spiritism dates from the year 1848 and from the experiences of the Fox family at Hydesville, and later at Rochester, in New York State. Strange “knockings” were heard in the house, pieces of furniture were moved about as though by invisible hands, and the noises became so troublesome that sleep was impossible. At length the “rapper” began to answer questions, and a code of signals was arranged to facilitate communication. It was also found that to receive messages special qualifications were needed; these were possessed by Catherine and Margaret Fox, who are therefore regarded as the first “mediums” of modern times. Similar disturbances occurred in other parts of the country, notably at Stratford, Connecticut, in the house of Rev. Dr. Phelps, a Presbyterian minister, where the manifestations (1850-51) were often violent and the spirit-answers blasphemous. In 1851 the Fox girls were visited in Buffalo by three physicians who were professors in the university of that city. As a result of their examination the doctors declared that the “raps” were simply “crackings” of the knee-joints. But this statement did not lessen either the popular enthusiasm or the interest of more serious persons. The subject was taken up by men like Horace Greeley, Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Robert Hare, professor of chemistry in the University of Pennsylvania, and John Worth Edmonds, a judge of the Supreme Court of New York State. Conspicuous among the Spiritists was Andrew Jackson Davis, whose work, “The Principles of Nature” (1847), dictated by him in trance, contained a theory of the universe, closely resembling the Swedenborgian. Spiritism also found earnest advocates among clergymen of various denominations, especially the Universalists; it appealed strongly to many people who had lost all religious belief in a future life; and it was welcomed by those who were then agitating the question of a new social organization—the pioneers of modern Socialism. So widespread was the belief in Spiritism that in 1854 Congress was petitioned to appoint a scientific commission for the investigation of the phenomena. The petition, which bore some 13,000 signatures, was laid on the table, and no action was taken.

In Europe the way had been prepared for Spiritism by the Swedenborgian movement and by an epidemic of table-turning which spread from the Continent to England and invaded all classes of society. It was still a fashionable diversion when, in 1852, two mediums, Mrs. Hayden and Mrs. Roberts, came from America to London, and held séances which attracted the attention of scientists as well as popular interest. Faraday, indeed, in 1853 showed that the table movements were due to muscular action, and Dr. Carpenter gave the same explanation; but many thoughtful persons, notably among the clergy, held to the Spiritistic interpretation. This was accepted also by Robert Owen, the socialist, while Professor De Morgan, the mathematician, in his account of a sitting with Mrs. Hayden, was satisfied that “somebody or some spirit was reading his thoughts”. The later development in England was furthered by mediums who came from America: Daniel Dunglas Home (Hume) in 1855, the Davenport Brothers in 1864, and Henry Slade in 1876. Among the native mediums, Rev. William Stainton Moses became prominent in 1872, Miss Florence Cook in the same year, and William Eglinton in 1886. Spiritism was advocated by various periodical publications, and defended in numerous works some of which were said to have been dictated by the spirits themselves, e. g., the “Spirit Teachings” of Stainton Moses, which purport to give an account of conditions in the other world and form a sort of Spiritistic theology. During this period also, scientific opinion on the subject was divided. While Professors Huxley and Tyndall sharply denounced Spiritism in practice and theory, Mr. (later Sir Wm.) Crookes and Dr. Alfred Russell Wallace regarded the phenomena as worthy of serious investigation. The same view was expressed in the report which the Dialectical Society published in 1871 after an inquiry extending over eighteen months, and at the Glasgow meeting of the British Association in 1876 Professor Barrett, F.R.S., concluded his account of the phenomena he had observed by urging the appointment of a committee of scientific men for the systematic investigation of such phenomena.

The growth of Spiritism on the Continent was marked by similar transitions from popular curiosity to serious inquiry. As far back as 1787, the Exegetic and Philanthropic Society of Stockholm, adhering to the Swedenborgian view, had interpreted the utterances of “magnetized” subjects as messages from the spirit world. This interpretation gradually won favour in France and Germany; but it was not until 1848 that Cahagnet published at Paris the first volume of his “Arcanes de la vie future dévoilées”, containing what purported to be communications from the dead. The excitement aroused in Paris by table-turning and rapping led to an investigation by Count Agénor de Gasparin, whose conclusion (“Des Tables tournantes”, (Paris, 1854) was that the phenomena originated in some physical force of the human body. Professor Thury of Geneva (“Les Tables tournantes”, 1855) concurred in this explanation. Baron de Guldenstubbe (“La Réalité des Esprits” Paris, 1857), on the contrary, declared his belief in the reality of spirit intervention, and M. Rivail, known later as Allan Kardec, published the “spiritualistic philosophy” in “Le Livre des Esprits” (Paris, 1853), which became a guide-book to the whole subject.

In Germany also Spiritism was an outgrowth from “animal magnetism”. J. H. Jung in his “Theorie der Geisterkunde” declared that in the state of trance the soul is freed from the body, but he regarded the trance itself as a diseased condition. Among the earliest German clairvoyants was Frau Frederica Hauffe, the “Seeress of Prevorst”, whose experiences were related by Justinus Kerner in “Die Seherin von Prevorst” (Stuttgart, 1829). In its later development Spiritism was represented in scientific and philosophical circles by men of prominence, e. g., Ulrici, Fichte, Züllner, Fechner, and Wm. Weber. The last-named three conducted (1877-8) a series of experiments with the American medium Slade at Leipzig. The results were published in Züllner's “Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen” (cf. Massey, “Transcendental Physics”, London, 1880, in which the portions relating to spiritism are translated). Though considered important at the time, this investigation, owing to lack of caution and accuracy, cannot be regarded as a satisfactory test. (Cf. “Report of the Seybert Commission”, Philadelphia, 1887—, which also contains an account of an investigation conducted at the University of Pennsylvania with Slade and other mediums.)

The foregoing outline shows that modern Spiritism within a generation had passed beyond the limits of a merely popular movement and had challenged the attention of the scientific world. It had, moreover, brought about serious divisions among men of science. For those who denied the existence of a soul distinct from the organism it was a foregone conclusion that there could be no such communications as the Spiritists claimed. This negative view, of course, is still taken by all who accept the fundamental ideas of Materialism. But apart from any such a priori considerations, the opponents of Spiritism justified their position by pointing to innumerable cases of fraud which were brought to light either through closer examination of the methods employed or through the admissions of the mediums themselves.

In spite, however, of repeated exposure, there occurred phenomena which apparently could not be ascribed to trickery of any sort. The inexplicable character of these the sceptics attributed to faulty observation. The Spiritistic practices were simply set down as a new chapter in the long history of occultism, magic, and popular superstition. On the other hand, a certain number of thinkers felt obliged to confess that, after making due allowances for the element of fraud, there remained some facts which called for a more systematic investigation. In 1869 the London Dialectical Society appointed a committee of thirty-three members “to investigate the phenomena alleged to be spiritual manifestations, and to report thereon”. The committee's report (1871) declares that “motion may be produced in solid bodies without material contact, by some hitherto unrecognized force operating within an undefined distance from the human organism, an beyond the range of muscular action”; and that “this force is frequently directed by intelligence”. In 1882 there was organized in London the “Society for Psychical Research” for the scientific examination of what its prospectus terms “debatable phenomena”. A motive for investigation was supplied by the history of hypnotism, which had been repeatedly ascribed to quackery and deception. Nevertheless, patient research conducted by rigorous methods had shown that beneath the error and imposture there lay a real influence which was to be accounted for, and which finally was explained on the theory of suggestion. The progress of Spiritism, it was thought, might likewise yield a residuum of fact deserving scientific explanation.

The Society for Psychical Research soon counted among its members distinguished representatives of science and philosophy in England and America; numerous associations with similar aims and methods were organized in various countries. The “Proceedings” of the Society contain detailed reports of investigations in Spiritism and allied subjects, and a voluminous literature, expository and critical, has been created. Among the most notable works are: “Phantasms of the Living” by Gurney, Myers, and Podmore (London, 1886); F.W.H. Myers, “Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death” (London, 1903); and Sir Oliver Lodge, F.R.S., “The Survival of Man” (New York, 1909). In recent publications prominence is given to experiments with the mediums Mrs. Piper of Boston and Eusapia Palladino of Italy; and important contributions to the literature have been made by Professor Wm. James of Harvard, Dr. Richard Hodgson of Boston, Professor Charles Richet (University of Paris), Professor Henry Sidgwick (Cambridge University), Professor Th. Flournoy (University of Geneva), Professor Morselli (University of Genoa), Professor Cesare Lombroso (University of Turin), Professor James H. Hyslop (Columbia University), Professor Wm. R. Newbold (University of Pennsylvania). While some of these writers maintain a critical attitude, others are outspoken in favour of Spiritism, and a few (Myers, James), lately deceased, arranged before death to establish communication with their surviving associates.

HYPOTHESES

To explain the phenomena which after careful investigation and exclusion of fraud are regarded as authentic, three hypotheses have been proposed. The telepathic hypothesis takes as its starting-point the so-called subliminal consciousness. This, it is claimed, is subject to disintegration in such wise that segments of it may impress another mind (the percipient) even at a distance. The personality is liberated, so to speak, from the organism and invades the soul of another. A medium, on this hypothesis, would obtain information by thought-transference either from the minds of persons present at the séance or from other minds concerning whom the sitters know nothing. This view, it is held, would accord with the recognized facts of hypnosis and with the results of experimental telepathy; and it would explain what appear to be cases of possession. Similar to this is the hypothesis of psychical radiations which distinguishes in man the material body, the soul, and an intermediate principle, the “perispirit”. This is a subtle fluid, or astral body, which in certain persons (mediums) can escape from the material organism and thus form a “double”. It also accompanied the soul after death and it is the means by which communication is established with the peri-spirit of the mediums. The Spiritistic hypothesis maintains that the communications are received from disembodied spirits. Its advocates declare that telepathy is insufficient to account for all the facts, that its sphere of influence would have to be enlarged so as to include all the mental states and memories of living persons, and that even with such extension it would not explain the selective character of the phenomena by which facts relevant for establishing the personal identity of the departed are discriminated from those that are irrelevant. Telepathy at most may be the means by which discarnate spirits act upon the minds of living persons.

For those who admit that the manifestations proceed from intelligences other than that of the medium, the next question in order is whether these intelligences are the spirits of the departed or beings that have never been embodied in human forms. The reply had often been found difficult even by avowed believers in Spiritism, and some of these have been forced to admit the action of extraneous or non-human intelligences. This conclusion is based on several sorts of evidence: the difficulty of establishing spirit-identity, i. e., of ascertaining whether the communicator is actually the personality he or it purports to be; the love of personation on the part of the spirits which leads them to introduce themselves as celebrities who once lived on earth, although on closer questioning they show themselves quite ignorant of those whom they personate; the trivial character of the communications, so radically opposed to what would be expected from those who have passed into the other world and who naturally should be concerned to impart information on the most serious subjects; the contradictory statements which the spirits make regarding their own condition, the relations of God and man, the fundamental precepts of morality; finally the low moral tone which often pervades these messages from spirits who pretend to enlighten mankind. These deceptions and inconsistencies have been attributed by some authors to the subliminal consciousness (Flournoy), by others to spirits of a lower order, i. e., below the plane of humanity (Stainton Moses), while a third explanation refers them quite frankly to demonic intervention (Raupert, “Modern Spiritism”, St. Louis, 1904; cf. Grasset, “The Marvels beyond Science,” tr. Tubeuf, New York, 1910). For the Christian believer this third view acquired special significance from the fact that the alleged communications antagonize the essential truths of religion, such as the Divinity of Christ, atonement and redemption, judgment and future retribution, while they encourage agnosticism, pantheism, and a belief in reincarnation.

Spiritism indeed claims that it alone furnishes an incontestable proof of immortality, a scientific demonstration of the future life that far surpasses any philosophical deduction of Spiritualism, while it gives the death-blow to Materialism. This claim, however, rests upon the validity of the hypothesis that the communications come from disembodied spirits; it gets no support from the telepathic hypothesis or from that of demonic intervention. If either of the latter should be verified the phenomena would be explained without solving or even raising the problem of human immortality. If, again, it were shown that the argument based on the data of normal consciousness and the nature of the soul cannot stand the test of criticism, the same test would certainly be fatal to a theory drawn from the mediumistic utterances which are not only the outcome of abnormal conditions, but are also open to widely different interpretations. Even where all suspicion of fraud or collusion is removed—and this is seldom the case—a critical investigator will cling to the idea that phenomena which now seem inexplicable may eventually, like so many other marvels, be accounted for without having recourse to the Spiritistic hypothesis. Those who are convinced, on philosophical grounds, of the soul's immortality may say that communications from the spirit world, if any such there be, go to strengthen their conviction; but to abandon their philosophy and stake all on Spiritism would be more than hazardous; it would, indirectly at least, afford a pretext for a more complete rejection of soul and immortality. In other words, if Spiritism were the sole argument for a future life, Materialism, instead of being crushed, would triumph anew as the only possible theory for science and common sense.

DANGERS

To this risk of philosophical error must be added the dangers, mental and moral, which Spiritistic practices involve. Whatever the explanations offered for the medium's “powers”, their exercise sooner or later brings about a state of passivity which cannot but injure the mind. This is readily intelligible in the hypothesis of an invasion by extraneous spirits, since such a possession must weaken and tend to efface the normal personality. But similar results may be expected if, as the alternate hypothesis maintains, a disintegration of the one personality takes place. In either case, it is not surprising that the mental balance should be disturbed, and self-control impaired or destroyed. Recourse to Spiritism frequently produces hallucinations and other aberrations, especially in subjects who are predisposed to insanity; and even those who are otherwise normal expose themselves to severe physical and mental strain (cf. Viollet, “Le spiritisme dans ses rapports avec la folie”, Paris, 1908). More serious still is the danger of moral perversion. If to practise or encourage deception of any sort is reprehensible, the evil is certainly greater when fraud is resorted to in the inquiry concerning the future life. But apart from any intention to deceive, the methods employed would undermine the foundations of morality, either by producing a disintegration of personality or by inviting the invasion of an extraneous intelligence. It may be that the medium “yields, perhaps, innocently at first to the promptings of an impulse which may come to him as from a higher power, or that he is moved by an instinctive compulsion to aid in the development of his automatic romance—in any case, if he continues to abet and encourage this automatic prompting, it is not likely that he can long retain both honesty and sanity unimpaired. The man who looks on at his hand doing a thing, but acquits himself of responsibility for the thing done, can hardly claim to be considered as a moral agent; and the step is short to instigating and repeating a like action in the future, without the excuse of an overmastering impulse . . . To attend the séances of a professional medium is perhaps at worst to countenance a swindle; to watch the gradual development of innocent automatism into physical mediumship may be to assist at a process of moral degeneration” (Podmore, “Modern Spiritualism”, II, 326 sqq.).

ACTION OF THE CHURCH

As Spiritism has been closely allied with the practices of “animal magnetism” and hypnotism, these several classes of phenomena have also been treated under the same general head in the discussions of theologians and in the decisions of ecclesiastical authority. The Congregation of the Inquisition, 25 June, 1840, decreed: “Where all error, sorcery, and invocation of the demon, implicit or explicit, is excluded, the mere use of physical means which are otherwise lawful, is not morally forbidden, provided it does not aim at unlawful or evil results. But the application of purely physical principles and means to things or effects that are really supernatural, in order to explain these on physical grounds, is nothing else than unlawful and heretical deception”. This decision was reiterated on 28 July, 1847, and a further decree was issued on 30 July, 1856, which, after mentioning discourses about religion, evocation of departed spirits and “other superstitious practices: of Spiritism, exhorts the bishops to put forth every effort for the suppression of these abuses “in order that the flock of the Lord may be protected against the enemy, the deposit of faith safeguarded, and the faithful preserved from moral corruption”. The Second Plenary Council o Baltimore (1866), while making due allowance for fraudulent practice in Spiritism, declares that some at least of the manifestations are to be ascribed to Satanic intervention, and warns the faithful against lending any support to Spiritism or eve, out of curiosity, attending séances (Decreta, nn. 33-41). The council points out, in particular, the anti-Christian character of Spiritistic teachings concerning religion, and characterizes them as an attempt to revive paganism and magic. A decree of the Holy Office, 30 March, 1898, condemns Spiritistic practices, even though intercourse with the demon be excluded and communication sought with good spirits only. In all these documents the distinction is clearly drawn between legitimate scientific investigation and superstitious abuses. What the Church condemns in Spiritism is superstition with its evil consequences for religion and morality.

EDWARD A. PACE

Spiritualism

The term “spiritualism” has been frequently used to denote the belief in the possibility of communication with disembodied spirits, and the various devices employed to realize this belief in practice. The term “Spiritism” (q. v.), which obtains in Italy, France, and Germany, seems more apt to express this meaning. Spiritualism, then, suitable stands opposed to materialism. We may say in general that Spiritualism is the doctrine which denies that the contents of the universe are limited to matter and the properties and operations of matter. It maintains the existence of real being or beings (minds, spirits) radically distinct in nature from matter. It may take the form of Spiritualistic Idealism, which denies the existence of any real material being outside of the mind; or, whilst defending the reality of spiritual being, it may also allow the separate existence of the material world. Further, Idealistic Spiritualism may either take the form of Monism (e.g., with Fichte), which teaches that there exists a single universal mind or ego of which all finite minds are but transient moods or stages: or it may adopt a pluralistic theory (e.g. with Berkeley), which resolves the universe into a Divine Mind together with a multitude of finite minds into which the former infuses all those experiences that generate the belief in an external, independent, material world. The second or moderate form of Spiritualism, whilst maintaining the existence of spirit, and in particular the human mind or soul, as a real being distinct from the body, does not deny the reality of matter. It is, in fact, the common doctrine of Dualism. However, among the systems of philosophy which adhere to Dualism, some conceive the separateness or mutual independence of soul and body to be greater and others less. With some philosophers of the former class, soul and body seem to have been looked upon as complete beings merely accidentally united. For these a main difficulty is to give a satisfactory account of the inter-action of two beings so radically opposed in nature.

Historically, we find the early Greek philosophers tending generally towards Materialism. Sense experience is more impressive than our higher, rational consciousness, and sensation is essentially bound up with the bodily organism. Anaxagoras was the first, apparently, among the Greeks to vindicate the predominance of mind or reason in the universe. It was, however, rather as a principle of order, to account for the arrangement and design evident in nature as a whole, than to vindicate the reality of individual minds distinct from the bodies which they animate. Plato was virtually the father of western spiritualistic philosophy. He emphasized the distinction between the irrational or sensuous and the rational functions of the soul. He will not allow the superior elements in knowledge or the higher “parts” of the soul to be explained away in terms of the lower. Both subsist in continuous independence and opposition. Indeed, the rational soul is related to the body merely as the pilot to the ship or the rider to his horse. Aristotle fully recognized the spirituality of the higher rational activity of thought, but his treatment of its precise relation to the individual human soul is obscure. On the other hand, his conception of the union of soul and body, and of the unity of the human person, is much superior to that of Plato. Though the future life of the human soul, and consequently its capacity for an existence separate from the body, was one of the most fundamental and important doctrines of the Christian religion, yet ideas as to the precise meaning of spirituality were not at first clear, and we find several of the earliest Christian writers (though maintaining the future existence of the soul separate from the body), yet conceiving the soul in a more or less materialistic way (cf. Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, etc.). The Catholic philosophic doctrine of Spiritualism received much of its development from St. Augustine, the disciple of Platonic philosophy, and its completion from Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas, who perfected the Aristotelian account of the union of soul and body.

Modern Spiritualism, especially of the more extreme type, has its origin in Descartes. Malebranche, and indirectly Berkeley, who contributed so much in the sequel to Monistic Idealism, are indebted to Descartes, whilst every form of exaggerated Dualism which set mind and body in isolation and contrast traces its descent from him. In spite of serious faults and defects in their systems, it should be recognized that Descartes and Leibnitz contributed much of the most effective resistance to the wave of Materialism which acquired such strength in Europe at the end of the eighteenth and during the first half of the nineteenth centuries. In particular, Maine de Biran, who emphasized the inner activity and spirituality of the will, followed by Jouffroy and Cousin, set up so vigorous an opposition to the current Materialism as to win for their theories the distinctive title of “Spiritualism”. In Germany, in addition to Kant, Fichte, and other Monistic Idealists, we find Lotze and Herbart advocating realistic forms of Spiritualism. In England, among the best-known advocates of Dualistic Spiritualism, were, in succession to the Scottish School, Hamilton and Martineau; and of Catholic writers, Brownson in America, and W. G. Ward in England.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DOCTRINE OF SPIRITUALISM

Whilst modern Idealists and writers advocating an extreme form of Spiritualism have frequently fallen into grievous error in their own positive systems, their criticisms of Materialism and their vindication of the reality of spiritual being seem to contain much sound argument and some valuable contributions, as was indeed to be expected, to this controversy.

(1) Epistemological Proof

The line of reasoning adopted by Berkeley against Materialism has never met with any real answer from the latter. If we were compelled to choose between the two, the most extreme Idealistic Materialism would be incomparably the more logical creed to hold. Mind is more intimately known than matter, ideas are more ultimate than molecules. External bodies are only known in terms of consciousness. To put forward as a final explanation that thought is merely a motion or property of certain bodies, when all bodies are, in the last resort, only revealed to us in terms of our thinking activity, is justly stigmatized by all classes of Spiritualists as utterly irrational. When the Materialist or Sensationist reasons out his doctrine, he is landed in hopeless absurdity. Materialism is in fact the answer of the men who do not think, who are apparently quite unaware of the presuppositions which underlie all science.

(2) Teleological Proof

The contention, old as Anaxagoras, that the order, adaptation, and design evidently revealed in the universe postulate a principle distinct from matter for its explanation is also a valid argument for Spiritualism. Matter cannot arrange itself. Yet that there is arrangement in the universe, an that this postulates the agency of a principle other than matter, is continually more and more forced upon us by the utter failure of natural selection to meet the demands made on it during the last half of the past century to accomplish by the blind, fortuitous action of physical agents work demanding the highest intelligence.

(3) Ethical Proof

The denial of spiritual beings distinct from, and in some sense independent of, matter inexorably involves the annihilation of morality. If the mechanical or materialistic theory of the universe be true, every movement and change of each particle of matter is the inevitable outcome of previous physical conditions. There is no room anywhere for effective human choice or purpose in the world. Consequently, all those notions which form the constituent elements of man's moral creed—duty, obligation, responsibility, merit, desert, and the rest—are illusions of the imagination. Virtue and vice, fraud and benevolence are alike the inevitable outcome of the individual's circumstances, and ultimately as truly beyond his control as the movement of the piston is in regard to the steam-engine.

(4) Inefficacy and Uselessness of Mind in the Materialist View

Again, unless the reality of spirit distinct from, and independent of, matter be admitted, the still more incredible conclusion inexorably follows that mind, thought, consciousness play no really operative part in the world's history. If mind is not a real distinct energy, capable of interfering with, guiding, and influencing the movements of matter, then clearly it has played no real part in the creations of art, literature, or science. Consciousness is merely an inefficacious by-product, an epiphenomenon which has never modified in any degree the movements of matter concerned in the history of the human race.

(5) Psychological Proof

The outcome of all the main theses of psychology, empirical and rational, in Catholic systems of philosophy is the establishment of a Spiritualistic Dualism, and the determination of the relations of soul and body. Analysis of the higher activities of the soul, and especially of the operations of intellectual conception, judgment, reasoning, and self-conscious reflection, proves the faculty of intellect and the soul to which it belongs to be of a spiritual nature, distinct from matter, and not the outcome of a power inherent in a bodily organ. At the same time the Scholastic doctrine, better than any other system, furnishes a conception of the union of soul and body which accounts for the extrinsic dependence of the spiritual operations of the mind on the organism; whilst maintaining the spiritual nature of the soul, it safeguards the union of soul and body in a single person.

MICHAEL MAHER AND JOSEPH BOLLAND

Stained Glass

The popular name for the glass used in the making of coloured windows. The term is a misnomer, as stained glass is only one of the glasses so employed. It is more the result of a process than a glass per se, as it is produced by painting upon any glass, clear or coloured, with the oxide of silver, which penetrates the glass when subjected to heat and gives a yellowish reaction. In building a coloured window a variety of glass can be used, but usually there is only one kind employed, viz.: pot-metal, a glass that is coloured throughout its substance while in a molten state. This is used either directly or after it has been toned, or ornamented, or made a background for a figure subject by painting the same upon it with vitrifiable pigments, fused to its surface or incorporated with its substance by the means of heat. Nevertheless, although the word stained-glass is inaccurately used, usage has so fixed its erroneous meaning in the public mind that in all probability it will continue for all time to be applied in naming coloured windows and their glass.

I. Documentary, and, far more, monumental history, demonstrates that glass has been in use from the most remote ages; that the ancients were familiar with it; moreover, that its origin or discovery, or invention is lost in the twilight of fables. In many cases where china and metal are now employed the ancients used glass: they blew, cast, and cut into it thousands of objects with which they furnished tombs and temples, palaces and private houses; and adorned their persons, their garments, and their buildings. It is indeed doubtful if there was any branch of the art of glass-making and the utilization of its products that was not known to them, a fact proved by the fragments of innumerable articles found to-day in countless numbers among the ruins of Egypt, Chaldea, Phoenicia, Greece, and Rome. It is true, however, that the glazing of window openings with glass cannot be traced back beyond the year 306 B. C. At this early date in the Far East coloured windows were made by arranging small gem-like pieces of pot-metal in perforated wooden or stone panels. This kind of window, still in use in the Orient, found its most notable development after the advent of Christianity; but it was not until the birth of Gothic architecture, with its large window-openings, that the full value of glass as a transmitter of light and a polychromatic decorative material was fully appreciated. Gothic window-openings called for a filling strong enough to keep out the weather, yet transparent enough to admit the light; on the other hand, as, in this form of architecture, the wall-spaces were necessarily small, the windows offered the only opportunity for the decorator's art in so far as it depended upon colour. As glass at that time was to be had only in small pieces, the glazier was compelled, in order to fill the window-openings, to make his lights a mosaic, that is a combination of pieces of glass of various sizes and colours worked to a given design by placing them in juxtaposition. These pieces of glass had to be kept in place by some other material, and the best medium for the purpose was found to be lead, applied in strips made with lateral grooves for the reception of the edges of the glass.

The early windows were purely ornamental transparent mosaics; later, when figure subjects were portrayed, the artist, on account of the limitations of the mosaic method, was compelled to use paint in order to get the proper effect, painting directly upon the glass with ordinary transparent pigments; but as this was not durable, when exposed to atmospheric changes, he protected the painted portion by covering it with another piece of glass which was held in place by means of leads, and thus insured its preservation, at least as long as the superimposed glass remained intact. This imperfect method was not long in use before a great discovery was made at Limoges in France, where a Venetian colony of glass-workers had settled as early as the year 979. The new process, which revolutionized the art, consisted in painting with metallic pigments which could be fused into the glass, the painting being thus made as lasting as the glass itself. Not the first, but one of the first, to employ this permanent process of painting on glass to any considerable extent was the great twelfth-century promoter of all things ecclesiological, the Abbot Suger. Recognizing the value of the invention, he caused the windows of the Church of St. Denis at Paris to be executed in this way, and they were so successful that picture-windows became thereafter a necessary constituent of every ecclesiastical edifice.

The oldest painted picture-window that has survived the action of time is one representing the Ascension in the cathedral of Le Mans, which is believed by many antiquarians to be a work of the late eleventh century. The glass composing it is very beautiful, more particularly the browns, which are rich in tone, the rubies, which are brilliant, streaked and studded with gemlike blobs of black, and the blues, which are of a greenish azure hue, while the general colour treatment is extremely oriental. The drawing of the figures is most effective, although simple in line, and Byzantine in character, differing in this point from those at St. Denis, which are Romanesque. The painting is peculiar in that the hair of the figures is rendered in solid black, and not in lines. Although Le Mans was one of the first places where windows made by the new process were used, yet it did not become the centre of work; the city of Chartres took the lead, and became the greatest of the schools of medieval glass-painting, and from it the art slowly made its way to Germany and England, keeping always its essentially French character. Even to-day the Chartres windows are the most beautiful in existence.

At the very beginning — the eleventh and twelfth centuries — there were two methods of work: one school of artists freely employed paint in their windows, the other avoided its use, striving to obtain the result sought by a purely mosaic method, a system destined to be revived and developed in after ages; but the former school almost at once gained the mastery and held it for eight hundred years. Examples of the early work of these rival schools can best be studied by comparing the painted windows erected at Le Mans with those at Strasburg, which were built in accord with mosaic motives. In many of the first windows the figure subjects were painted upon small pieces of glass imbedded in a wide ornamental border, a large number of these medallions entering into the composition of a single window, and each section held in place by an iron armature — a constructive necessity, as the window-openings were without mullions. The medallions were all related to one another through their colour key, depicting various incidents in the same history or a number of points in a theological proposition. This form of window, peculiarly adapted to a single light, continued in fashion from the twelfth century until the introduction of tracery, and in some parts of France long after the single light had given way to the mullioned window. Contemporaneous with these medallion windows there were two other kinds: the canopy and Jesse windows. In the first there was a representation of one or two figures, executed in rich colours on a coloured or white ground within borders and under a low-crowned, rude, and simple canopy, usually out of proportion to the figure or figures it covered. The second variety, of pictorial genealogy of the Redeemer, consisted of a tree or vine springing from the recumbent form of Jesse, lying asleep at the foot of the window, the branches forming a series of panels, one above another, in which kings and patriarchs of the royal house of the Lion of Juda were pictured.

The windows of the twelfth century are admired on account of their ingenious combinations of colour, their rich rug-like effects and the brilliancy of the glass. It was reserved, however, for the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to see the full unfolding of the possibilities and inherent beauty of coloured glass. Among the most noted of these windows are the exquisite jewel-like ones in the cathedral of Chartres, a hundred and forty-three in number, containing no less than one thousand three hundred and fifty subjects, with over three thousand figures; there are also some fine examples to be seen at Reims, Bourges, Tours, and Poitiers. These magnificent windows are only a small portion of those that once existed. The windows of the thirteenth century are not only more brilliant in colour, but the colours are more skilfully blended than in those of the preceding century; at the same time the drawing of the figures is better, the faces are oval in form, more delicately treated, often refined and vigorous; the eyes have a natural expression, and the hair is rendered in lines of varying thickness. The compositions are simple and not over-crowded, the draperies are broader in treatment, the ornaments and architectural details, taking their motives mostly from natural objects, are well drawn. The range of subjects represented being limited by the paramount object of all ecclesiastical decorations of the Middle Ages, viz. the instruction of the illiterate and promotion of piety among the people, these windows present scenes from Biblical history and the lives of the saints, and symbolic portrayals of the dogmas of the Church. In fact they were sermons which “reached the heart through the eyes instead of entering at the ears”. But their choice of subjects was not made at random; it fell under the same rule that guided the encyclopedias of the time in their classification of the universe, commencing with God and the creation of angelic beings, and so on thorough nature, science, ethics, and history. The windows were indeed poems in glass, “The first canto, reflecting the image of God as the Creator, the Father, and the giver of all good gifts; the second, nature, organic and inorganic; the third, science; the fourth, the moral sense; and lastly, the entire world”. Where there were not enough windows in a church to carry out the complete scheme, one or more portions were represented.

The windows of the fourteenth century show a steady increase in knowledge of the art, more particularly in matters of drawing and harmonious use of colour. The later advance was brought about by the discovery of the yellow stain, which placed in the artists' hands not only various shades of yellow, but also a colour with which they could warm their white glass. It also led them to develop a style of glass window that first made its appearance in the days of St. Bernard and was used largely by the Cistercians, whose churches were a protest against the luxury, the pomp of colour and ornamentation, of those built by rival monastic bodies, particularly by the art-loving Cluniac monks. These grisaille, or stippled, windows were white and black, or gray and gray, brown and brown, warmed by a yellow stain and were painted upon white or clear glass. Towards the end of the fourteenth century the artists began to break away from the tutelage of the architects and abandoned sound rules of the great school of the thirteenth century, ignoring the principle that “all ornament should consist of enrichment of the essential construction of a building”. The sins of the glass-painters of the fifteenth century were still greater, for it mattered little to them if their windows were out of key with the architectural design of the building in which they were placed; their sole wish seemed to be to make their work do them honour. This abandonment of the fixed canons of the art, the abuse of its materials, and the exaggeration of individualism marked the beginning of the end of good glasswork, the deterioration becoming complete just as a revolution in religious thought was born into the world which destroyed in its destructive march not only the glass-painter's art, but many others, and also wrecked the art treasures of medieval culture, while it paralyzed for years, in Northern Europe, ecclesiastical art of every kind.

In the sixteenth century the windows were purely pictorial and wholly divorced from their architectural surroundings. At the end of this century and all through the next the windows rapidly degenerated, the art of making them finally passing from the hands of artists into the greedy grasp of tradesmen. The last windows made in which there was still some artistic merit are those in the Church of St. John at Gouda. In these the painters introduced landscapes, arcades, and corridors, aiming at absolute realism and startling perspectives, and treating their glass as they would canvas. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the use of paints and enamels became so excessive as to almost do away with pot-metal. Many of the windows were made wholly by painting and staining clear glass, and were purely articles of trade, with a very poor market, which became smaller from year to year until all demand ceased, and the noble art of placing images of beauty between earth and heaven for the edification of the people, for the glory of the art, for the love of the beautiful, and the honour of God disappeared for a time from off the face of the earth.

II. Continental Europe and Great Britain, in its recoil from the black night of unbelief, indifference, and disorder that wrecked good morals at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, fell back upon the faith of the past as its only anchor of hope. As the Faith revived among the people it called for a material expression of its dogmas and history under forms of beauty, opening once again the field of religious art to architects, painters, and sculptors. All over Europe every branch of art found able leaders — men of enthusiasm, rare talents, and great energy. Each one, architect, painter, and sculptor, entered upon the work with the spirit of faith, love, and sacrifice, in their hearts, and tried to make their art “a frame for the sacred picture of truth”. Amid this revival of the major arts, those which developed most rapidly were painting and architecture, and among the handmaidens of the latter the glazier's art almost at once took a leading position. To Germany belongs the honour of reviving coloured windows, although both France and England have a prior claim, as having produced the first picture windows subsequent to the French Revolution; but these were nothing more than isolated efforts of individuals, while in Germany associated artists of ability gave their attention to the matter and founded a school of glass-painters, and Munich became the centre of the movement. One of the greatest efforts of the Munich School is to be seen in Glasgow Cathedral, where it reached its limit of excellency. This was indeed a noble effort, but on the whole a lamentable failure, due to the nature of the glass, as well as a lack of knowledge of the requirements of the art and of its place as an adjunct to architecture. The windows are marked by thinness of colour, exaggerated diapered backgrounds, inharmonious borders, and defective blending of the colours, while there is a lack of harmony between the ornaments of the buildings and its architecture.

The modern French school of window-makers is very similar to the German, with even stronger tendency to look upon coloured windows as easel pictures, with little or no leaning towards medieval processes, and without any apparent effort to attain the incomparable beauty of the windows which adorn the French cathedrals of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The English school of glass-painters are by far the most successful, and all because their highest aim has been to make their windows good copies of the best glass of the Middle Ages. Much of their work is very beautiful, deeply imbued with a devotional spirit, and of high artistic merit. The American artist in glass, impatient of tradition, caring very little for either the subjects or the symbolism of the past, has attempted to do something new by using opal glass, with its limitless colour field, along the lines of the mosaic system, and build a window perfect in colour effect. In practice he separates his lights and darks from one another by carefully studied lead lines, which he endeavours to lose by making them look like a part of the glass and an essential constituent of the design. At the same time he tries to heighten the colour values of his glass by superimposing one colour upon another, seemingly always keeping in mind Ruskin's dictum: “Colour, to be perfect, must have a soft outline or a simple one; it cannot have a refined one; and you will never produce a good window with good figure drawing in it. You will lose perfection of colour as you give perfection of line. Try to put in order and form the colour of a piece of opal.” So far the American artist in glass has not been successful in making good church windows, and all because he disregards their true purpose, their architectural surroundings, and because he has overestimated the value of coloured glass as a decorative material, hence sacrificing everything to his window. It is true, however, that he has made a few good windows, translucent mosaics which indeed are great works of art, with wonderful niceties of light and shade, with prismatic play of colours, and admirably harmonious.

In the future, as in the past, the proper field for this art is an ecclesiastical one. It therefore behoves the artist in glass, if he hopes to reach a high degree of perfection, to study the principles which govern Christian art, and ever to bear in mind that the glazier's art is but an auxiliary to the architect's.

CARYL COLEMAN

St. Stephen Harding

Confessor, the third Abbot of Cîteaux, was born at Sherborne in Dorsetshire, England, about the middle of the eleventh century; died 28 March, 1134. He received his early education in the monastery of Sherborne and afterwards studied in Paris and Rome. On returning from the latter city he stopped at the monastery of Molesme and, being much impressed by the holiness of St. Robert, the abbot, joined that community. Here he practised great austerities, became one of St. Robert's chief supporters and was one of the band of twenty-one monks who, by authority of Hugh, Archbishop of Lyons, retired to Cïteaux to institute a reform in the new foundation there. When St. Robert was recalled to Molesme (1099), Stephen became prior of Cïteaux under Alberic, the new abbot. On Alberic's death (1110) Stephen, who was absent from the monastery at the time, was elected abbot. The number of monks was now very reduced, as no new members had come to fill the places of those who had died. Stephen, however, insisted on retaining the strict observance originally instituted and, having offended the Duke of Burgundy, Cïteau'sx great patron, by forbidding him or his family to enter the cloister, was even forced to beg alms from door to door. It seemed as if the foundation were doomed to die out when (1112) St. Bernard with thirty companions joined the community. This proved the beginning of extraordinary prosperity. The next year Stephen founded his first colony at La Ferté, and before is death he had established thirteen monasteries in all. His powers as an organizer were exceptional, he instituted the system of general chapters and regular visitations and, to ensure uniformity in all his foundations, drew up the famous “Charter of Charity” or collection of statues for the government of all monasteries united to Cïteaux, which was approved by Pope Callistus II in 1119 (see CISTERCIANS). In 1133 Stephen, being now old, infirm, and almost blind, resigned the post of abbot, designating as his successor Robert de Monte, who was accordingly elected by the monks. The saint's choice, however, proved unfortunate and the new abbot only held office for two years.

Stephen was buried in the tomb of Alberic, his predecessor, in the cloister of Cîteaux. In the Roman calendar his feast is 17 April, but the Cistercians themselves keep it on 15 July, with an octave, regarding him as the true founder of the order. Besides the “Carta Caritatis” he is commonly credited with the authorship of the “Exordium Cisterciencis cenobii”, which however may not be his. Two of his sermons are preserved and also two letters (Nos. 45 and 49) in the “Epp. S. Bernardi”.

G. ROGER HUDLESTON

St. Stephen of Muret

Born 1045; died at Muret, 8 February, 1124, founder of the Abbey and Order of Grandmont (q. v.). Serious chronological difficulties are presented by the traditional story of his early life, which runs as follows: Stephen in his twelfth year accompanied his father, the Viscount of Thiers, to Italy, where he was left to be educated by Milo, Archbishop of Benevento; after passing twelve years in this prelate's household, he became the inmate of a Benedictine monastery in Calabria, but never received the habit. He then returned to France to bid farewell to his parents, having formed the design of entering religion, but, finding them dead, returned to Italy. His patron Milo having also died, he established himself at Rome, where he studied the rules of the religious houses of the city. After a four years' sojourn he obtained a Bull from Gregory VII authorizing him to found an institute resembling that of the solitaries he had frequented in Calabria, and returned to France. He is said to have settled at Muret in 1076. This story is impossible; his father visited Italy in order to make a pilgrimage to St. Nicholas at Bari; but St. Nicholas's relics were not placed there till some years later; Milo was not Archbishop of Benevento for twelve years. The exact truth as to St. Stephen's life cannot now be established. He went to Italy and there saw some religious whose holy life inspired him with a desire to imitate them, but who they were, Carthusians or Benedictines, we do not know. The quarrel as to what great order could claim Grandmont as its offspring, with the consequent forgeries, has done much to involve the founder's life in obscurity. Though Stephen was certainly the founder of the Order of Grandmont, he did little for his disciples except offer them the example of his holy life, and it was not till after his death that the order was firmly established. His head is preserved in the parish Church of St. Sylvestre, Canton of Laurière (Haute Vienne). He was canonized in 1189 and his feast occurs on 8 February. His works (not authentic) may be found in Migne, P. L. CCIV, 997-1162.

RAYMUND WEBSTER

Mystical Stigmata

To decide merely the facts without deciding whether or not they may be explained by supernatural causes, history tells us that many ecstatics bear on hands, feet, side, or brow the marks of the Passion of Christ with corresponding and intense sufferings. These are called visible stigmata. Others only have the sufferings, without any outward marks, and these phenomena are called invisible stigmata. Their existence is so well established historically that, as a general thing, they are no longer disputed by unbelievers, who now seek only to explain them naturally. Thus a free-thinking physician, Dr. Dumas, professor of religious psychology at the Sorbonne, clearly admits the facts (Revue des Deux Mondes, 1 May, 1907), as does also Dr. Pierre Janet (Bulletin de l'Institut psychologique international, Paris, July, 1901).

St. Catherine of Siena at first had visible stigmata but through humility she asked that they might be made invisible, and her prayer was heard. This was also the case with St. Catherine de' Ricci, a Florentine Dominican of the sixteenth century, and with several other stigmatics. The sufferings may be considered the essential part of visible stigmata; the substance of this grace consists of pity for Christ, participation in His sufferings, sorrows, and for the same end—the expiation of the sins unceasingly committed in the world. If the sufferings were absent, the wounds would be but an empty symbol, theatrical representation, conducing to pride. If the stigmata really come from God, it would be unworthy of His wisdom to participate in such futility, and to do so by a miracle. But this trial is far from being the only one which the saints have to endure: “The life of stigmatics,” says Dr. Imbert, “is but a long series of sorrows which arise from the Divine malady of the stigmata and end only in death: (op. cit. infra, II, x). It seems historically certain that ecstatics alone bear the stigmata; moreover, they have visions which correspond to their rôle of co-sufferers, beholding from time to time the blood-stained scenes of the Passion. With many stigmatics these apparitions were periodical, e. g., St Catherine de' Ricci, whose ecstasies of the Passion began when she was twenty (1542), and the Bull of her canonization states that for twelve years they recurred with minute regularity. The ecstasy lasted exactly twenty-eight hours, from Thursday noon till Friday afternoon at four o'clock, the only interruption being for the saint to receive Holy Communion. Catherine conversed aloud, as if enacting a drama. This drama was divided into about seventeen scenes. Oncoming out of the ecstasy the saint's limbs were covered with wounds produced by whips, cords etc.

Dr. Imbert has attempted to count the number of stigmatics, with the following results:

1. None are known prior to the thirteenth century. The first mentioned is St. Francis of Assisi, in whom the stigmata were of a character never seen subsequently; in the wounds of feet and hands were excrescences of flesh representing nails, those on one side having round back heads, those on the other having rather long points, which bent back and grasped the skin. The saint's humility could not prevent a great many of his brethren beholding with their own eyes the existence of these wonderful wounds during his lifetime as well as after his death. The fact is attested by a number of contemporary historians, and the feast of the Stigmata of S. Francis is kept on 17 September.
2. Dr. Imbert counts 321 stigmatics in whom there is every reason to believe in a Divine action. He believes that others would be found by consulting the libraries of Germany, Spain, and Italy.
3. In this list there are 41 men.
4. There are 62 saints or blessed of both sexes of whom the best known (numbering twenty-six) were:

• St. Francis of Assisi (1186-1226);
• St. Lutgarde (1182-1246), a Cistercian;
• St. Margaret of Cortona (1247-97);
• St. Gertrude (1256-1302), a Benedictine;
• St. Clare of Montefalco (1268-1308), an Augustinian;
• Bl. Angela of Foligno (d. 1309), Franciscan tertiary;
• St. Catherine of Siena (1347-80), Dominican tertiary;
• St. Lidwine (1380-1433);
• St. Frances of Rome (1384-1440);
• St. Colette (1380-1447), Franciscan;
• St. Rita of Cassia (1386-1456), Augustinian;
• Bl. Osanna of Mantua (1499-1505), Dominican tertiary;
• St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510), Franciscan tertiary;
• Bl. Baptista Varani (1458-1524), Poor Clare;
• Bl. Lucy of Narni (1476-1547), Dominican tertiary;
• Bl. Catherine of Racconigi (1486-1547), Dominican;
• St. John of God (1495-1550), founder of the Order of Charity;
• St. Catherine de' Ricci (1522-89), Dominican;
• St. Mary Magdalene de' Pazzi (1566-1607), Carmelite;
• Bl. Marie de l'Incarnation (1566-1607), Carmelite;
• Bl. Mary Anne of Jesus (1557-1620), Franciscan tertiary;
• Bl. Carlo of Sezze (d. 1670), Franciscan;
• Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-90), Visitandine (who had only the crown of thorns);
• St. Veronica Giuliani (1600-1727), Capuchiness;
• St. Mary Frances of the Five Wounds (1715-91), Franciscan tertiary.

There were 20 stigmatics in the nineteenth century. The most famous were:

• Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), Augustinian;
• Elizabeth Canori Mora (1774-1825), Trinitarian tertiary;
• Anna Maria Taïgi (1769-1837);
• Maria Dominica Lazzari (1815-48);
• Marie de Moerl (1812-68) and Louise Lateau (1850-83), Franciscan tertiaries.

Of these, Marie de Moerl spent her life at Kaltern, Tyrol (1812-68). At the age of twenty she became an ecstatic, and ecstasy was her habitual condition for the remaining thirty-five years of her life. She emerged from it only at the command, sometimes only mental, of the Franciscan who was her director, and to attend to the affairs of her house, which sheltered a large family. Her ordinary attitude was kneeling on her bed with hands crossed on her breast, and an expression of countenance which deeply impressed spectators. At twenty-two she received the stigmata. On Thursday evening and Friday these stigmata shed very clear blood, drop by drop, becoming dry on the other days. Thousands of persons saw Marie de Moerl, among them Görres (who describes his visit in his “Mystik”, II, xx), Wiseman, and Lord Shrewsbury, who wrote a defence of the ecstatic in his letters published by “The Morning Herald” and “The Tablet” (cf. Boré, op. cit. infra). Louise Lateau spent her life in the village of Bois d'Haine, Belgium (1850-83). The graces she received were disputed even by some Catholics, who as a general thing relied on incomplete or erroneous information, as has been established by Canon Thiery (“Examen de ce qui concerne Bois d'Haine”, Louvain, 1907). At sixteen she devoted herself to nursing the cholera victims of her parish, who were abandoned by most of the inhabitants. Within a month she nursed ten, buried them, and in more than one instance bore them to the cemetery. At eighteen she became an ecstatic and stigmatic, which did not prevent her supporting her family by working as a seamstress. Numerous physicians witnessed her painful Friday ecstasies and established the fact that for twelve years she took no nourishment save weekly communion. For drink she was satisfied with three or four glasses of water a week. She never slept, but passed her nights in contemplation and prayer, kneeling at the foot of her bed.

II. The facts having been set forth, it remains to state the explanations that have been offered. Some physiologists, both Catholics and Free-thinkers, have maintained that the wounds might be produced in a purely natural manner by the sole action of the imagination coupled with lively emotions. The person being keenly impressed by the sufferings of the Saviour and penetrated by a great love, this preoccupation acts on her or him physically, reproducing the wounds of Christ. This would in no wise diminish his or her merit in accepting the trial, but the immediate cause of the phenomena would not be supernatural. We shall not attempt to solve this question. Physiological science does not appear to be far enough advanced to admit a definite solution, and the writer of this article adopts the intermediate position, which seems to him unassailable, that of showing that the arguments in favour of natural explanations are illusory. They are sometimes arbitrary hypotheses, being equivalent to mere assertions, sometimes arguments based exaggerated or misinterpreted facts. But if the progress of medical sciences and psycho-physiology should present serious objections, it must be remembered that neither religion or mysticism is dependent on the solution of these questions, and that in processes of canonization stigmata do not count as incontestable miracles.

No one has ever claimed that imagination could produce wounds in a normal subject; it is true that this faculty can act slightly on the body, as Benedict XIV said, it may accelerate or retard the nerve-currents, but there is no instance of its action on the tissues (De canoniz., III, xxxiii, n. 31). But with regard to persons in an abnormal condition, such as ecstasy or hypnosis, the question is more difficult; and, despite numerous attempts, hypnotism has not produced very clear results. At most, and in exceedingly rare cases, it has induced exudations or a sweat more or less coloured, but this is a very imperfect imitation. Moreover, no explanation has been offered of three circumstances presented by the stigmata of the saints:

1. Physicians do not succeed in curing these wounds with remedies.
2. On the other hand, unlike natural wounds of a certain duration, those of stigmatics do not give forth a fetid odour. To this there is known but one exception: St. Rita of Cassia had received on her brow a supernatural wound produced by a thorn detached from the crown of the crucifix. Though this emitted an unbearable odour, there was never any suppuration or morbid alteration of the tissues.
3. Sometimes these wounds give forth perfumes, for example those of Juana of the Cross, Franciscan prioress of Toledo, and Bl. Lucy of Narni.

To sum up, there is only one means of proving scientifically that the imagination, that is auto-suggestion, may produce stigmata: instead of hypothesis, analogous facts in the natural order must be produced, namely wounds produced apart from a religious idea. This had not been done.

With regard to the flow of blood it has been objected that there have been bloody sweats, but Dr. Lefebvre, professor of medicine at Louvain, has replied that such cases as have been examined by physicians were not due to a moral cause, but to a specific malady. Moreover, it has often been proved by the microscope that the red liquid which oozes forth is not blood; its colour is due to a particular substance, and it does not proceed from a wound, but is due, like sweat, to a dilatation of the pores of the skin. But it may be objected that we unduly minimize the power of the imagination, since, joined to an emotion, it can produce sweat; and as the mere idea of having an acid bon-bon in the mouth produces abundant saliva, so, too, the nerves acted upon by the imagination might produce the emission of a liquid and this liquid might be blood. The answer is that in the instances mentioned there are glands (sudoriparous and salivary) which in the normal state emit a special liquid, and it is easy to understand that the imagination may bring about this secretion; but the nerves adjacent to the skin do not terminate in a gland emitting blood, and without such an organ they are powerless to produce the effects in question. What has been said of the stigmatic wounds applies also to the sufferings. There is not a single experimental proof that imagination could produce them, especially in violent forms.

Another explanation of these phenomena is that the patients produce the wounds either fraudulently or during attacks of somnambulism, unconsciously. But physicians have always taken measures to avoid these sources of error, proceeding with great strictness, particularly in modern times. Sometimes the patient has been watched night and day, sometimes the limbs have been enveloped in sealed bandages. Mr. Pierre Janet placed on one foot of a stigmatic a copper shoe with a window in it through which the development of the wound might be watched, while it was impossible for anyone to touch it (op. cit. supra).

AUG. POULAIN
In memory of the Most Rev. Leo T. Maher
Bishop of Santa Rosa and San Diego, California

Stoning in Scripture

Palestine being a very rocky country, the abundance of stones made it natural to use them as missiles. Stone throwing might be merely a mark of hatred and contempt (II Kings 16:6-13), or the means of carrying out murderous intentions against which provision had to be made in the Law (Exodus 21:18, Numbers 35:17). Stoning to death which was at first an expression of popular fury analogous to “lynching”, later came to be a natural and legally recognized method of execution. It was this regulated by law as an appointed means of capital punishment (Deuteronomy 17:5-7; Acts 7:58). Death by stoning is prescribed in the Pentateuch as the penalty for eighteen different crimes including Sabbath-breaking, but for one crime only — murder — is it the penalty prescribed in all the codes. The execution of the criminal usually took place outside the city walls, and according to Deuteronomy 16:7, the witnesses in the case were to cast the first stone: “Thou shalt bring forth the man or the woman, who have committed that most wicked thing, to the gates of thy city, and they shall be stoned. By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he die who is to be slain.... The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to kill him, and afterwards the hands of the rest of the people”. (Deuteronomy 17:5-7). Stoning is also mentioned in Acts 7:57-58, as the means by which Stephen the first Christian martyr was put to death: “And casting him forth without the city, they stoned him.”

JAMES F. DRISCOLL

Studion

(Latin Studium), the most important monastery at Constantinople, situated not far from the Propontis in the section of the city called Psamathia. It was founded in 462 or 463 by the consul Studios (Studius), a Roman who had settled in Constantinople, and was dedicated to St. John the Baptist. Its monks came from the monastery of Acoemetae. At a later date the laws and customs of Studion were taken as models by the monks of Mount Athos and of many other monasteries of the Byzantine Empire; even today they have influence. The Studites gave the first proof of their devotion to the Faith and the Church during the schism of Acacius (484- 519); they also remained loyal during the storms of Iconoclastic dispute in the eighth and ninth centuries. They were driven from the monastery of Studion and the city by Emperor Constantine Copronymus; after his death (775), however, some of them returned. Abbot Sabbas zealously defended the Catholic doctrines against the Iconoclasts at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (787). His successor was St. Theodore of Studion to whom the monastery owes the most of its fame, and who especially fostered study. During St. Theodore's administration also the monks were harassed and driven away several times, some of them being put to death. Theodore's pupil Naucratius re-established discipline after the Iconoclastic dispute had come to an end. Abbot Nicholas (848-5 and 855-58) refused to recognize the Patriarch Photius and was on this account imprisoned in the Studion. He was succeeded by five abbots who recognized the patriarch. The brilliant period of the Studion came to an end at this time. In the middle of the eleventh century, during the administration of Abbot Simeon, a monk named Nicetas Pectoratus (Stethatos) made a violent attack on the Latins in a book which he wrote on unleavened bread, the Sabbath, and the marriage of priests. In 1054 he was obliged to recant in the presence of the emperor and of the papal legates and to throw his book into the fire, but he began the dispute again later. As regards the intellectual life of the monastery in other directions it is especially celebrated for its famous school of calligraphy which was established by St. Theodore. In he eighth and eleventh centuries the monastery was the centre of Byzantine religious poetry; a number of the hymns are still used in the Greek Church. Besides St. Theodore and Nicetas, a number of other theological writers are known. In 1204 the monastery was destroyed by the Crusaders and was not rebuilt until 1290; the greater part of it was again destroyed when the Turks captured Constantinople (1453). The only part now in existence is the Church of St. John Baptist, probably the oldest remaining church in Constantinople, a basilica which still preserves from the early period two stories of columns on the sides and a wooden ceiling, and which is now the mosque Imrachor-Dschamissi.

KLEMENS LÖFFLER

Francisco Sá

Doctor Eximius, a pious and eminent theologian, as Paul V called him, born at Granada, 5 January, 1548; died at Lisbon, 25 September, 1617. He entered the Society of Jesus at Salamanca, 16 June, 1564; in that city he studied philosophy and theology from 1565 to 1570, and was ordained in 1572. He taught philosophy at Avila and at Segovia (1571), and later, theology at Avila and Segovia (1575), Valladolid (1576), Rome (1580-85); Alcalá (1585-92), Salamanca (1592-97), and Coimbra (1597-1616). All his biographers say that he was an excellent religious, practicing mortification, laborious, modest, and given to prayer. He enjoyed such fame for wisdom that Gregory XIII attended his first lecture in Rome; Paul V invited him to refute the errors of King James of England, and wished to retain him near his person, to profit by his knowledge; Philip II sent him to the University of Coimbra to give prestige to that institution, and when Suárez visited the University of Barcelona, the doctors of the university went out to meet him, with the insignia of their faculties. His writings are characterized by depth, penetration and clearness of expression, and they bear witness to their author's exceptional knowledge of the Fathers, and of heretical as well as of ecclesiastical writers. Bossuet said that the writings of Suárez contained the whole of Scholastic philosophy; Werner (Franz Suárez, p. 90) affirms that if Suárez be not the first theologian of his age, he is, beyond all doubt, among the first; Grotius (Ep. 154, J. Cordesio) recognizes in him one of the greatest of theologians and a profound philosopher, and Mackintosh considers him one of the founders of international law.

In Scholasticism, he founded a school of his own, “Suarism”, the chief characteristic principles of which are:

1. the principle of individuation by the proper concrete entity of beings;
2. the pure potentiality of matter;
3. the singular as the object of direct intellectual cognition;
4. a nonconceptual distinction between the essence and the existence of created beings;
5. the possibility of spiritual substance only numerically distinct from one another;
6. ambition for the hypostatic union as the sin of the fallen angels;
7. the Incarnation of the Word, even if Adam had not sinned;
8. the solemnity of the vow only in ecclesiastical law;
9. the system of Congruism that modifies Molinism by the introduction of subjective circumstances, as well as of place and of time, propitious to the action of efficacious grace, and with predestination ante praevisa merita;
10. possibility of holding one and the same truth by both science and faith;
11. belief in Divine authority contained in an act of faith;
12. production of the body and blood of Christ by transubstantiation as constituting the Eucharistic sacrifice;
13. the final grace of the Blessed Virgin Mary superior to that of the angels and saints combined.

“Suárez classes” were established in several universities—Valladolid, Salamanca (1720), Alcalá (1734)—and various Scholastic authors wrote their works ad mentem Sáii. Charles III suppressed those classes throughout his dominions by a royal decree of 12 August, 1768, and prohibited the use of Jesuit authors, and therefore of Suárez, in teaching. It is obvious, says Cardinal Gonzalez, that, in so many volumes written by Suárez, there are to be found some matters of little utility, or the practical or scientific importance of which are not in proportion to the time and space that Suárez devotes to them. He is also charged with being somewhat diffuse. His book “De Defensione Fidei” was burned at London by royal command, and was prohibited by the Parliament of Paris (1614) on the ground that it contained doctrines that were contrary to the power of sovereigns.

WORKS

Suárez published his first work, “De Deo Incarnato”, at Alcalá, in 1590; he published twelve other volumes, the last of which, “De Defensio Fidei,” written against the King of England, was published at Coimbra, in 1613. After his death the Jesuits of Portugal published ten other volumes of his work, between 1619 and 1655. Of all of these works, two different editions were made; the first, at Venice, 23 volumes in folio (1740-1757); and the second in Paris (Vives), 28 volumes (1856-1861). In 1859 Mgr Manlou published another volume in folio, containing six short treatises that had not been previously published. Father De Scorraille (Etudes, Vol. LXIV, pp. 151-175) gave an account of the manuscripts of Suárez, noting the fact that they were numerous and that he himself possessed seventy-five of them. Many of these and others besides were found by Father Rivière. The works of Suárez were held in the highest esteem in his day, as is shown by the numerous partial editions that were made of them (Lyons, Salamanca, Madrid, Coimbra, Mayence, Cologne, Paris, Evora, Genoa), as also by the fact, related by his biographies, that one of the wings of the old college of the Jesuits at Salamanca was restored with the product of the sale of his metaphysical works. A compendium of the theology of Suárez was published by Father Noel, S.J. (Madrid, 1732); a short epitome of this theological disputes, by the Portuguese Father Francis Soárez, S.J. (Lisbon, 1626), and a compendium of the metaphysics, by Father Gregorio Iturria, S.J. (Madrid, 1901).

A. PEREZ GOYENA

Suger

Abbot of St-Denis, statesman and historian, b. probably at or near St-Denis, about 1081; d. there, 13 Jan., 1151. Towards 1091 he was offered to the monastery of St-Denis where he became a fellow-student of King Louis VI. From 1104 to 1106 he attended another monastic school, perhaps that of St-Benoît-sur-Loire near Orléans. He became secretary to Abbot Adam of St-Denis in 1106, was named provost of Berneval in Normandy towards 1107 and of Toury in Beauce in 1109. Louis IV sent him (1118) to the Court of Gelasius II at Maguelonne in Southern France, and later to that of Callistus II at Rome. During his stay at Rome (1121-22) he was elected Abbot of St-Denis, and ordained to the priesthood on his return. He attended the First General Council of the Lateran in 1123, and so favourably impressed Callistus II that eighteen months after his return to France this pope, desirous of conferring new honours (probably the cardinalate) upon him, invited him to Rome. Suger proceeded as far as Lucca, but retraced his steps upon receipt of the news of the pope's death. Henceforth most of his time was spent at Court until 1127, when he initiated, and subsequently successfully accomplished, the reform of his monastery. He continued to remain, however, the constant advisor of Louis VI and of his successor Louis VII. During the latter's absence on the Second Crusade he was appointed regent of the kingdom (1147-49). He had opposed the king's departure on the ground that the powerful and turbulent vassals were a danger to the royal power, but so successful was his administration that the king, upon his return, bestowed upon him the title of “Father of the Country”. Although the crusade ended in failure, Suger equipped an army and was about to depart for the Holy Land when he died. As a statesman he sought to strengthen the royal power, to improve agriculture, commerce, and trade, and to reform the administration of justice. As abbot he not only introduced thorough-going reforms, but also completed in 1144 the new monastic church. He has left an account of the consecration of the edifice, “Libellus de consecratione eccl. S. Dionysii”, and a memoir on his own abbatical administration, “Liber de rebus in administratione sua gestis”. Of greater importance for the knowledge of the period are his “Vita Ludovici Grossi regis”, a eulogistic but reliable life of Louis the Fat, and “Historia Ludovici VII”, a history of Louis VII, which in its present form is the work of a Burgundian monk of St-Germain-des-Prés. We also possess of him some letters, official documents, and a will of the year 1137.

The complete works of SUGER are in P. L., CLXXXVI, 1211-1468.

N. A. WEBER

Sunday

Sunday (Day of the Sun), as the name of the first day of the week, is derived from Egyptian astrology. The seven planets, known to us as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon, each had an hour of the day assigned to them, and the planet which was regent during the first hour of any day of the week gave its name to that day (see CALENDAR). During the first and second century the week of seven days was introduced into Rome from Egypt, and the Roman names of the planets were given to each successive day. The Teutonic nations seem to have adopted the week as a division of time from the Romans, but they changed the Roman names into those of corresponding Teutonic deities. Hence the dies Solis became Sunday (German, Sonntag). Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indicated in Acts, xx 7; I Cor., xvi, 2; in Apoc., i, 10, it is called the Lord's day. In the Didache (xiv) the injunction is given: “On the Lord's Day come together and break bread. And give thanks (offer the Eucharist), after confessing your sins that your sacrifice may be pure”. St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Magnes. ix) speaks of Christians as “no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again”. In the Epistle of Barnabas (xv) we read: “Wherefore, also, we keep the eight day (i. e. the first of the week) with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead”.

St. Justin is the first Christian writer to call the day Sunday (I Apol., lxvii) in the celebrated passage in which he describes the worship offered by the early Christians on that day to God. The fact that they ment together and offered public worship on Sunday necessitated a certain rest from work on that day. However, Tertullian (202) is the first writer who expressly mentions the Sunday rest: “We, however (just as tradition has taught us), on the day of the Lord's Resurrection ourght to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude, deferring even our businesses lest we give any place to the devil” (“De orat.”, xxiii; cf. “Ad nation.”, I, xiii; “Apolog.”, xvi).

These and similar indications show that during the first three centuries practice and tradition had consecrated the Sunday to the public worship of God by the hearing of the Mass and the resting from work. With the opening of the fourth century positive legislation, both ecclesiastical and civil, began to make these duties more definite. The Council of Elvira (300) decreed: “If anyone in the city neglects to come to church for three Sundays, let him be excommunicated for a short time so that he may be corrected” (xxi). In the Apostolic Constitutions, which belong to the end of the fourth century, both the hearing of the Mass and the rest from work are prescribed, and the precept is attributed to the Apostles. The express teaching of Christ and St. Paul prevented the early Christians from falling into the excesses of Jewish Sabbatarianism in the observance of the Sunday, and yet we find St. XXXXXX of Arles in the sixth century teaching that the holy Doctors of the Church had decreed that the whole glory of the Jewish Sabbath had been transferred to the Sunday, and that Christians must keep the Sunday holy in the same way as the Jews had been commanded to keep holy the Sabbath Day. He especially insisted on the people hearing the whole of the Mass and not leaving the church after the Epistle and the Gospel had been read. He taught them that they should come to Vespers and spend the rest of the day in pious reading and prayer. As with the Jewish Sabbath, the observance of the Christian Sunday began with sundown on Saturday and lasted till the same time on Sunday. Until quite recent times some theologians taught that there was an obligation under pain of venial sin of assisting at vespers as well as of hearing Mass, but the opinion rests on no certain foundation and is now commonly abandoned. The common opinion maintains that, while it is highly becoming to be present at Vespers on Sunday, there is no strict obligation to be present. The method of reckoning the Sunday from sunset to sunset continued in some places down to the seventeenth century, but in general since the Middle Ages the reckoning from midnight to midnight has been followed. When the parochial system was introduced, the laity were taught that they must hear Mass and the preaching of the Word of God on Sundays in their parish church. However, toward the end of the thirteenth century, the friars began to teach that the precept of hearing Mass might be fulfilled by hearing it in their churches, and after long and severe struggles this was expressly allowed by the Holy See. Nowadays, the precept may be fulfilled by hearing Mass in any place except a strictly private oratory, and provided Mass is not celebrated on a portable alter by a privilege which is merely personal.

The obligation of rest from work on Sunday remained somewhat indefinite for several centuries. A Council of Laodicea, held toward the end of the fourth century, was content to prescribe that on the Lord's Day the faithful were to abstain from work as far as possible. At the beginning of the sixth century St. Caesarius, as we have seen, and others showed an inclination to apply the law of the Jewish Sabbath to the observance of the Christian Sunday. The Council held at Orleans in 538 reprobated this tendency as Jewish and non-Christian. From the eight century the law began to be formulated as it exists at eh present day, and the local councils forbade servile work, public buying and selling, pleading in the law courts, and the public and solemn taking of oaths. There is a large body of civil legislation on the Sunday rest side by side with the ecclesiastical. It begins with an Edict of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, who forbade judges to sit and townspeople to work on Sunday. He made an exception in favour of agriculture. The breaking of the law of Sunday rest was punished by the Anglo-Saxon legislation in England like other crimes and misdemeanours. After the Reformation, under Puritan influence, many laws were passed in England whose effect is still visible in the stringency of the English Sabbath. Still more is this the case in Scotland. There is no federal legislation in the United States on the observance of the Sunday, but nearly all the states of the Union have statues tending to repress unnecessary labour and to restrain the liquor traffic. In other respects the legislation of the different states on this matter exhibits considerable variety. On the continent of Europe in recent years there have been several laws passed in direction of enforcing the observance of Sunday rest for the benefit of workmen.

VILLIEN, Hist. des commandements de l'Eglise (Paris, 1909); DUBLANCHY in Dict. de theol. cathol., s. v. DIMANCHE (Paris, 1911); SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); the moral theologians generally.

T. SLATER

Superstition

[From supersisto, “to stand in terror of the deity” (Cicero, “De Nat. deorum”, I, 42, 117); or from superstes, “surviving” : “Qui totos dies precabantur et immolabant, ut sibi sui liberi superstites essent, superstitiosi sunt appellati”, i.e. “Those who for whole days prayed and offered sacrifice that their children might survive them, were called superstitious” (Cicero, ibid., II, 28, 72). Cicero also drew the distinction: “Superstitio est in qua timor inanis deorum, religio quæ deorum cultu pio continetur”, i.e. “Superstition is the baseless fear of the gods, religion the pious worship.” According to Isidore of Seville (Etymolog., l. 8, c. iii, sent.), the word comes from superstatuo or superinstituo: “Superstitio est superflua observantia in cultu super statuta seu instituta superiorum”, i.e. “observances added on to prescribed or established worship”] is defined by St. Thomas (II-II, Q. 92, a. 1) as “a vice opposed to religion by way of excess; not because in the worship of God it does more than true religion, but because it offers Divine worship to beings other than God or offers worship to God in an improper manner”. Superstition sins by excess of religion, and this differs from the vice of irreligion, which sins by defect. The theological virtue of religion stands midway between the two. (II-II, Q. 92, a. 1.)

DIVISION

There are four species of superstitions:

1. improper worship of the true God (indebitus veri Dei cultus);
2. idolatry;
3. divination;
4. vain observances, which include magic and occult arts.

This division is based upon the various ways in which religion may be vitiated by excess. Worship becomes indebitus cultus when incongruous, meaningless, improper elements are added to the proper and approved performance; it becomes idolatrous when it is offered to creatures set up as divinities or endowed with divine attributes. Divination (q.v.) consists in the attempt to extract from creatures, by means of religious rites, a knowledge of future events or of things known to God alone. Under the head of vain observances come all those beliefs and practices which, at least by implication, attribute supernatural or preternatural powers for good or for evil to causes evidently incapable of producing the expected effects. The number and variety of superstitions appear from the following list of those most in vogue at different periods of history:

• astrology, the reading of the future and of man's destiny from the stars;
• aeromancy, divinations by means of the air and winds;
• amulets, things worn as a remedy or preservative against evils or mischief, such as diseases or witchcraft;
• chiromancy, or palmistry, divination by the lines of the hand;
• capnomancy, by the ascent or motion of smoke;
• catroptomancy, by mirrors;
• alomancy, by salt;
• cartomancy, by playing cards;
• anthropomancy, by inspection of human viscera;
• belomancy, by the shuffling of arrows (Ezechiel, xxi, 21);
• geomancy, by points, lines or figures traced on the ground;
• hydromancy, by water;
• idolatry, the worship of idols;
• Sabianism, the worship of the sun, moon, and stars;
• Zoolatry, Anthropolatry, and Fetishism, the worship of animals, man, and things without sense;
• Devil-worship;
• the worship of abstract notions personified, e.g. Victory, Peace, Fame, Concord, which had temples and a priesthood for the performance of their cult;
• necromancy, the evocation of the dead, as old as history and perpetuated in contemporary Spiritism;
• oneiromancy, the interpretation of dreams;
• philtres, potions, or charms intended to excite love;
• omens or prognostics of future events;
• witchcraft and magic in all their ramifications;
• lucky and unlucky days, numbers, persons, things, actions;
• the evil eye, spells, incantations, ordeals, etc.

ORIGIN

The source of superstition is, in the first place, subjective. Ignorance of natural causes leads to the belief that certain striking phenomena express the will or the anger of some invisible overruling power, and the objects in which such phenomena appear are forthwith deified, as, e.g. in Nature-worship. Conversely, many superstitious practices are due to an exaggerated notion or a false interpretation of natural events, so that effects are sought which are beyond the efficiency of physical causes. Curiosity also with regard to things that are hidden or are still in the future plays a considerable part, e.g. in the various kinds of divination. But the chief source of superstition is pointed out in Scripture: “All men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world” (Wisdom, xiii, 1 - 2). It is to this ignorance of the true God, coupled with an inordinate veneration for human excellence and the love of artistic representations appealing to the senses, that St. Thomas ascribes the origin of idolatry. While these are dispositive causes, the consummative cause, he adds, was the influence of demons who offered themselves as objects of worship to erring men, giving answers through idols and doing things which to men seemed marvellous (II-II, Q. 94, a. 4).

These causes explain the origin and spread of superstition in the pagan world. They were to a large extent eliminated by the preaching of Christianity; but so deep-rooted was the tendency to which they gave rise that many of the ancient practices survived, especially among peoples just emerging from barbarism. It was only by degrees, through the legislation of the Church and the advance of scientific knowledge, that the earlier forms of superstition were eradicated. But the tendency itself has not wholly disappeared. Side by side with the Rationalistic philosophy and the rigorous scientific methods which are characteristic of modern thought, there are still to be found various sorts of superstition. So far as this includes the worship of things other than God, it is not only an essential part, but the foundation also of the Positivistic system (Comte), which sets up humanity as the object of religious worship (see POSITIVISM). Nor can Pantheism (q.v.), which identifies God and the world, lead consistently to any but superstitious practices, however it may in theory disclaim such a purpose. The human mind, by a natural impulse, tends to worship something, and if it is convinced that Agnosticism is true and that God is unknowable, it will, sooner or later, devise other objects of worship. It is also significant that just when many scientists supposed that a belief in a future life had been finally proved an illusion, Spiritism (q.v.), with its doctrines and practices, should have gained such a strong hold not only on the ignorant, but also, and in a much more serious sense, on leading representatives of science itself. This may indeed be interpreted as a reaction against Materialism; but it is none the less, at bottom, an evidence of man's restless desire to penetrate, by any and every means, the mystery that lies beyond death. While it is easy to condemn Spiritism as superstitious and vain, the condemnation does not do away with the fact that Spiritism has become widespread in this age of enlightenment. Now as in the past the rejection of Divine truth in the name of reason often opens the way to beliefs and practices which are at once unworthy of reason and dangerous to morality.

SINFULNESS OF SUPERSTITION IN GENERAL

Superstition of any description is a transgression of the First Commandment: “I am the Lord thy God, - thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath ... thou shalt not adore them nor serve them” (Exod., xx, 2 - 5). It is also against the positive law of the Church, which visits the worst kinds of superstitions with severe punishments, and against the natural law inasmuch as it runs counter to the dictates of reason in the matter of man's relations to God. Such objective sinfulness is inherent in all superstitious practices from idolatry down to the vainest of vain observances, of course in very different degrees of gravity. With regard to the subjective guilt attaching to them it must be borne in mind that no sin is mortal unless committed with full knowledge of its grievous wickedness and with full deliberation and consent. Of these essential factors the first is often wanting entirely, and the second is only imperfectly present. The numerous cases in which the event seemed to justify the superstitious practice, and the universality of such incongruous beliefs and performances, though they may not always induce inculpable ignorance, may possibly obscure the knowledge and weaken the will to a point incompatible with mortal sin. As a matter of fact, many superstitions of our own day have been acts of genuine piety at other times, and may be so still in the hearts of simple folk.

SPECIAL SUPERSTITIONS

The principal species of superstition — idolatry, divination, occult arts — have received adequate treatment in other articles. Something remains to be said on:

1. cultus indebitus, or the pious vagaries which people intermingle with Catholic religion;
2. (2) vain observances in daily life.

1. Improper Worship

The first type of improper worship, cultus indebitus, consists in introducing false or superfluous elements into the practice of true religion. Such false elements, be their origin culpable deceit or inculpable credulity, vitiate the virtue of religion by substituting error for truth in the service of God. A layman performing priestly functions, a pardoner selling spurious indulgences, a fanatic devotee inventing false miracles and answers to prayers in order to introduce or spread his own favourite devotion, wholesale believers in supernatural apparitions, visions, revelations, which serve no good purpose - all these are guilty of superstition, at least material. As regards formal guilt, this is often reduced to the vanishing point by the prevailing credulity and common practice of the period. The worship of imaginary saints or relics, devotion based upon false revelations, apparitions, supposed miracles, or false notions generally, is usually excusable in the worshipper on the ground of ignorance and good faith; but there is no excuse for those who use similar means to exploit popular credulity for their own pecuniary profit. The originators of such falsehoods are liars, deceivers, and not rarely thieves; but a milder judgment should be pronounced on those who, after discovering the imposture, tolerate the improper cultus. For it is no easy matter, even for the highest authorities, to eradicate beliefs or to check the growth of devotions which have taken a strong hold on the popular mind: the long struggle of the Inquisition with the Spiritual Franciscans, who, on the assumption that the rule of St. Francis was a direct revelation from heaven, attributed to the practice of poverty an exaggerated importance, and cheerfully went to the stake rather than relinquish their ways, is but one example among scores that could be cited. There is always the fear of uprooting the wheat with the tares, and the hope of seeing the impropoer worship die a natural death; for devotions also have their changing seasons. The pope and the bishops are the proper authorities to act in these matters, for to them belongs the regulation of worship, both public and private, and it is the duty of every Catholic to abide by their decision.

The same reflections apply to another kind of improper worship, the cultus superfluus which consists in expecting from certain pre-arranged circumstances a greater efficacy of the religious performance; e.g. to expect a greater benefit from Masses said before sunrise with a certain number of candles disposed in a certain order, by a priest bearing a special saint's name or being of the supposed stature of Christ. Triduums, novenas, First Friday Communions, nine consecutive First Friday Communions, Saturday fasting, though they seem to attach special importance to number and dates, are approved by the Church, because these dates and numbers are convenient for shaping and regulating certain excellent devotions. The Catholic devotions which are connected with holy places, holy shrines, holy wells, famous relics, etc. are commonly treated as superstitious by non-Catholics who either reject all worship of saints and relics or assume pious frauds on the part of the priests who benefit by the worship. It must be admitted that these hallowed spots and things have occasioned many legends; that popular credulity was in some cases the principal cause of their celebrity; that here and there instances of fraud can be adduced; yet, for all that, the principles which guide the worshipper, and his good intentions, are not impaired by an undercurrent of errors as to facts. If superstition there be, it is only material. Moreover, the Church is always careful to remove any fraud or error inconsistent with true devotion, although she is tolerant of “pious beliefs” which have helped to further Christian piety. Thus, alleged saints and relics are suppressed as soon as discovered, but belief in the private revelations to which the feast of Corpus Christi, the Rosary, the Sacred Heart and many other devotions owe their origin is neither commanded nor prohibited; here each man is his own judge.

2. Vain Observances in Daily Life

Turning now to vain observances in daily life, properly so called, we first meet with the superstitions observed in the administration of justice during many centuries of the Middle Ages, and known as ordeals or “judgments of God”. Among the early Germans a man accused of a crime had to prove his innocence, no proof of his guilt being incumbent on his accusers. The oath of a free man, strengthened by the oaths of friends, sufficed to establish his innocence, but when the oath was refused or the required number of “compurgators” failed, the defendant, if he was a free man, had to fight his accuser in single combat; bondmen and women had either to find a champion to fight for them or to undergo some other form of ordeal as fixed by law, arranged by the judge, or chosen by one of the parties. Besides the judicial combat the early German laws recognized as legitimate means to discriminate between guilt and innocence the casting or drawing of lots, trial by fire in several forms - holding one's hand in fire for a determined length of time; passing between two piles of burning wood with no covering for the body except a shirt impregnated with wax; carrying with the naked hand a red-hot iron weighing from one to three pounds a distance of from nine to twelve paces; walking barefoot over nine red-hot ploughshares disposed in a line nine steps long. At the root of these and many analogous practices (see ORDEALS) lay the firm belief that God would work a miracle rather than allow the innocent to perish or the wicked to prevail. These “judgments of God” gave rise to new superstitions. Whether guilty or not, persons subjected to the trials would often put more confidence in charms, magic formulas, and ointments than in the intervention of Providence. The ordeals gradually gave way before the rationalistic temper of modern times; trials by torture, which survived the ordeals, seem to have been inspired by the same idea, that God will protect the innocent and give them superhuman endurance.

The power of the evil eye (fascinatio) has been believed in for a long time, and is still dreaded in many countries. The number thirteen continues to strike terror into the breasts of men who profess not to fear God. The apparent success which so often attends a superstition can mostly be accounted for by natural causes, although it would be rash to deny all supernatural intervention (e.g. in the phenomena of Spiritism). When the object is to ascertain, or to effect in a general way, one of two possible events, the law of probabilities gives an equal chance to success and failure, and success does more to support than failure would do to destroy superstition, for, on its side, there are arrayed the religious instinct, sympathy and apathy, confidence and distrust, encouragement and discouragement, self-suggestion and - perhaps strongest of all - the healing power of nature.

ST. THOMAS, Summa, II-II, QQ. 92 - 96; ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, Theol. Mor., IV, i. See also DIVINATION; NECROMANCY; ORDEALS; SPIRITISM.

J. WILHELM

The Last Supper

The meal held by Christ and His disciples on the eve of His Passion at which He instituted the Holy Eucharist.

TIME

The Evangelists and critics generally agree that the Last Supper was on a Thursday, that Christ suffered and died on Friday, and that He arose from the dead on Sunday. As to the day of the month there seems a difference between the record of the synoptic Gospels and that of St. John. In consequence some critics have rejected the authenticity of either account or of both. Since Christians, accepting the inspiration of the Scriptures, cannot admit contradictions in the sacred writers, various attempts have been made to reconcile the statements. Matt., xxvi 17, says, “And on the first day of the Azymes”; Mark, xiv, 12, “Now on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch “; Luke, xxii, 7, “ And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the pasch should be killed”. From these passages it seems to follow that Jesus and his disciples conformed to the ordinary custom, that the Last Supper took place on the 14th of Nisan, and that the Crucifixion was on the l5th, the great festival of the Jews. This opinion, held by Tolet, Cornelius a Lapide, Patrizi, Corluy, Hengstenberg, Ohlshausen, and Tholuck, is confirmed by the custom of the early Eastern Church which, looking to the day of the month, celebrated the commemoration of the Lord's Last Supper on the 14th of Nisan, without paying any attention to the day of the week. This was done in conformity with the teaching of St. John the Evangelist. But in his Gospel, St. John seems to indicate that Friday was the 14th of Nisan, for (xviii, 28) on the morning of this day the Jews “went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch “. Various things were done on this Friday which could not be done on a feast, viz., Christ is arrested, tried, crucified; His body is taken down” (because it was the parasceve) that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day (for that was a great sabbath day)”; the shroud and ointments are bought, and so on.

The defenders of this opinion claim that there is only an apparent contradiction and that the differing statements may be reconciled. For the Jews calculated their festivals and Sabbaths from sunset to sunset: thus the Sabbath began after sunset on Friday and ended at sunset on Saturday. This style is employed by the synoptic Gospels, while St. John, writing about twenty-six years after the destruction of Jerusalem, when Jewish law and customs no longer prevailed, may well have used the Roman method of computing time from midnight to midnight. The word pasch does not exclusively apply to the paschal lamb on the eve of the feast, but is used in the Scriptures and in the Talmud in a wider sense for the entire festivity, including the chagigah; any legal defilement could have been removed by the evening ablutions; trials, and even executions and many servile works, though forbidden on the Sabbath, were not forbidden on feasts (Num., xxviii, 16; Deut., xvi, 23). The word parasceve may denote the preparation for any Sabbath and may be the common designation for any Friday, and its connexion with pasch need not mean preparation for the Passover but Friday of the Passover season and hence this Sabbath was a great Sabbath. Moreover it seems quite certain that if St. John intended to give a different date from that given by the Synoptics and sanctioned by the custom of his own Church at Ephesus, he would have said so expressly. Others accept the apparent statement of St. John that the Last Supper was on the 13th of Nisan and try to reconcile the account of the Synoptics. To this class belong Paul of Burgos, Maldonatus, Petau, Hardouin, Tillemont, and others. Peter of Alexandria (P.G., XCII, 78) says: “In previous years Jesus had kept the Passover and eaten the paschal lamb, but on the day before He suffered as the true Paschal Lamb He taught His disciples the mystery of the type.” Others say: Since the Pasch, falling that year on a Friday, was reckoned as a Sabbath, the Jews, to avoid the inconvenience of two successive Sabbaths, had postponed the Passover for a day, and Jesus adhered to the day fixed by law; others think that Jesus anticipated the celebration, knowing that the proper time He would be in the grave.

PLACE

The owner of the house in which was the upper room of the Last Supper is not mentioned in Scripture; but he must have been one of the disciples, since Christ bids Peter and John say, “The Master says”. Some say it was Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, or the mother of John Mark. The hall was large and furnished as a dining-room. In it Christ showed Himself after His Resurrection; here took place the election of Matthias to the Apostolate and the sending of the Holy Ghost; here the first Christians assembled for the breaking of bread; hither Peter and John came when they had given testimony after the cure of the man born lame, and Peter after his liberation from prison; here perhaps was the council of the Apostles held. It was for awhile the only church in Jerusalem, the mother of all churches, known as the Church of the Apostles or of Sion. It was visited in 404 by St. Paula of Rome. In the eleventh century it was destroyed by the Saracens, later rebuilt and given to the care of the Augustinians. Restored after a second destruction, it was placed in charge of the Franciscans, who were driven out in 1561. At present it is a Moslem mosque.

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

Some critics give the following harmonized order: washing of the feet of the Apostles, prediction of the betrayal and departure of Judas, institution of the Holy Eucharist. Others, believing that Judas made a sacrilegious communion, place the institution of the sacrament before the departure of Judas.

IN ART

The Last Supper has been a favourite subject. In the catacombs we find representations of meals giving at least an idea of the Surroundings of an ancient dining hall. Of the sixth century we have a bas-relief in the church at Monza in Italy, a Picture in a Syrian codex of the Laurentian Library at Florence, and a mosaic in S. Apollmare Nuovo at Ravenna. One of the most popular pictures is that of Leonardo da Vinci in Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan. Among the modern school of German artist, the Last Supper of Gebhardt is regarded as a masterpiece.

FOUARD, The Christ, the Son of God, tr. GRIFFITH, II (London, 1895), 386; MADAME CECILIA, Cath. Scripture Manuals; St. Matthew, II, 197; The Expository Times, XX (Edinburgh, 1909), 514; Theolog. praktische Quartalschrift (1877), 425; LANGEN, Die letzten Lebenstage Jesu (Freiburg, 1864), 27; KRAUS, Gesch. der chr. Kunst, s. v. Abendmahl; Stimmen aus Maria Laach, XLIX, 146; CHWOLSON in Mém. de l'Acad. impér. des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg, 7th ser., XLI, p. 37; VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible (Paris, 1899), s. vv. Cène; Cénacle, where a full bibliography may be found.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

The Feast of Tabernacles

One of the three great feasts of the Hebrew liturgical calendar, even the greatest, according to Philo (heorton megiste) and Josephus (heste hagiotate kai megiste). The common name, feast of Tabernacles — among Greek-speaking Jews skenopegia, that is, “the pitching of the tent” (John, vii, 2) — recalls to mind the custom established by the law of Lev., xiii, 40, of erecting on the roofs of houses, and even in streets and public squares, booths of branches and foliage, wherein all who were not exempt through illness or weakness were obliged to live during the entire celebration. It is sometimes asserted that the origin of the feast was similar to our “harvest-home” festivities.

This naturalistic view, based on the assumption that the religious enactments of the Law are of relatively recent date and mere sacerdotal ordinances, takes no account of the significance which at all times attached to the feast. True it is that one of the features of the celebrations was to be, after a fashion, a harvest-home, and to offer thanksgiving for the crops of the year (Deut., xvi, 13; Ex., xxiii, 16); and it is perhaps owing to this special feature that the character of the feast was one of joy and merriment (cf. Ps. iv, 7-8, in Heb.,; Joseph., Ant., VIII, iv, 1), and that numerous sacrifices were then offered (num., xxix, 12-39); yet to the Jews the feast of Tabernacles was always and primarily in commemoration of their forefathers' indwelling in tents in the wilderness (Lev., xxiii, 43) and in thanksgiving for the permanent abode given them in the Promised Land, and later on, after the erection of the Temple, for a permanent place of worship (cf. III Kings, viii, 2; xii, 32). The feast began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, Ethanim of Tishri (about our September), and lasted seven days (Lev., xxiii, 34-36). Every male Israelite was, according to law, obliged to go to jerusalem, and “every one who was of the people of Israel” was bound to live in booths, which, though involving some discomfort, at the same time contributed much to the merriment attending the celebration. The distinctions between rich and poor were then somewhat obliterated in the general encampment, and thus the feast had a most beneficial social influence. The first day was held most solemn and considered a sabbath, all servile work being forbidden on that day (Lev., xxiii, 39; Num,.xxix, 35); during the whole octave numerous sacrifices were offered (Num., xxix, 12-39) and on the eighth day [styled the great(est) day of the feast in John, cii, 37], was held a sabbath like the first and marked by special sacrifices of its own, the booths were broken up and the people returned home.

After the Exile, the feast was protracted to the twenty-fifth of the month, and two new rites were added to the old ceremonial. Every morning of the celebration a priest went down to the Siloe Fountain, whence he brought in a golden ewer water which was pored on the alter of holocausts amidst the singing of the Hallel (Pss, cxii-cxvii) and the joyful sound of musical instruments. It was possibly the performance of this ceremony (the institution of which may have been suggested by Is., xii, 3) which afforded to Our Lord the occasion to compare the action of the Holy Ghost in the faithful to a spring of living water (John, vii, 37-39). The other new feature added to the ritual of the feast was the illumination of the women's court, together with the singing of the Psalms of the Degrees (Pss. cxix-cxxxiii) and the performance of dances or processions in the sacred precincts. On the eighth day a procession went seven times around the alter, the people carrying myrtle-boughs and palms and shouting: “Hosannah!” in memory of the fall of Jericho.

Every seven years, that is in the year of release, during the feast of Tabernacles, the Law was to be read before all the people according to the command found in Deut., xxxi, 10. But this enactment was probably soon found to be impracticable; and thus the Jewish authorities arranged to read on every sabbath, commencing with the sabbath after the feast of Tabernacles in one year of release and ending with the feast of Tabernacles in the next year of release, a portion of the Law so calculated that the whole Pentateuch would be read through in seven years. This would in some way the commandment be fulfilled. Some time later, the Jews of Palestine lengthened the sections for each sabbath in such a manner that he entire Law could be read in three years (Talm. Babyl. Megillah, 29b). At present (and this custom seems to go back to the first century B. C.) the Jews have the Pentateuch so divided that they read it through every year, the first Parashah (division) being appointed for the sabbath after the feast of Tabernacles, and the last chapters for the last day of the feast in the next year, this being the day of “rejoicing in the Law”.

GREEN, The Hebrew Feasts (Cincinnati, 1886); IKEN, Antiquitates Hebraicae (Bremen, 1741); RELAND, Antiquitates sacrae (Utrecht, 1741); BAHR, Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus (Heidelberg, 1839); BENZIGER, Hebräische Archäologie (Frieburg im Br., 1894); SCHEGG, Biblische Archäologie (Frieburg im Br., 1894), 591 sq.; WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena zur geschichte Israels (4th ed., Berlin, 1895); EDERSHEIM, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (New York, 1897), II, 149, 156-160, 165; IDEM, The Temple, Its Ministry and Services (London, 1874), 232-49; Talmud, ROOKINSON (Boston, a. d.), IV, Tract. Succah; DORTLEITNER, Archaeol. Bibl. (Innsbruck, 1906), 99-101; LESÊTRE IN VIG., Dict. de la Bible, V, 1961-66.

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

St. Teresa of Avila

Teresa Sanchez Cepeda Davila y Ahumada, born at Avila, Old Castile, 28 March, 1515; died at Alba de Tormes, 4 Oct., 1582. The third child of Don Alonso Sanchez de Cepeda by his second wife, Doña Beatriz Davila y Ahumada, who died when the saint was in her fourteenth year, Teresa was brought up by her saintly father, a lover of serious books, and a tender and pious mother. After her death and the marriage of her eldest sister, Teresa was sent for her education to the Augustinian nuns at Avila, but owing to illness she left at the end of eighteen months, and for some years remained with her father and occasionally with other relatives, notably an uncle who made her acquainted with the Letters of St. Jerome, which determined her to adopt the religious life, not so much through any attraction towards it, as through a desire of choosing the safest course. Unable to obtain her father's consent she left his house unknown to him on Nov., 1535, to enter the Carmelite Convent of the Incarnation at Avila, which then counted 140 nuns. The wrench from her family caused her a pain which she ever afterwards compared to that of death. However, her father at once yielded and Teresa took the habit.

After her profession in the following year she became very seriously ill, and underwent a prolonged cure and such unskillful medical treatment that she was reduced to a most pitiful state, and even after partial recovery through the intercession of St. Joseph, her health remained permanently impaired. During these years of suffering she began the practice of mental prayer, but fearing that her conversations with some world-minded relatives, frequent visitors at the convent, rendered her unworthy of the graces God bestowed on her in prayer, discontinued it, until she came under the influence, first of the Dominicans, and afterwards of the Jesuits. Meanwhile God had begun to visit her with “intellectual visions and locutions”, that is manifestations in which the exterior senses were in no way affected, the things seen and the words heard being directly impressed upon her mind, and giving her wonderful strength in trials, reprimanding her for unfaithfulness, and consoling her in trouble. Unable to reconcile such graces with her shortcomings, which her delicate conscience represented as grievous faults, she had recourse not only to the most spiritual confessors she could find, but also to some saintly laymen, who, never suspecting that the account she gave them of her sins was greatly exaggerated, believed these manifestations to be the work of the evil spirit. The more she endeavoured to resist them the more powerfully did God work in her soul. The whole city of Avila was troubled by the reports of the visions of this nun. It was reserved to St. Francis Borgia and St. Peter of Alcantara, and afterwards to a number of Dominicans (particularly Pedro Ibañez and Domingo Bañez), Jesuits, and other religious and secular priests, to discern the work of God and to guide her on a safe road.

The account of her spiritual life contained in the “Life written by herself” (completed in 1565, an earlier version being lost), in the “Relations”, and in the “Interior Castle”, forms one of the most remarkable spiritual biographies with which only the “Confessions of St. Augustine” can bear comparison. To this period belong also such extraordinary manifestations as the piercing or transverberation of her heart, the spiritual espousals, and the mystical marriage. A vision of the place destined for her in hell in case she should have been unfaithful to grace, determined her to seek a more perfect life. After many troubles and much opposition St. Teresa founded the convent of Discalced Carmelite Nuns of the Primitive Rule of St. Joseph at Avila (24 Aug., 1562), and after six months obtained permission to take up her residence there. Four years later she received the visit of the General of the Carmelites, John-Baptist Rubeo (Rossi), who not only approved of what she had done but granted leave for the foundation of other convents of friars as well as nuns. In rapid succession she established her nuns at Medina del Campo (1567), Malagon and Valladolid (1568), Toledo and Pastrana (1569), Salamanca (1570), Alba de Tormes (1571), Segovia (1574), Veas and Seville (1575), and Caravaca (1576). In the “Book of Foundations” she tells the story of these convents, nearly all of which were established in spite of violent opposition but with manifest assistance from above. Everywhere she found souls generous enough to embrace the austerities of the primitive rule of Carmel. Having made the acquaintance of Antonio de Heredia, prior of Medina, and St. John of the Cross (q.v.), she established her reform among the friars (28 Nov., 1568), the first convents being those of Duruelo (1568), Pastrana (1569), Mancera, and Alcalá de Henares (1570).

A new epoch began with the entrance into religion of Jerome Gratian, inasmuch as this remarkable man was almost immediately entrusted by the nuncio with the authority of visitor Apostolic of the Carmelite friars and nuns of the old observance in Andalusia, and as such considered himself entitled to overrule the various restrictions insisted upon by the general and the general chapter. On the death of the nuncio and the arrival of his successor a fearful storm burst over St. Teresa and her work, lasting four years and threatening to annihilate the nascent reform. The incidents of this persecution are best described in her letters. The storm at length passed, and the province of Discalced Carmelites, with the support of Philip II, was approved and canonically established on 22 June, 1580. St. Teresa, old and broken in health, made further foundations at Villnuava de la Jara and Palencia (1580), Soria (1581), Granada (through her assiatant the Venerable Anne of Jesus), and at Burgos (1582). She left this latter place at the end of July, and, stopping at Palencia, Valldolid, and Medina del Campo, reached Alba de Torres in September, suffering intensely. Soon she took to her bed and passed away on 4 Oct., 1582, the following day, owing to the reform of the calendar, being reckoned as 15 October. After some years her body was transferred to Avila, but later on reconveyed to Alba, where it is still preserved incorrupt. Her heart, too, showing the marks of the Transverberation, is exposed there to the veneration of the faithful. She was beatified in 1614, and canonized in 1622 by Gregory XV, the feast being fixed on 15 October.

St. Teresa's position among writers on mystical theology is unique. In all her writings on this subject she deals with her personal experiences, which a deep insight and analytical gifts enabled her to explain clearly. The Thomistic substratum may be traced to the influence of her confessors and directors, many of whom belonged to the Dominican Order. She herself had no pretension to found a school in the accepted sense of the term, and there is no vestige in her writings of any influence of the Aeropagite, the Patristic, or the Scholastic Mystical schools, as represented among others, by the German Dominican Mystics. She is intensely personal, her system going exactly as far as her experiences, but not a step further.

A word must be added on the orthography of her name. It has of late become the fashion to write her name Teresa or Teresia, without “h”, not only in Spanish and Italian, where the “h” could have no place, but also in French, German, and Latin, which ought to preserve the etymological spelling. As it is derived from a Greek name, Tharasia, the saintly wife of St. Paulinus of Nola, it should be written Theresia in German and Latin, and Thérèse in French.

BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN

The Old Testament

I. NAME

The word “testament”, Hebrew berîth, Greek diatheke, primarily signifies the covenant which God entered into first with Abraham, then with the people of Israel. The Prophets had knowledge of a new covenant to which the one concluded on Mount Sinai should give away. Accordingly Christ at the Last Supper speaks of the blood of the new testament. The Apostle St. Paul declares himself (II Cor., iii, 6) a minister “of the new testament”, and calls (iii, 14) the covenant entered into on Mount Sinai “the old testament”. The Greek expression diatheke is employed in the Septuagint for the Hebrew “berîth”. The later interpreters Aquila and Symmachus substituted for diatheke the more common syntheke, which probably agreed more with their literary taste. The Latin term is “f dus” and oftener testamentum”, a word corresponding more exactly to the Greek.

As regards Christian times, the expression at an early period came to signify the whole of God's Revelation as exhibited in the history of Israelites, and because this old covenant was incorporated into the Canonical Books, it was but an easy step to make the term signify the Canonical Scriptures. Even the text referred to above (II Cor., iii, 14) points to that. So, the Scriptures are called “books of the Old Testament” by Melito of Sardis and Clement of Alexandria (ta palaia biblia; ta tes palaias diathekes biblia). It is not clear whether with these authors “Old Testament” and “Scriptures of the Old Testament” mean the same. Origen shows that in his time the transition was complete, although in his writing signs of the gradual fixing of the expression may be still traced. For he repeatedly speaks of the “so-called” Old Testament, when meaning the Scriptures. With the Western writers this use of term in the most ancient period cannot yet be proved. To the lawyer Tertullian the Sacred Books are, above all, documents and sources of argument, and he therefore frequently calls them “vetus and novum instrumentum”. Cyprian once mentions the “scriptur veteres et nov “. Subsequently the Greek use of the term becomes established among the Latins as well, and through them it has been made common property of the Christian world. In this meaning, as signifying the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, the expression “Old Testament” will be used in what follows.

II. HISTORY OF THE TEXT

The canon of the Old Testament, its manuscripts, editions and ancient versions are treated in the articles BIBLE; CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES; CODEX ALEXANDRINUS, etc.; HEBREW BIBLE; MASSORAH; MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE; VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE. Questions concerning the origin and contents of the single books are proposed and answered in articles on the respective books. This article is confined to the general introduction on the text of the parts of the Old Testament written in Hebrew; for the few books originally composed in Greek (Wisdom; II Machabees) and those of which the Semitic original has been lost (Judith; Tobias; Sirach, i.e. Ecclus.; I Machabees) call for no special treatment.

A. Text of the Manuscripts and Massoretes

The sure starting-point for a correct estimation of the text of the Old Testament is the evidence obtained from the manuscripts. In this connection, the first thing to observe is that however distant the oldest manuscripts are — the earliest are of the ninth century A.D. — from the time when the books were composed, there is a uniform and homogeneous tradition concerning the text. The fact is all the more striking, as the history of the New Testament is quite different. We have New Testament manuscripts written not much more than 300 years after the composition of the books, and in them we find numerous differences, though but few of them are important. The textual variants n the manuscripts of the Old Testament are limited to quite insignificant differences of vowels and more rarely of consonants. Even when we take into account the discrepancies between the Eastern, or Babylonian, and Western, or Palestinian schools, no essential differences are found. The proof for the agreement between the manuscripts was established by B. Kennicott after comparing more than 600 manuscripts (“Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum cariis lectionibus”, Oxford, 1776, 1780). De Rossi has added considerably to this material (“Vari xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”, Parma, 1784-88). It is obvious that this striking uniformity cannot be due to chance; it is unique in the history of text-tradition, and all the more remarkable as the imperfect Hebrew system of writing could not but occasion many and various errors and slips. Besides many peculiarities in the method of writing show themselves uniformly everywhere. False readings are retained in the same manner, so that the text is clearly the result of artificial equalization.

The question now arises: How far back can we trace this care in handing down the text to posterity? Philo, many authorities on the Talmud, and alter Jewish rabbis and savants of the sixteenth and seventeenth century favoured the opinion that the Hebrew text, as it is now read in our manuscripts, was written down from the outset and bequeathed to us unadulterated. The works of Elias Levita, Morinus, Cappelus have shown this view to be untenable; and later investigations have established the history of the text in its essential features. The uniformity of the manuscripts is ultimately the outcome of the labours of the Massoretes, which were not concluded till after the writing of the oldest manuscripts. The work of the Massoretes chiefly consisted in the faithful preservation of the transmitted text. This they accomplished by maintaining accurate statistics on the entire state of the Sacred Books. Verses, words, letters were counted; lists were complied of like words and of forms of words with full and effective spelling, and possibilities of easy mistakes were catalogued. The invention of the signs for vowels and accents — about the seventh century — facilitated a faithful preservation of the text. Incorrect separation and connection of syllables and words was henceforth all but excluded.

Textual criticism was employed by the Massoretes very moderately, and even the little they did, shows that as mush as possible they left untouched all that had been handed down. If a reading proved untenable, they did not correct the text itself, but were satisfied with noting the proper reading on the margin as “Qerê” (read), in opposition to “Kethîbh” (written). Such corrections were of various kinds. They were first of all corrections of real mistakes, whether of letters or of entire words. A letter or a word in the text had, according to the note on the margin, either to be changed, or inserted, or omitted by the reader. Such were the so-called “Tiqqunê Sopherîm”, corrections of the scribes. The second group of corrections consisted in changing an ambiguous word, — of such eighteen are recorded in the Massorah. In the Talmud no mention has as yet been made of them. But its compilers were aware of the “ Itturê Sopherîm”, or erasures of the connecting Waw, which had been made in several places in opposition to the Septuagint and the Samaritan Versions. When later the Massoretes speak only of four or five instances, we must say with Ginsburg that these are merely recorded as typical. Cases are not rare when consideration for religious or moral feeling has led to the substitution of a more harmless euphemism for an ill-sounding word. The vowels of the expression to be read are attached to the written word of the text, whilst the consonants are noted on the margin. Well known is the ever-recurring “Qerê” Adonai instead of Jahvê; it seems to date back to the time before Christ, and probably even the first Greek interpreters were acquainted with it.

The fact that the Massoretes did not dare insert the changes described in the Sacred Text itself shows that the latter was already fixed. Other peculiarities point to the same reverence for tradition. We repeatedly find in the text a so-called inverted Nun (e.g., Num., x, 35-36). In Isaiah 9:6, there is a final Mêm within the word. A Waw is interrupted or letters are made bigger, whilst others are placed higher up — the so-called suspended letters. Not a few of these oddities are already recorded in the Talmud, and therefore must be of great age. Letters with points are mentioned even in the “Mishna”. The counting of the letters also probably belongs to the older period. Records serving for textual criticism are extant from the same time. In its essentials the work is completed with the post-Talmdic treatise “Sopher m”. This treatise, which gives a careful introduction to the writing of the Sacred Text, is one of the most conclusive proofs of the scrupulosity with which at the time of its origin (not before the seventh century) the text was generally treated.

B. Older Witnesses

The condition of the text previous to the age of the Massoretes is guaranteed by the “Talmud” with its notes on text-criticism and its innumerable quotations, which are however, frequently drawn only from memory. Another help are the “Targums”, or free Aramaic versions of the Sacred Books, composed from the last centuries B.C. to the fifth A.D. But the state of the text is chiefly evidenced by the Vulgate Version made by St. Jerome at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries. He followed the Hebrew original, and his occasional remarks on how a word was spelt or read enable us to arrive at a sure judgment on the text of the fourth century. As was to be expected form the statements of the Talmud, the consonant-text of the manuscripts tallies almost in every respect with the original of St. Jerome. There appear greater discrepancies in vocalization, which is not to be wondered at, for at that time the marking of vowels was not known. Thus the reading is necessarily often ambiguous, as the saint expressly states. His comment on Is., xxxviii, 11, shows that this statement is not only to be taken as learned note, but that thereby the interpretation might often be influenced practically. When St. Jerome occasionally speaks of vowels, he means the quiescent or vowel letters. Nevertheless, the opinion that in the fourth century the pronunciation was still fluctuating, would be erroneous. For the saint knew how, in a definite case, ambiguous word was to be vocalized; he appealed to the custom of the Jews standing in opposition to the interpretation of the Septuagint. A fixed pronunciation had already resulted from the practice, in vogue for centuries, of reading the Holy Writ publicly in the synagogue. There might be doubt in particular cases, but, on the whole, even the vowel-text was secured.

The letters in which the manuscripts of that time were written are the “square characters”, as appears from St. Jerome's remarks. This writing distinguished the final forms of the well-known five letters (Prologus galeatus), and probably supposed the separation of words which, excepting a few places, is the same as in our Massoretic Text. Sometimes the Vulgate alone seems to have preserved the correct separation in opposition to the Massoretes and the Greek Version.

The loss of Origen's hexapla is very much to be regretted. This work in its first two columns would have handed down to us both the consonant-text and the vocalization. But only a few scattered remnants of the second are left. They show that the pronunciation, especially of the proper names, in the third century disagrees not infrequently with the one used later. The alphabet at the time of Origen was the same as that of a century and a half afterwards. As regards the consonants there is little change, and the text shows no essential transformation

We are led still further back by the Greek versions originating in the second century. The most valuable is Aqulia s, as it was based upon the Hebrew text, and rendered it to the letter, with the greatest fidelity, thus enabling us to draw reliable conclusions as to the condition of the original. The work is all the more valuable, as Aquila does not care about the Greek position of words and the peculiar Greek idiom. More over, he consciously differs from the Septuagint, taking the then official text for his norm. Being a disciple of Rabbi Aqiba he presumably maintains the views and principles of the Jewish scribes in the beginning of the second century. The two other versions of the same period are of less importance for the critic. Theodotion depends upon the Septuagint, and Symmachus allows himself greater liberty in the treatment of the text. Of the three versions only very small fragments have come down to us. The form of the text which we gather from them is almost the one transmitted by the Massoretes; the differences naturally became more numerous, but it remains the one recension we know of from our manuscripts. It must, therefore, be scribed at least to the beginning of the second century, and recent investigations in fact assign it to that period.

But that is not all. The perfect agreement of the manuscripts, even in their critical remarks and seemingly irrelevant and casual peculiarities, has led to the assumption that the present text not only represents a single recension, but that this recension is even built upon one archetype containing the very peculiarities that now strike us in the manuscripts. In favour of this hypothesis, which, since the time of Olshausen, has been defended and based upon a deeper argument especially by de Lagarde, evidence has been brought forward which seems overwhelming. Hence it is not surprising that, of late, the assertion was made that this view had long since become an admitted fact in the textual criticism of the Old Testament. Yet, however persuasive the argument appears at first sight its validity has been constantly impugned by authorities such as Kuenen, Strack, Buhl, König, and others distinguished by their knowledge of the subject. The present state of the Hebrew text is doubtless the outcome of systematic labour during the course of several centuries, but the question is whether the supposed archetype ever existed.

At the outset the very assumption that about A.D. 150 only a single copy was available for the preparation of the Bible text is so improbable as scarcely to deserve consideration. For even if during the insurrection of Bar-Cocheba a great number of Scripture rolls perished, there nevertheless existed enough of them in Egypt and Persia, so that there was no need to rely on one damaged copy. And how could this copy, the defective peculiarities of which could not have been overlooked, attain to such undisputed authority? This could have happened only if it had much greater weight than the others, for instance, for its being a temple scroll; this would imply further that there existed official texts and copies, and so the uniformity goes further back. On the supposition that it were but a private scroll, preserved merely by chance, it would be impossible to explain how the obvious mistakes were retained. Why, for instance, should all copies have a closed Qoph, or a letter casually made larger, or a final Mem within a word? Such improbabilities arise necessarily from the hypothesis of a single archetype. Is it not much more likely that the supposed mistakes are really not erroneous, but have some critical signification? For several of them a satisfactory explanation has already been given. Thus the inverted Nun points to the uncertainly of the respective passages: in Prov., xvi, 28, for instance, the small Nun, as Blau rightly conjectures, might owe its origin to a textual emendation suggested by the feeling prevalent later on. The larger letters served perhaps to mark the middle of a book. Possibly something similar may have given rise to the other peculiarities for which we cannot at present account. As long as there exists the possibility of a probable explanation, we should not make chance responsible for the condition of our text, though we do not deny that here and there chance has been at play. But the complete agreement was certainly brought about gradually. The older the witnesses, the more they differ, even though the recension remains the same. And yet it might have been expected, the more ancient they were the more uniform they should become.

Besides, if one codex had been the source of all the rest, it cannot be explained why trifling oddities were everywhere taken over faithfully, whilst the consonant-text was less cared for. If, again, in later times the differences were maintained by the Western and Eastern schools, it is clear that the supposed codex did not possess the necessarily decisive authority.

The present text on the contrary seems to have resulted from the critical labour of the scribes from the first century B.C. to the second century A.D. Considering the reading of the Bible in the synagogue and the statements of Josephus (Contra Apionem, I, viii) and of Plato (Eusebius, “Pr p. Evang.”, VIII, vi) on the treatment of the Scriptures, we may rightly suppose that greater changes of the text did not occur at that time. Even the word of Jesus in Matt., v, 18, about the jot and tittle not passing away, seem to point to a scrupulous care in the preservation of the very letter; and the unconditional authority of the Scripture presuppose a high opinion of the letter of Holy Writ.

How the work of the scribes was carried out in detail, we cannot ascertain. Some statements of Jewish tradition suggest that they were satisfied with superficial investigation and criticism, which however, is all that could have been expected at a time when serious textual criticism was not even thought of. When difficulties arose, it is said that the witnesses were counted and the question decided according to numerical majority. However simple and imperfect his method was, under the circumstances an objective account of the actual state of the question was much more valuable than a series of hypotheses the claims of which we could not now examine. Nor is there any reason for supposing, with some early Christian writers, conscious changes or falsifications of the text. But we are, perhaps, justified in holding that the disputes between the Jews and Christians about the text of the Scriptures were one of the reasons why the former hastened the work of unifying and fixing the text.

The manuscripts of that period probably showed little difference from those of the subsequent epoch. The consonant-text was written in a more ancient form of the square characters; the so-called final letters presumably came into use then. The Nash Papyrus (the Ten Commandments) would give some information if it were only certain that it really belongs to the first century. The question cannot be decided, as our knowledge of Hebrew writing from the first to the third century is quite imperfect. The papyrus is written in well-developed square characters, exhibits division of words throughout., and always uses the “final letters”. As in the Talmud, the memory of the relatively late distinction of the double forms of the five letters is still alive, their application in Holy Writ cannot be dated back too far. Even the Massorah contains a number of phrases having final letters which are divided differently in the text and on the margin, and must, therefore, belong to a period when the distinction was not as yet in use. From the Nabat n and Palmyrian inscriptions we learn that at the time of Christ the distinction already existed, but it does not follow that the same usage prevailed in the land west of Jordan and, in particular, in the Sacred Books. The Palmyrian inscriptions of the first to the third century apply the final form of only one letter, viz., Nun, whilst the Nabat an go beyond the Hebrew and use, though not consistently, double forms also for Aleph and Hê. The time when the Jewish copyists began to distinguish the double forms must then remain an open question. Moreover, the term “final letters” does not seem very appropriate, considering the historical development. It is not the final forms then invented, but rather the others, that seem to be the product of a new writing. For, with the single exception of Mêm, the so-called final forms are those of the old characters as exhibited partly at least even in the oldest inscriptions, or at any rate in use in the Aramaic papyri of the fifth century B.C.

C. The Bible Text before Christ

As regards the preceding centuries, we are relatively well informed. In place of the missing manuscripts we have the ancient Greek Version of the Old Testament, the so-called Septuagint, or Alexandrian, Version. The Pentateuch was translated in the first half of the third century, but it cannot be determined in what order and at what intervals the other books followed. Yet in the case of the majority of the books the work was probably completed about the middle of the second century B.C. Of primary importance for us is the question of the state of the text at the time of the translation. As the version is not the work of one man — not even the Pentateuch has only one translator — nor the work of one period, but is extended over more than a hundred years, it cannot all be judged by the same criterion. The same holds good of its Hebrew original Some of the Old-Testament Scriptures and, at the time of the translation, existed for about a thousand years, whilst others had just been composed. Considering this historical development, we must, in judging the texts, not simply oppose the whole of the M. T. (Massoretic Text) on the one hand to the whole Septuagint on the other. Results of any practical value can be obtained only by a separate study of the different books of the Holy Scripture.

The oldest, the Pentateuch, presents considerable differences from the M.T. only in Exodus 36-40, and in Numbers. Greater divergences appear in Sam., Jer., Job, Prov., and Daniel. The M.T. of the Books of Samuel has suffered in many places. The Greek Version often serves to correct it, though not always. In Jeremias text-tradition is very unsettled. In the Greek Version not less than 2700 words of the M. T., about an eighth part of the whole, are missing. Additions to the M. T. are inconsiderable. Some of the parts wanting in Septuagint may be later additions, whilst others belong to the original text. The transpositions of the Greek text seem to be secondary. Still the order of the M.T. is not unobjectionable either, and sometimes Septuagint is right in opposition to M.T. On the whole, the text of Septuagint seems to be preferable to the M.T. In Job the textual problem is quite similar. The Greek text is considerably shorter than the M.T. The Greek rendering of Proverbs diverges still more from the Hebrew. Lastly, the Greek Ecclesiasticius, a translation which we must consider to have been made by the author's grandson, is a altogether different from the Hebrew recension lately found. These facts prove that during the third-second century B.C. texts were circulated which manifest traces of careless treatment. But it must be remembered that translators, sometimes, may have treated the text more freely, and that even our Greek Version has not come down to us in its original form. It is hard to determine how far we may recognize the official text of the period in the present form of the Greek text. The legend of the solemn mission to Jerusalem and the deputation of the translators to Egypt cannot be treated as historical. On the other hand it is arbitrary to assume that the original of the Greek Version represents a corrupted text every time if differs from M.T. We have to distinguish various forms of the text, whether we call them recensions or not.

For a judgment on the Septuagint and its original, the knowledge of the Hebrew writing then in vogue is indispensable. In the case of the Minor Prophets attempts have been made by Vollers to discover the characters employed. The Books of Samuel have been investigated by Wellhausen and Driver; Jeremias by K hler; Ezechiel by Cornill; Job by Beer; Ecclesiasticus by Peters. Full certainty as to the characters of the Hebrew scrolls of the third-second century B.C. has not as yet been obtained. According to Jewish tradition, Esdras brought over the new (Assyrian) writing when returning from the Exile, in which script the Sacred Books were thereafter transcribed. A sudden change is improbable. It is not possible that the writing of the fourth century was quite similar to that of the Nash Papyrus or of the first-century inscriptions. The Aramaic writing of the fifth century shows an unmistakable tendency towards the latter forms, yet many letters are still closely related to the ancient alphabet: as Bêth, Caph, Mêm, Samech, Ayin, Tasade. How did this change take place? Did it pass through the Samaritan alphabet, which clearly betrays its connection with the Phoenician? We know the Samaritan letters only after the time of Christ. The oldest inscription belongs, perhaps, to the fourth century A.D.; another, that of Nablus, to the sixth. But this writing is undoubtedly decorative, displaying care and art, and offers, therefore, no sure basis for a decision. Still there was presumably a time in which the Sacred Scriptures were written in an ancient form of the Samaritan characters which are closely related with those of the Hasmon an coin inscription.

Others suggest the Palmyrian alphabet. Some letters, indeed, agree with the square characters; but Ghimel, Hê, Pê, Tsade, and Qôph differ so much that a direct relation is inadmissible. In short, considering the local nature of this artificial writing, it is hardly credible that it exerted a wider influence towards the west. The Hebrew square characters come nearer to the Nabataean, the sphere of which is more extended and is immediately adjacent to Palestine.

As the change of the alphabet probably took place step by step, we must reckon with transition writings, the form and relation of which can perhaps be approximately determined by comparison. The Greek Version offers excellent material; its very mistakes are an inestimable help to us. For the errors in reading or writing, occasioned, or already supposed, by the original, will often find their reason and explanation in the form of the characters. A group of letters repeatedly read erroneously is a clue as to the form of the alphabet of the original. For the well-known possibilities in the square writing of confusing Daleth with Rêsh, Yôdh with Waw, Bêth with Caph do not exist in the same way in the transition writings. The interchanging of Hê and Hêth, of Yôdh and Waw, so easy with the new characters, is scarcely conceivable with the old ones; and the mistaking of Bêth for Caph is altogether excluded. Aleph and Tau on the other hand can easily be mixed up. Now in Chronicles, in itself recent and translated into Greek long after the Pentateuch, Waw and Tau, Yôdh and Hê, Caph and Rêsh have been mistaken for each other. This can be accounted for only an older form of writing were employed. Hence we are compelled to suppose that the old alphabet, or a transition form like it, was in use up to the second or first century B.C. From Christ's words about the jot (Matt., v, 18) it has been concluded that Yôdh must have been regarded as the smallest letter; this holds good with the square characters. We know otherwise that, at the time of Christ, the new writing was all but developed; at least the inscriptions of the Benê Chezîr and of many ossuaries sufficiently testify to this. But in these inscriptions Zayin and Waw are as small as or even smaller the Yôdh.

In addition to the form of the characters, orthography is of importance. The unpointed consonant-text can be made essentially clearer by writing “plene”, i.e., by using the so-called quiescent letters (matres lectionis). This means was often absent in the original of the Septuagint. In the text of the Minor Prophets Aleph seems not to have been written as a vowel-letter. Thus it came about that the translators and the M.T. diverge, according as they suppose the Aleph or not. If the vowel-letter was written, only one interpretation was possible. The same applies to the use of Waw and Yôdh. Their omission occasions mistakes on the one or other side. The liberty prevailing in this regard is expressly testified even for a much later period. But it is going too far to consider the omission of the vowel-letters as the rule commonly observed. The oldest inscriptions (Mesha, Siloah) and the hole history of Semitic writing prove that this practical device was known.

In particular cases the possibility of connecting or separating the letters differently must be considered as another source of divers interpretations. Whether the division of the words was expressed in the ancient manuscripts or not cannot be shown by direct testimonies. The Mesha and Siloah inscriptions and some of the oldest Aramaic and xxxxxxxxx divide the words by a dot. The later monuments do not abide by this usage, but mark the division here and there by a little interval. This custom is universal in the Aramaic papyri from the fifth century downwards. The Hebrew fragments make no exception, and the Syriac writing applies the word-division in the earliest manuscripts. Therefore the conjecture that word-division was used in the old scrolls is not to be rejected at the outset. Still the intervals must have been so small that wrong connections easily came about. Instances are not wanting, and both the Massorah and the Greek Version testify to that. Thus Gen., xlix, 19-20, is correctly divided in the Greek and in the Vulgate, whilst the M.T. erroneously carries the Mêm, that belongs to the end of verse 19, over to the following word “Asher”. The passage, moreover, is poetical and a new stanza begins with verse 20. Hence in the archetype of our M.T. the stichic writing, known perhaps at an earlier period and used in the later manuscripts, was not applied.

The mistakes occurring in consequence of interchanging of letters, of wrong vocalization or connection, show how text-corruption originated, and thus suggest ways of repairing the damaged passages. Other slips which always occur in the handing down of manuscripts, such as haplography, dittography, insertion of glosses, transposition, even of entire columns, must also be taken into consideration whilst estimating the text of the Sacred Books. In books or passages of poetical nature, metre, alphabetical order of verses and stanzas, and their structure, supply a means of textual emendation, which ought nevertheless, to be sued with great prudence, especially where the manuscripts seem disarranged.

We must, however, beware of comparing the Septuagint as a unit with the Massorah. In textual criticism we must distinguish between the questions: What is the relation of the Greek Version of the Scriptures in general to the Hebrew? and, How far in a particular case may one text be corrected by the other? The Septuagint may on the whole differ considerably from the M.T., and yet often clear up an obscure passage in the Hebrew, while the reverse happens just a frequently. Apart from the Septuagint there is but little to assist us. The Samaritan Text throws light on the Pentateuch, at least up the fourth century, perhaps up the time before Esdras. Yet until the critical edition, announced a couple of years ago, appears it must remain an open question whether the Samaritan Text was not influenced by the Septuagint at a later period. Regarding shorter passages, the parallel texts allow of comparison. The deviations observed in them show that changes have taken place, which betray carelessness or intentional or accidental variations. Jewish tradition tells of a restoration of the Sacred Scriptures by Esdras. Underlying this narrative may be recollection of historical events that proved disastrous both to the political and religious life of the people of Israel and to its Sacred Books. The consequences do not everywhere manifest themselves as much as in the books of Samuel and Jeremias, for instance, but often enough are such that the application of all critical means is needed to come to a readable text. Sometimes in spite of all nothing can be done and the passage is irremediably disfigured. It will be impossible to make the M.T. agree entirely with the Septuagint until we are favoured by some unexpected discoveries. However, all these discrepancies do not alter the Sacred Texts to such a degree as to affect in any way the religious content of the Old Testament.

AUGUST MERK

Theodosius I

Roman Emperor (also known as Flavius Theodosius), born in Spain, about 346; died at Milan, 17 January, 395. Theodosius is one of the sovereigns by universal consent called Great. He stamped out the last vestiges of paganism, put an end to the Arian heresy in the empire, pacified the Goths, left a famous example of penitence for a crime, and reigned as a just and mighty Catholic emperor. His father, the Comes Theodosius, was a distinguished general; both he and the mother Thermantia were Catholics at a time when Arianism was at its strongest. Theodosius the son distinguished himself in the army, was made Dux of Moesia, defeated the Sarmatians (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXIX, 6); then, when an intrigue brought about the disgrace and execution of his father (376) he retired to his own property in Spain. But his reputation was not forgotten. The Emperor Gratian (375-383) after the death of Valens (378) took Theodosius from private life and made him his fellow-emperor (Augustus) for the East (19 Jan., 379). He was already married to Aelia Flacilla, by whom he had two sons, Arcadius and Honorius (his future successors) and a daughter Pulcheria. As Augustus he carried on the Gothic war vigorously and successfully. During the year 380 he was able to conclude a victorious peace with the Goths; on 24 November he held his triumph at Constantinople. Meanwhile he had also repressed the Vandals and Huns. Early in the same year a severe sickness at Thessalonica made him seek baptism, and he was baptized by the Catholic Bishop of Thessalonica, Ascholios. Socrates (H. E., V, 6) says that since Theodosius “was a Christian from his parents and professed the faith of the Homoousios” he first assured himself that the bishop was not an Arian (cf. Sozomen; “H. E.”, VII, 4). A great part of the emperor's activity was now spent in establishing the Catholic faith and repressing Arianism. In February, 380, he and Gratian published the famous edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria (Cod. Theod., XVI, I, 2; Sozomen, VII, 4). The conventicles of the heretics were not to be called churches.

As soon as he came to Constantinople Theodosius began expelling the Arians, who had hitherto been in possession. The Aryan bishop, Demophilus, left the city (Socr., V, 7; Soz., VII, 5), St. Gregory of Nazianzus undertook the administration of the diocese. In January, 381, the prefect had orders to close all Arian chapels in the city and to expel those who served them. The same severe measures were ordered throughout Theodosius's dominion, not only against Arians, but also in the case of Manichaeans and all other heretics. However Sozomen says that the emperor “made severe punishment by his laws, but did not carry them out, for he did not wish to punish, but only to frighten his subjects, that they might think as he did about Divine things, And he praised those who were converted of their own accord” (H. E., VII, 12). In 381 the Second General Council was held at Constantinople under his auspices (Socr., V, 8; Soz., VII, 7). In 383 he attempted a conference at his capital between Catholics and Arians, with a view to reconciliation; but no result was obtained (Socr., V, 10; Soz., VII, 12). In the same year Gratian was murdered at Lyons (25 Aug.) and Clemens Maximus usurped the imperial title in the West (383-388). Theodosius acknowledged the usurper on condition that he would allow Gratian's brother, Valentinian II, to reign in Italy. In 387 Maximus broke the contract and expelled Valentinian, who fled to Theodosius. Theodosius brought him back with an army, and defeated and executed Maximus at Aquileia. Valentinian II now reigned in the West until 392. It was also in 387 that Theodosius showed such tolerance in the affair of the statues at Antioch (see JOHN CHRYSOSTOM).

During all his reign Theodosius took severe measures against the surviving remnants of paganism. In 388 a prefect was sent around Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor for the purpose of destroying temples and breaking up pagan associations; it was then that the Serapeum at Alexandria was destroyed (Socr., V, 16). Libanius wrote a “Lamentation” about the destruction of the fanes of the gods (peri ton leron, ed. R. Foerster, Bibl. Script. Gr. et Rom. Teubner). In 391 Theodosius refused to allow the Altar of Victory to be restored in the Roman Senate (cf. Gibbon, “Decline and Fall”, xxviii). Pagan sacrifices, omens, and witchcraft were to be punished as loesa majestas (Cod. Theod., XVI, X, 10-12). In short his laws put an end finally to the old cult, at any rate as far as open and public use is concerned. One of its last acts was a despairing appeal to the sword, which offers again the dramatic situation of a field of battle on which the religion of Europe seemed to depend. Argobast, the Frankish tutor of Valentinian II, at least indirectly caused his ward's death (Hodgkin, “Italy and Her Invaders”, I, 590) and set up a rhetorician, Eugenius, in his stead (15 May, 392). Theodosius hastened to Italy to avenge this crime. Eugenius, although nominally a Christian, tried to unite the remains of paganism in his defence. He set up pagan altars again (including that of Victory at Rome), his soldiers marched under the standard of Hercules invictus. But near Aquileia on 6 Sept., 394, once more the Christian Labarum triumphed over the banner of the ancient gods; Theodosius entered Rome sole master of the now finally Christian empire. Further laws enforced the keeping of Sunday and the disabilities of pagans, Jews, and heretics. During the greater part of his reign Theodosius was in intimate relation with St. Ambrose. The story of the emperor's worst crime, the massacre of at least 7000 citizens of Thessalonica in revenge for a tumult (April, 390); of St. Ambrose's refusal to allow him to enter the Church; of his acceptance of eight months of penance, is one of the memorable incidents of Church history.

Theodosius married Galla (daughter of Valentinian I) after the death of his first wife, and by her had a daughter, Galla Placidia, the mother of Valentinian III. St. Ambrose preached his funeral oration (“De obitu Theodosii”, P. L., XVI, 1385). His two sons Arcadius and Honorius had already been proclaimed Augustus during his life. Arcadius became emperor of the eastern half of the empire, Honorius of the western. The Roman world was never again united. Theodosius stands out as the destroyer of heresy and paganism, as the last sovereign of the undivided empire. A coin representing him holding the Labarum with the inscription, Restitutor Reipublicae, expresses perfectly his title to remembrance.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Thomas à Kempis

Author of the “Imitation of Christ, born at Kempen in the Diocese of Cologne, in 1379 or 1380; died 25 July, 1471. His parents, John and Gertrude Haemerken, were of the artisan class; it is said that Gertrude kept the village school, and most probably the father worked in metals, a common calling in Kempen, whence perhaps the surname Haemerken, or Haemerlein, Latinized Malleolus (a little hammer). We have certain information of only two children, John, the senior by about fourteen years, and Thomas. Thomas was only thirteen when he set out for the schools of Deventer, in Holland. His brother had preceded him thither by ten or twelve years, and doubtless Thomas expected to find him still there. On his arrival, however, he learned that he had gone two years since with five other brothers of the Common Life to lay the foundations of a new congregation of Canons Regular at Windesheim, about twenty miles from Deventer, where he then went and was lovingly received by his brother who provided him with a letter of introduction to the superior of the Brothers of the Common Life at Deventer, Florentius Radewyn. Radewyn gave a warm welcome to the young brother of John Haemerken of Kempen, placed him for the time being in the house and under the maternal care of “a certain noble and devout lady”, presented him to the rector of the schools, and paid his first fees, though the master returned the money when he learned whence it came. These particulars we have from the pen of Thomas himself in the biographies, written in his old age, of Gerard Groote, Florentius Radewyn, and their followers (see “The Founders of the New Devotion”, London, 1905). For seven years he remained at Deventer, numbered from the first among the disciples of Radewyn, and for a good portion of the time living in his house under his immediate care. It is impossible to exaggerate the influence of those years in the formation of his character. The “new devotion”, of which Deventer was then the focus and center, was a revival in the Low Countries in the fourteenth cetury of the fervour of the primitive Christians at Jerusalem and Antioch in the first. It owed its inception to the fervid preaching of the Deacon Gerard Groote, its further organization to the prudence and generous devotedness of Florentius Radewyn. Its associates were called the “Devout Brothers and Sisters”, also the “Brothers and Sisters of the Common Life”. They took no vows, but lived a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience, as far as was compatible with their state, some in their own hommes and others, especially clerics, in community. They were forbidden to beg, but all were expected to earn their living by the labour of their hands; for the clerics this meant chiefly the transcribing of books and the instruction of the young. All earnings were placed in a common fund, at the disposal of the superior; the one ambition of all was to emulate the life and virtues of the first Christians,especially in the love of God and the neighbour, in simplicity, humility, and devotion. Furthermore, partly to provide the Devout Brothers and Sisters with effective protectors and experienced guides, partly to afford an easy transit to the religious state proper for those of their number who should desire it, Gerard Groote conceived the idea of establishing a branch of the canonical order, which should always maintain the closest relations with the members of the new devotion. This scheme was carried into effect after his untimely death, at the early age of forty-three, by the foundation of the congregation of Windesheim, as it was afterwards called from the tract of land where the first priory was established (1386). These details are given as helpful to a better understanding of the life and character of à Kempis, a typical and exemplary Brother, and for seventy-two years he was one of the most distinguished of the Canons Regular.

At Deventer Thommas proved an apt pupil, already noted for his neatness and skill in transcribing manuscripts. This was a life-long labour of love with him;in addition to his own compositions he copied numerous treatises from the Fathers, especially St. Bernard, a Missal for the use of his community, and the whole Bible in four large volumes still extant. After completing his humanities at Deventer, in the autumn of 1399, with the commendation of his superior, Florentius Radewyn, Thomas sought admission among the Canons Regular of Windesheim at Mount St. Agnes, near Zwolle, of which monastery his brother John was then prior. The house had been established only the previous year, and as yet there was no claustral buildings, no garden, no benefactors, no funds. During his term of office, which lasted nine years, John à Kempis built the priory and commenced the church. In these circumstances we find the explanation of the fact that Thomas was not clothed as a novice until 1406, at which date the cloister was just completed, nor ordained priest until 1413, the year after the church was consecrated. The point is worth noting, as some writers in their eagerness to discredit the claims of à Kempis to the authorship of the “Imitation” have actually fastened upon the length of this period of probation to insinuate that he was a dullard or worse. Thomas was himself, to within a few months of his death, the chronicler of Agnetenberg. The story which he tells of the earthly struggles of the priory on the mount, its steady progress, and eventual prosperity is full of charm and edification (“The Chronicle of the Canons Regular of Mount St. Agnes”, London, 1906). These records reveal to us the simplicity and holiness of his religious brethren. He was twice elected subprior, and once he was made procurator. The reason assigned by an ancient biographer for the latter appointmment is one that does honour both to Thomas and his brethren, his love for the poor. However, we can scarcely imagine the author of the “Imitation” a good business manager, and after a time his preference for retirement, literary work, and contemplation prevailed with the Canons to relieve him of the burden. The experience thus gained he mmade use of in a spiritual treatise, “De fideli dispensatore”.

His first tenure of office as subprior was interrupted by the exile of the commmunity from Agnetenberg (1429), occasioned by the unpopular observance of the Canons of Windesheim of an interdict laid upon the country by Martin V. A dispute had arisen in connexion with an appointment to the vacant See of Utrecht and an interdict was upon the land. The Canons remained in exile until the question was settled (1432). The commmunity of Mount St. Agnes had dwelt meanwhile in a canonry of Lunenkerk, which they reformed and affiliated to Windesheim. More than a year of this trying period Thomas spent with his brother John in the convent of Bethany, near Arnheim, where he had been sent to assist and confort his brother, who was ailing. He remained until his death (November, 1432). We find record of his election as subprior again in 1448, and doubtless he remained in office until age and infirmity procured him release. It was part of the subprior's duties to train the young religious, and to this fact no doubt we owe most of his minor treatises, in particular his “Sermons to the Novices Regular” (tr. London, 1907). We also know from early biographers that Thomas frequently preached in the church attached to the priory. Two similar series of these sermons are extant (tr. “Prayers and Meditations on the Life of Christ” and “The Incarnation and Life of Our Lord”, London, 1904, 1907). They treat of à Kempis' favourite subjects, the mystery of our Redemption, and the love of Jesus Christ as shown in His words and works, but especially in the sufferings of His Passion. In person Thomas is described as a mman of middle height, dark complexion and vivid colouring, with a broad forehead and piercing eyes; kind and affable towards all, especially the sorrowful and the afflicted; constantly engaged in his favourite occupations of reading, writing, or prayer; in time of recreation for the most part silent and recollected, finding it difficult even to express an opinion on matters of mundane interest, but pouring out a ready torrent of eloquence when the conversation turned on God or the concerns of the soul. At such times often he would excuse himmself, “My brethren”, he would say, “I must go: Someone is waiting to converse with me in my cell.” A possibly authentic portrait, preserved at Gertruidenberg, bears as his motto the words: “In ommnibus requiem quaesivi et nusquam inveni nisi in een Hoecken met een Boecken” (Everywhere I have sought rest and found it nowhere, save in little nooks with little books). He was laid to rest in the eastern cloister in a spot carefully noted by the continuator of his chronicle. Two centuries after the Reformation, during which the priory was destroyed, the holy remains were transferred to Zwolle and enclosed in a handsome reliquary by Maximilian Hendrik, Prince-Bishop of Cologne. At present they are enshrined in St. Michael's Church, Zwolle, in a magnificent monument erected in 1897 by subscriptions from all over the world and inscribed: “Honori,non memoriae Thomae Kempensis, cujus nomen perennius quam monumentum” (To the honour not to the memory of Thomas à Kempis, whose name is more enduring than any monument). It is interesting to recall that the same Maximilian Hendrik, who showed such zeal in preserving and honouring the relics of à Kempis, was also eager to see the cause of his beatification introduced and began to collect the necessary ducuments; but little more than a beginning was made when he died (1688) and since that date no further steps have been taken.

A few words on Thomas' claim, once disputed but now hardly so, to the authorship of the “Imitation of Christ”. The book was first issued anonymously (1418) and was soon accorded a wide welcome, copied by different scribes, and attributed to various spiritual writers, among others St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, Henry de Kalkar, Innocent III, Jean Charlier de Gerson, and John à Kempis. In 1441 Thomas completed and signed his namme to a codex still extant (Royal Library, Brussels, 5855-61), containing the four books of the “Imitation” and nine minor treatises. Then for two hundred years no serious attempt was made to dispossess à Kempis of his title; but eary in the seventeenth century a fierce and prolonged controversy was commmenced with the object of establishing the claim of either Jean Charlier de Gerson, Chancellor of Paris, or of his Italian variant, Giovanni Gerson, alleged Benedictine Abbot of Vercelli. At one period an Englishmman, Walter Hilton, Canon Regular of Thurgarton, the author of the “Scale (Ladder) of Perfection”, was brought forward, but his claim was not long maintained. Incredible as it may sound, the very existence of Giovanni Gerson of Vercelli is yet to be proved. Of Jean Charlier de Gerson the following facts have been established and they may be found demonstrated at length in such works as Cruise, “Thomas à Kempis”, and Kettlewell, “The Authorship of the De Immitatione Christi”. Not a single contemporary witness is found in Gersen's favour; not a single manuscript during his life or for thirty years after his death ascribes the work to him; internal evidence, style, matter, etc. are in every respect unfavourable. On the other hand we find the title of à Kempis proved by the following : several contemporary witnesses of unimpeachable authority, including members of his own order, name Thomas as the author; contemporary manuscripts, including one autograph codex, bear his name; internal evidence is wholly favourable. Sir Francis Cruise summarizes this last item under three headings:

1. identity of style, including peculiarities commmon tothe “Imitation” and other undisputed works of à Kempis, viz.: barbarisms, Italianized words, Dutch idioms, systematic rhythmical punctuation, and the word devotus as used primarily of associates of the new devotion;
2. The “Imitation” breathes the wholespirit of the Windesheim school of mysticism;
3. it is impregnated throughout with the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers, especially St. Augustine and St. Bernard, all favourite founts of inspiration for à Kempis and his fellow Canons of Windesheim.

The “Imitation” itself, the best known and the first in order of merit of his original writings, comprises in bulk about one-tenth of the works of a Kempis. Many were originally instructions for the novices and junior Canons of whom, as subprior, Thomas had charge; others are spiritual treatises of wider application and some of these indeed, as the “Oratio de elevatione mentis in Deum”, rise to sublime heights of mysticism. There are numerous prayers of sweet devotion and quaint Latin hymns of simple rhythm and jingling rhyme. One work, of which Thomas was editor rather than author, is a “Life of (St.) Lydwine, Virgin”. The best complete edition so far of the “Opera Omnia” of à Kempis is that of the Jesuit Sommalius, published by Nut of Antwerp, 1607; even this does not contain the “Chronicon Montis Sanctae Agnetis”, which was edited by H. Rosweyd, S.J., and published in one volume with the “Chronicon Windesemense” (Antwerp, 1621). Of the innumerable editions of the “Imitation”, doubtless by far the most interesting is a facsimile from the 1441 codex, published in London, 1879. A splendid critical edition of the “Opera Omnia” was published by Herder under the able editorship of Dr. Pohl early in the twentieth century. Perhaps in this connexion we may quote the enthusiastic commendation of Prior Pirkhamer addressed to Peter Danhausser, the publisher of the first edition of Thomas à Kempis' works, 1494: “Nothing more holy, nothing more honourable, nothing more religious, nothing in fine more profitable for the Christian commonweal can you ever do than to make known these works of Thomas à Kempis.”

VINCENT SCULLY

St. Thomas Aquinas

Philosopher, theologian, doctor of the Church (Angelicus Doctor), patron of Catholic universities, colleges, and schools, born at Rocca Secca in the Kingdom of Naples, 1225 or 1227; died at Fossa Nuova, 7 March, 1274.

I. Life

The great outlines and all the important events of his life are known, but biographers differ as to some details and dates. Death prevented Henry Denifle from executing his project of writing a critical life of the saint. Denifle's friend and pupil, Dominic Prümmer, O.P., professor of theology in the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, has taken up the work and is publishing the “Fontes Vitae S. Thomae Aquinatis, notis historicis et criticis illustrati”; and the first fascicle (Toulouse, 1911) has appeared, giving the life of St. Thomas by Peter Calo (1300) now published for the first time. From Tolomeo of Lucca . . . we learn that at the time of the saint's death there was a doubt about his exact age (Prümmer, op. cit., 45). The end of 1225 is usually assigned as the time of his birth. Father Prümmer, on the authority of Calo, thinks 1227 is the more probable date (op. cit., 28). All agree that he died in 1274.

Landulph, his father, was Count of Aquino, Theodora, his mother, Countess of Teano. His family was related to the Emperors Henry VI and Frederick II, and to the Kings of Aragon, Castile, and France. Calo relates that a holy hermit foretold his career, saying to Theodora before his birth: “He will enter the Order of Friars Preachers, and so great will be his learning and sanctity that in his day no one will be found to equal him” (Prümmer, op. cit., 18). At the age of five, according to the custom of the times, he was sent to receive his first training from the Benedictine monks of Monte Cassino. Diligent in study, he was thus early noted as being meditative and devoted to prayer, and his preceptor was surprised at hearing the child ask frequently: “What is God?” About the year 1236 he was sent to the University of Naples. Calo says that the change was made at the instance of the Abbot of Monte Cassino, who wrote to Thomas's father that a boy of such talents should not be left in obscurity (Prümmcr, op. cit., 20). At Naples his preceptors were Pietro Martini and Petrus Hibernus. The chronicler says that he soon surpassed Martini a grammar, and he was then given over to Peter of Ireland, who trained him in logic and the natural sciences. The customs of the times divided the liberal arts into two courses: the Trivium, embracing grammar, logic, and rhetoric; the Quadrivium, comprising music, mathematics, geometry, and astronomy . . . . Thomas could repeat the lessons with more depth and lucidity than his masters displayed. The youth's heart had remained pure amidst the corruption with which he was surrounded, and he resolved to embrace the religious life.

Some time between 1240 and August, 1243, he received the habit of the Order of St. Dominic, being attracted and directed by John of St. Julian, a noted preacher of the convent of Naples. The city wondered that such a noble young man should don the garb of poor friar. His mother, with mingled feelings of joy and sorrow, hastened to Naples to see her son. The Dominicans, fearing she would take him away, sent him to Rome, his ultimate destination being Paris or Cologne. At the instance of Theodora, Thomas's brothers, who were soldiers under the Emperor Frederick, captured the novice near the town of Aquapendente and confined him in the fortress of San Giovanni at Rocca Secca. Here he was detained nearly two years, his parents, brothers, and Sisters endeavouring by various means to destroy his vocation. The brothers even laid snares for his virtue, but the pure-minded novice drove the temptress from his room with a brand which he snatched from the fire. Towards the end of his life, St. Thomas confided to his faithful friend and companion, Reginald of Piperno, the secret of a remarkable favour received at this time. When the temptress had been driven from his chamber, he knelt and most earnestly implored God to grant him integrity of mind and body. He fell into a gentle sleep, and, as he slept, two angels appeared to assure him that his prayer had been heard. They then girded him about with a white girdle, saying: “We gird thee with the girdle of perpetual virginity.” And from that day forward he never experienced the slightest motions of concupiscence.

The time spent in captivity was not lost. His mother relented somewhat, after the first burst of anger and grief; the Dominicans were allowed to provide him with new habits, and through the kind offices of his sister he procured some books — the Holy Scriptures, Aristotle's Metaphysics, and the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard. After eighteen months or two years spent in prison, either because his mother saw that the hermit's prophecy would eventually be fulfilled or because his brothers feared the threats of Innocent IV and Frederick II, he was set at liberty, being lowered in a basket into the arms of the Dominicans, who were delighted to find that during his captivity “he had made as much progress as if he had been in a studium generale” (Calo, op. cit., 24). Thomas immediately pronounced his vows, and his superiors sent him to Rome. Innocent IV examined closely into his motives in joining the Friars Preachers, dismissed him with a blessing, and forbade any further interference with his vocation. John the Teutonic, fourth master general of the order, took the young student to Paris and, according to the majority of the saint's biographers, to Cologne, where he arrived in 1244 or 1245, and was placed under Albertus Magnus, the most renowned professor of the order (on chronology of this period see Prümmer, op. cit., p.25). In the schools Thomas's humility and taciturnity were misinterpreted as signs of dullness, but when Albert had heard his brilliant defence of a difficult thesis, he exclaimed: “We call this young man a dumb ox, hut his bellowing in doctrine will one day resound throughout the world.”

In 1245 Albert was sent to Paris, and Thomas accompanied him as a student. In 1248 both returned to Cologne. Albert had been appointed regent of the new studium generale, erected that year by the general chapter of the order, and Thomas was to teach under him as Bachelor. (On the system of graduation in the thirteenth century see PREACHERS, ORDER OF — II, A, 1, d). During his stay in Cologne, probably in 1250, he was raised to the priesthood by Conrad of Hochstaden, archbishop of that city. Throughout his busy life, he frequently preached the Word of God, in Germany, France, and Italy. His sermons were forceful, redolent of piety, full of solid instruction, abounding in apt citations from the Scriptures . In the year 1251 or 1252 the master general of the order, by the advice of Albertus Magnus and Hugo a S. Charo (Hugh of St. Cher), sent Thomas to fill the office of Bachelor (sub-regent) in the Dominican studium at Paris. This appointment may be regarded as the beginning of his public career, for his teaching soon attracted the attention both of the professors and of the students. His duties consisted principally in explaining the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, and his commentmies on that text-book of theology furnished the materials and, in great part, the plan for his chief work, the “Summa theologica”.

In due time he was ordered to prepare himself to obtain the degree of Doctor in Theology from the University of Paris, but the conferring of the degree was postponed, owing to a dispute between the university and the friars. The conflict, originally a dispute between the university and the civic authorities, arose from the slaying of one of the students and the wounding of three others by the city guard. The universfty, jealous of its autonomy, demanded satisfaction, which was refused. The doctors closed their schools, solemnly swore that they would not reopen them until their demands were granted, and decreed that in future no one should be admitted to the degree of Doctor unless he would take an oath to follow the same line of conduct under similar circumstances. The Dominicans and Franciscans, who had continued to teach in their schools, refused to take the prescribed oath, and from this there arose a bitter conflict which was at its height when St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure were ready to be presented for their degrees. William of St.-Amour extended the dispute beyond the original question, violently attacked the Friars, of whom he was evidently jealous, and denied their right to occupy chairs in the university. Against his book, “De periculis novissimorum temporum” (The Perils of the Last Times), St. Thomas wrote a treatise “Contra impugnantes religionem”, an apology for the religious orders (Touron, op. cit., II, cc. vii sqq.). The book of William of St-Amour was condemned by Alexander IV at Anagni, 5 October, 1256, and the pope gave orders that the mendicant friars should be admitted to the doctorate.

About this time St. Thomas also combated a dangerous book, “The Eternal Gospel” (Touron, op. cit., II, cxii). The university authorities did not obey immediately; the influence of St. Louis IX and eleven papal Briefs were required before peace was firmly established, and St. Thomas was admitted to the degree of Doctor in Theology. The date of his promotion, as given by many biographers, was 23 October, 1257. His theme was “The Majesty of Chnst”. His text, “Thou waterest the hills from thy upper rooms: the earth shall be filled with the fruit of thy works” (Ps. ciii, 13), said to have been suggested by a heavenly visitor, seems to have been prophetic of his career. A tradition says that St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas received the doctorate on the same day, and that there was a contest of humility between the two friends as to which should be promoted first. From this time St. Thomas's life may be summed up in a few words: praying, preaching, teaching, writing, journeying. Men were more anxious to hear him than they had been to bear Albert, whom St. Thomas surpassed in accuracy, lucidity, brevity, and power of exposition, if not in universality of knowledge. Paris claimed him as her own; the popes wished to have him near them; the studia of the order were eager to enjoy the benefit of his teaching; hence we find him successively at Anagni, Rome, Bologna, Orvieto, Viterbo, Perugia, in Paris again, and finally in Naples, always teaching and writing, living on earth with one passion, an ardent zeal for the explanation and defence of Christian truth. So devoted was he to his sacred task that with tears he begged to be excused from accepting the Archbishopric of Naples, to which he was appointed by Clement IV in 1265. Had this appointment been accepted, most probably the “Summa theologica” would not have been written.

Yielding to the requests of his brethren, he on several occasions took part in the deliberations of the general chapters of the order. One of these chapters was held in London in 1263. In another held at Valenciennes (1259) he collaborated with Albertus Magnus and Peter of Tarentasia (afterwards Pope Innocent V) in formulating a system of studies which is substantially preserved to this day in the studia generalia of the Dominican Order (cf. Douais, op. cit.). It is not surprising to read in the biographies of St. Thomas that he was frequently abstracted and in ecstasy. Towards the end of his life the ecstasies became more frequent. On one occasion, at Naples in 1273, after he had completed his treatise on the Eucharist, three of the brethren saw him lifted in ecstasy, and they heard a voice proceeding from the crucifix on the altar, saying “Thou hast written well of me, Thomas; what reward wilt thou have?”. Thomas replied, “None other than Thyself, Lord” (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 38). Similar declarations are said to have been made at Orvieto and at Paris. On 6 December, 1273, he laid aside his pen and would write no more. That day he experienced an unusually long ecstasy during Mass; what was revealed to him we can only surmise from his reply to Father Reginald, who urged him to continue his writings: “I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value” (modica, Prümmer, op. cit., p. 43).

The “Summa theologica” had been completed only as far as the ninetieth question of the third part (De partibus poenitentiae). Thomas began his immediate preparation for death. Gregory X, having convoked a general council, to open at Lyons on 1 May, 1274, invited St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure to take part in the deliberations, commanding the former to bring to the council his treatise “Contra errores Graecorum” (Against the Errors of the Greeks). He tried to obey, setting out on foot in January, 1274, but strength failed him; he fell to the ground near Terracina, whence he was conducted to the Castle of Maienza the home of his niece the Countess Francesca Ceccano. The Cistercian monks of Fossa Nuova pressed him to accept their hospitality, and he was conveyed to their monastery, on entering which he whispered to his companion: “This is my rest for ever and ever: here will I dwell, for I have chosen it” (Ps. cxxxi, 14). When Father Reginald urged him to remain at the castle, the saint replied: “If the Lord wishes to take me away, it is better that I be found in a religious house than in the dwelling of a lay person.” The Cistercians were so kind and attentive that Thomas's humility was alarmed. “Whence comes this honour”, he exclaimed, “that servants of God should carry wood for my fire!” At the urgent request of the monks he dictated a brief commentary on the Canticle of Canticles.

The end was near; extreme unction was administered. When the Sacred Viaticum was brought into the room he pronounced the following act of faith: “If in this world there be any knowledge of this sacrament stronger than that of faith, I wish now to use it in affirming that I firmly believe and know as certain that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Son of God and Son of the Virgin Mary, is in this Sacrament.” Then he added: “I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life” (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 45). He died on 7 March, 1274. Numerous miracles attested his sanctity, and he was canonized by John XXII, 18 July, 1323. The monks of Fossa Nuova were anxious to keep his sacred remains, but by order of Urban V the body was given to his Dominican brethren, and was solemnly translated to the Dominican church at Toulouse, 28 January, 1369. A magnificent shrine erected in 1628 was destroyed during the French Revolution, and the body was removed to the Church of St. Sernin, where it now reposes in a sarcophagus of gold and silver, which was solemnly blessed by Cardinal Desprez on 24 July, 1878. The chief bone of his left arm is preserved in the cathedral of Naples. The right arm, bestowed on the University of Paris, and originally kept in the St. Thomas's Chapel of the Dominican church, is now preserved in the Dominican Church of S. Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome, whither it was transferred during the French Revolution.

A description of the saint as he appeared in life is given by Calo (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 401), who says that his features corresponded with the greatness of his soul. He was of lofty stature and of heavy build, but straight and well proportioned. His complexion was “like the colour of new wheat”: his head was large and well shaped, and he was slightly bald. All portraits represent him as noble, meditative, gentle yet strong. St. Pius V proclaimed St. Thomas a Doctor of the Universal Church in the year 1567. In the Encyclical “Aeterni Patris”, of 4 August, 1879, on the restoration of Christian philosophy, Leo XIII declared him “the prince and master of all Scholastic doctors”. The same illustrious pontiff, by a Brief dated 4 August, 1880, designated him patron of all Catholic universities, academies, colleges, and schools throughout the world.

II. Writings

A. General Remarks

Although St. Thomas lived less than fifty years, he composed more than sixty works, some of them brief, some very lengthy. This does not necessarily mean that every word in the authentic works was written by his hand; he was assisted by secretaries, and biographers assure us that he could dictate to several scribes at the same time (Vaughan, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 469). Other work' some of which were composed by his disciples, have been falsely attributed to him. The most recent and probably the most satisfactory, treatise on the authenticity of his works is the series of articles b: P. Mandonnet, “Des cents authentiques de S. Thomas d'Aquin” (Frihourg, 1910), originally written for the “Revue Thomiste” (March-April, 1909). The “Disssertationes in singula opera D. Th. Aquinatis” (Venice, 1750) of Bernard do Rubeis are given in all important editions of the saint's works. A reliable and convenient list is given by Fr. Sertillanges, O.P., in his “S. Thomas d'Aquin” (2 vols., Paris, 1910).

In the “Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum” (Paris 1719) Fr. Echard devotes eighty-six folio pages to St. Thomas's works, the different editions and translations (I, pp. 282-348). Touron (op. cit., pp. 69 sqq.) says that manuscript copies were found in nearly all the libraries of Europe, and that, after the invention of printing, copies were multiplied rapidly in Germany, Italy, and France, portions of the “Summ theologica” being one of the first important works printed. Peter Schoeffer, a printer of Mainz, published the “Secunda Secundae” in 1467. This is the first known printed copy of any work of St. Thomas. The first complete edition of the “Summa” was printed at Basle, in 1485. Many other editions of this and of other works were published in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, especially at Venice and at Lyons. The principal editions of all the work (Opera Omnia) were published as follows: Rome, 1570; Venice, 1594,1612, 1745; Antwerp, 1612; Paris, 1660, 1871-80 (Vives); Parma, 1852-73; Rome, 1882 (the Leonine). The Roman edition of 1570, called “the Piana”, because edited by order of St. Pius V, was the standard for many years. Besides a carefully revised text it contained the commentaries of Cardinal Cajetan and the valuable “Tabula Aurea” of Peter of Bergamo. The Venetian edition of 1612 was highly prized because the text was accompanied by the Cajetan-Porrecta commentaries . . . . The Leonine edition, begun under the patronage of Leo XIII, now continued under the master general of the Dominicans, undoubtedly will be the most perfect of all. Critical dissertations on each work will be given, the text will be carefully revised, and all references will be verified. By direction of Leo XIII (Motu Proprio, 18 Jan., 1880) the “Summa contra gentiles” will be published with the commentaries of Sylvester Ferrariensis, whilst the commentaries of Cajetan go with the “Summa theologica”.

The latter has been published, being vols. IV-XII of the edition (last in 1906). St. Thomas's works may be classified as philosophical, theological, scriptural, and apologetic, or controversial. The division, however, cannot always be rigidly maintained. The “Summa theologica”, e.g., contains much that is philosophical, whilst the “Summa contra gentiles” is principally, but not exclusively, philosophical and apologetic. His philosophical works are chiefly commentaries on Aristotle, and his first important theological writings were commentaries on Peter Lombard's four books of “Sentences”; but he does not slavishly follow either the Philosopher or the Master of the Sentences (on opinions of the Lombard rejected by theologians, see Migne, 1841, edition of the “Summa” I, p. 451).

B. His Principal Works in Detail

Amongst the works wherein St. Thomas's own mind and method are shown, the following deserve special mention:

(1) “Quaestiones disputatae” (Disputed Questions) — These were more complete treatises on subjects that had not been fully elucidated in the lecture halls, or concerning which the professor's opinion had been sought. They are very valuable, because in them the author, free from limitations as to time or space, freely expresses his mind and gives all arguments for or against the opinions adopted. These treatises, containing the questions “De potentia”, “De malo”, “De spirit. creaturis”, “De anima”, “De unione Verbi Incarnati”, “De virt. in communi”, “De caritate”, “De corr. fraterna”, “De spe”, “De virt. cardinal.”, “De veritate”, were often reprinted, e.g. recently by the Association of St. Paul (2 vols., Paris and Fribourg, Switzerland, 1883).

(2) “Quodlibeta” (may be rendered “Various Subjects”, or “Free Discussions”) — They present questions or arguments proposed and answers given in or outside the lecture halls, chiefly in the more formal scholastic exercises, termed circuli, conclusiones, or determinationes, which were held once or twice a year.

(3) “De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas” — This opusculum refuted a very dangerous and widespread error, viz., that there was but one soul for all men, a theory which did away wth individual liberty and responsibility. (See AVERROES)

(4) “Commentaria in Libros Sententiarum” (mentioned above) — This with the following work are the immediate forerunners of the “Summa theologica”.

(5) “Summa de veritate catholicae fidei contra gentiles” (Treatise on the Truth of the Catholic Faith, against Unbelievers) — This work, written at Rome, 1261-64, was composed at the request of St. Raymond of Pennafort, who desired to have a philosophical exposition and defence of the Christian Faith, to be used against the Jews and Moors in Spain. It is a perfect model of patient and sound apologetics, showing that no demonstrated truth (science) is opposed to revealed truth (faith). The best recent editions are those of Rome, 1878 (by Uccelli), of Paris and Fribourg, Switzerland, 1882, and of Rome, 1894. It has been translated into many languages. It is divided into four books: I. Of God as He is in Himself; II. Of God the Origin of Creatures; III. Of God the End of Creatures; IV. Of God in His Revelation. It is worthy of remark that the Fathers of the Vatican Council, treating the necessity of revelation (Coast. “Dei Filius”, c. 2), employed almost the very words used by St. Thomas in treating that subject in this work (I, cc. iv, V), and in the “Summa theologica” (I, Q. i, a. 1).

(6) Three works written by order of Urban IV —

• The “Opusculum contra errores Graecorum” refuted the errors of the Greeks on doctrines in dispute between them and the Roman Church, viz., the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, the primacy of the Roman pontiff, the Holy Eucharist, and purgatory. It was used against the Greeks with telling effect in the Council of Lyons (1274) and in the Councll of Florence (1493). In the range of human reasonings on deep subjects there can be found nothing to surpass the sublimity and depth of the argument adduced by St. Thomas to prove that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son (cf. Summa theol., I, Q. xxxvi, a. 2); but it must be borne in mind that our Faith is not based on that argument alone.
• “Officium de festo Cor poris Christi”. Mandonnet (Ecrits, p. 127) declares that it is now established beyond doubt that St. Thomas is the author of the beautiful Office of Corpus Christi, in which solid doctrine, tender piety, and enlightening Scriptural citations are combined, and expressed in language remarkably accurate, beautifu] chaste, and poetic. Here we find the well-known hymns, “Sacris Solemniis”, “Pange Lingua” (concluding in the “Tantum Ergo”), “Verbum Super num” (concluding with the O Salutaris Hostia”) and, in the Mass, the beautiful sequence “Lauda Sion”. In the responses of the office, St. Thomas places side by side words of the New Testament affirming the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and texts from the Old Testament referring to the types and figures of the Eucharist. Santeuil, a poet of the seventeenth century, said he would give all the verses he had written for the one stanza of the “Verbum Supernum”: “Se nascens dedit socium, convescens in edulium: Se moriens in pretium, Se regnans dat in praemium” “In birth, man's fellow-man was He, His meat, while sitting at the Board: He died his Ransomer to be, He reigns to be his Great Reward (tr. by Marquis of Bute). Perhaps the gem of the whole office is the antiphon “O Sacrum Convivium (cf. Conway, “St. Thomas Aquinas”, London and New York, 1911, p. 61).
• The “Catena Aurea' though not as original as his other writings, furnishes a striking proof of St. Thomas's prodigious memory and manifests an intimate acquaintance with the Fathers of the Church. The work contains a series of passages selected from the writings of the various Fathers, arranged in such order that the texts cited form a running commentary on the Gospels. The commentary on St. Matthew was dedicated to Urban IV. An English translation of the “Catena Aurea was edited by John Henry Newman (4 vols., Oxford 1841-1845; see Vaughan, op. cit., vol.II,) pp. 529 sqq..

(7) The “Summa theologica” — This work immortalized St. Thomas. The author himself modestly considered it simply a manual of Christian doctrine for the use of students. In reality it is a complete scientifically arranged exposition of theology and at the same time a summary of Christian philosophy . . . . In the brief prologue St. Thomas first calls attention to the difficulties experienced by students of sacred doctrine in his day, the causes assigned being: the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and arguments; the lack of scientific order; frequent repetitions, “which beget disgust and confusion in the minds of learners”. Then he adds: “Wishing to avoid these and similar drawbacks, we shall endeavour, confiding in the Divine assistance, to treat of these things that pertain to sacred doctrine with brevity and clearness, in so far as the subject to he treated will permit.” In the introductory question, “On Sacred Doctrine”, he proves that, besides the knowledge which reason affords, Revelation also is necessary for salvation first, because without it men could not know the supenatural end to which they must tend by their voluntary acts; secondly, because, without Revelation, even the truths concerning God which could be proved by reason would be known “only by a few, after a lot time, and with the admixture of many errors”. When revealed truths have been accepted, the mind of man proceeds to explain them and to draw conclusions from them. Hence results theology, which is a science, because it proceeds from principles that are certain (a. 2). The object, or subject, of this science is God; other things are treated in it only in so far as they relate to God (a. 7). Reason is used in theology not to prove the truths of faith, which are accepted on the authority of God, but to defend, explain, and develop the doctrines revealed (a. 8). He thus announces the division of the “Summa”: “Since the chief aim of this sacred science is to give the knowledge of God, not only as He is in Himself, but also as He is the Beginning of all things, and the End of all, especially of rational creatures, we shall treat first of God; secondly, of the rational creature's advance towards God (de motu creaturae rationalis in Deum); thirdly, of Christ, Who, as Man, is the way by which we tend to God.” God in Himself, and as He is the Creator; God as the End of all things, especially of man; God as the Redeemer — these are the leading ideas, the great headings, under which all that pertains to theology is contained.

(a) Sub-divisions

The First Part is divided into three tracts: α On those things which pertain to the Essence of God; β On the distinction of Persons in God (the mystery of the Trinity); ɣ On the production of creatures by God and on the creatures produced.

The Second Part, On God as He is in the End of man, is sometimes called the Moral Theology of St. Thomas, i.e., his treatise on the end of man and on human acts. It is subdivided into two parts, known as the First Section of the Second (I-II, or la 2ae) and the Second of the Second (II-II, or 2a 2ae).

• The First of the Second. The first five questions are devoted to proving that man's last end, his beatitude, consists in the possession of God. Man attains to that end or deviates from it by human acts, i.e. by free, deliherate acts. Of human acts he treats, first, in general (in all but the first five questions of the I-II), secondly, in particular (in the whole of the II-II). The treatise on human acts in general is divided into two parts: the first, on human acts in themselves; the other, on the principles or causes, extrinsic or intrinsic, of those acts. In these tracts and in the Second of the Second, St. Thomas, following Aristotle, gives a perfect description and a wonderfully keen analysis of the movements of man's mind and heart.
• The Second of the Second considers human acts, i.e., the virtues and vices, in particular. In it St. Thomas treats, first, of those things that pertain to all men, no matter what may be their station in life, and, secondly, of those things that pertain to some men only. Things that pertain to all men are reduced to seven headings: Faith, Hope, and Charity; Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance. Under each title, in order to avoid repetitions, St. Thomas treats not only of the virtue itself, but also of the vices opposed to it, of the commandment to practise it, and of the gift of the Holy Ghost which corresponds to it. Things pertaining to some men only are reduced to three headings: the graces freely given (gratia gratis datae) to certain individuals for the good of the Church, such as the gifts of tongues, of prophecy, of miracles; the active and the contemplative life; the particular states of life, and duties of those who are in different states, especially bishops and religious.

The Third Part treats of Christ and of the benefits which He has conferred upon man, hence three tracts: On the Incarnation, and on what the Saviour did and suffered; On the Sacraments, which were instituted by Christ, and have their efficacy from His merits and sufferings; On Eternal Life, i.e., on the end of the world, the resurrection of bodies, judgment, the punishment of the wicked, the happiness of the just who, through Christ, attain to eternal life in heaven. Eight years were given to the composition of this work, which was begun at Rome, where the First Part and the First of the Second were written (1265-69). The Second of the Second, begun in Rome, was completed in Paris (1271). In 1272 St. Thomas went to Naples, where the Third Part was written, down to the ninetieth question of the tract On Penance (see Leonine edition, I, p. xlii). The work has been completed by the addition of a supplement, drawn from other writings of St. Thomas, attributed by some to Peter of Auvergne, by others to Henry of Gorkum. These attributions are rejected by the editors of the Leonine edition (XI, pp. viii, xiv, xviii). Mandonnet (op. cit., 153) inclines to the very probable opinion that it was compiled by Father Reginald de Piperno, the saint's faithful companion and secretary. The entire “Summa” contains 38 Treatises, 612 Questions, subdivided into 3120 articles, in which about 10,000 objections are proposed and answered. So admirably is the promised order preserved that, by reference to the beginning of the Tracts and Questions, one can see at a glance what place it occupies in the general plan, which embraces all that can be known through theology of God, of man, and of their mutual relations . . . “The whole Summa is arranged on a uniform plan. Every subject is introduced as a question, and divided into articles. . . . Each article has also a uniform disposition of parts. The topic is introduced as an inquiry for discussion, under the term Utrum, whether — e.g. Utrum Deus sit? The objections against the proposed thesis are then stated. These are generally three or four in number, but sometimes extend to seven or more. The conclusion adopted is then introduced by the words, Respondeo dicendum. At the end of the thesis expounded the objections are answered, under the forms, ad primum, ad secundum, etc.” . . . . The “Summa” is Christian doctrine in scientific form; it is human reason rendering its highest service in defence and explanation of the truths of the Christian religion. It is the answer of the matured and saintly doctor to the question of his youth: What is God? Revelation, made known in the Scriptures and by tradition; reason and its best results; soundness and fulness of doctrine, order, conciseness and clearness of expression, effacement of self, the love of truth alone, hence a remarkable fairness towards adversaries and calmness in combating their errors; soberness and soundness of judgment, together with a charmingly tender and enlightened piety — these are all found in this “Summa” more than in his other writings, more than in the writings of his contemporaries, for “among the scholastic doctors, the chief and master of all, towers Thomas Aquinas, who, as Cajetan observes (In 2am 2ae, Q. 148, a. 4) 'because he most venerated the ancient doctors of the Church in a certain way seems to have inherited the intellect of all'” (Encyclical, “Aeterni Patris”, of Leo XIII).

(b) Editions and Translations

It is impossible to mention the various editions of the “Summa”, which has been in constant use for more than seven hundred years. Very few books have been so often republished. The first complete edition, printed at Basle in 1485, was soon followed by others, e.g., at Venice in 1505, 1509, 1588, 1594; at Lyons in 1520, 1541, 1547, 1548, 1581, 1588, 1624,1655; at Antwerp in 1575. These are enumerated by Touron (op. cit., p. 692), who says that about the same time other editions were published at Rome, Antwerp, Rouen, Paris, Douai, Cologne, Amsterdam, Bologna, etc. The editors of the Leonine edition deem worthy of mention those published at Paris in 1617, 1638, and 1648, at Lyons in 1663, 1677, and 1686, and a Roman edition of 1773 (IV, pp. xi, xii). Of all old editions they consider the most accurate two published at Padua, one in 1698, the other in 1712, and the Venice edition of 1755. Of recent editions the best are the — following: the Leonine; the Migne editions (Paris 1841, 1877); the first volume of the 1841 edition containing the “Libri quatuor sententiarum” of Peter Lombard; the very practical Faucher edition (5 vols. small quarto, Paris, 1887), dedicated to Cardinal Pecci, enriched with valuable notes; a Roman edition of 1894. The “Summa” has been translated into many modern languages as well.

C. Method and Style of St. Thomas

It is not possible to characterize the method of St. Thomas by one word, unless it can be called eclectic. It is Aristotelean, Platonic, and Socratic; it is inductive and deductive; it is analytic and synthetic. He chose the best that could he found in those who preceded him, carefully sifting the chaff from the wheat, approving what was true, rejecting the false. His powers of synthesis were extraordinary. No writer surpassed him in the faculty of expressing in a few well-chosen words the truth gathered from a multitude of varying and conflicting opinions; and in almost every instance the student sees, the truth and is perfectly satisfied with St. Thomas's summary and statement. Not that he would have students swear by the words of a master. In philosophy, he says, arguments from authority are of secondary importance; philosophy does not consist in knowing what men have said, but in knowing the truth (In I lib. de Coelo, lect. xxii; II Sent., D. xiv, a. 2, ad lum). He assigns its proper place to reason used in theology (see below: Influence of St. Thomas), but he keeps it within its own sphere. Against the Traditionalists the Holy See has declared that the method used by St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure does not lead to Rationalism (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1652). Not so bold or original in investigating nature as were Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon, he was, nevertheless, abreast of his time in science, and many of his opinions are of scientific value in the twentieth century. Take, for instance, the following: “In the same plant there is the two-fold virtue, active and passive, though sometimes the active is found in one and the passive in another, so that one plant is said to be masculine and the other feminine” (3 Sent., D. III, Q. ii, a 1).

The style of St. Thomas is a medium between the rough expressiveness of some Scholastics and the fastidious elegance of John of Salisbury; it is remarkable for accuracy, brevity, and completeness. Pope Innocent VI (quoted in the Encyclical, “Aeterni Patris”, of Leo XIII) declared that, with the exception of the canonical writings, the works of St. Thomas surpass all others in “accuracy of expression and truth of statement” (habet proprietatem verborum, modum dicendorum, veritatem sententiarum). Great orators, such as Bossuet, Lacordaire, Monsabre, have studied his style, and have been influenced by it, but they could not reproduce it. The same is true of theological writers. Cajetan knew St. Thomas's style better than any of his disciples, but Cajetan is beneath his great master in clearness and accuracy of expression, in soberness and solidity of judgment. St. Thomas did not attain to this perfection without an effort. He was a singularly blessed genius, but he was also an indefatigable worker, and by continued application he reached that stage of perfection in the art of writing where the art disappears. “The author's manuscript of the Summa Contra Gentiles is still in great part extant. It is now in the Vatican Library. The manuscript consists of strips of parchment, of various shades of colour, contained in an old parchment cover to which they were originally stitched. The writing is in double column, and difficult to decipher, abounding in abbreviations, often passing into a kind of shorthand. Throughout many passages a line is drawn in sign of erasure” (Rickaby, Op. cit., preface: see Ucelli ed., “Sum. coat. gent.”, Rome, 1878).

III. Influences Exerted on St. Thomas

How was this great genius formed? The causes that exerted an influence on St. Thomas were of two kinds, natural and supernatural.

A. Natural Causes

(1) As a foundation, he “was a witty child, and had received a good soul” (Wis., viii, 19). From the beginning he manifested precocious and extraordinary talent and thoughtfulness beyond his years.

(2) His education was such that great things might have been expected of him. His training at Monte Cassino, at Naples, Paris, and Cologne was the best that the thirteenth century could give, and that century was the golden age of education. That it afforded excellent opportunities for forming great philosophers and theologians is evident from the character of St. Thomas's contemporaries. Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, St. Bonaventure, St. Raymond of Pennafort, Roger Bacon, Hugo a S. Charo, Vincent of Beauvais, not to mention scores of others, prove beyond all doubt that those were days of really great scholars. (See Walsh, “The Thirteenth Greatest of Centuries”, New York, 1907.) The men who trained St. Thomas were his teachers at Monte Cassino and Naples, but above all Albertus Magnus, under whom he studied at Paris and Cologne.

(3) The books that exercised the greatest influence on his mind were the Bible, the Decrees of the councils and of the popes, the works of the Fathers, Greek and Latin, especially of St. Augustine, the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard, the writings of the philosophers, especially of Plato, Aristotle, and Boethius. If from these authors any were to be selected for special mention, undoubtedly they would be Aristotle, St. Augustine, and Peter Lombard. In another sense the writings of St. Thomas were influenced by Averroes, the chief opponent whom he had to combat in order to defend and make known the true Aristotle.

(4) It must be borne in mind that St. Thomas was blessed with a retentive mernory and great powers of penetration. Father Daniel d'Agusta once pressed him to say what he considered the greatest grace he had ever received, sanctifying grace of course excepted. “I think that of having understood whatever I have read”, was the reply. St. Antoninus declared that “he remembered everything be had read, so that his mind was like a huge library” (cf. Drane, op. cit., p. 427; Vaughan, op. cit., II, p. 567). The bare enumeration of the texts of Scripture cited in the “Summa theologica” fills eighty small-print columns in the Migne edition, and by many it is not unreasonably supposed that he learned the Sacred Books by heart while he was imprisoned in the Castle of San Giovanni. Like St. Dominic he had a special love for the Epistles of St. Paul, on which he wrote commentaries (recent edition in 2 vols., Turin, 1891).

(5) Deep reverence for the Faith, as made known by tradition, characterizes all his writings. The consuetudo ecclesiae — the practice of the Church — should prevail over the authority of any doctor (II-II, Q. x. a. 12). In the “Summa” he quotes from 19 councils, 41 popes, and 52 Fathers of the Church. A slight acquaintance with his writings will show that among the Fathers his favourite was St. Augustine (on the Greek Fathers see Vaughan, op. cit., II, cc. iii sqq.).

(6) With St. Augustine (II De doctr. Christ., c. xl), St. Thomas held that whatever there was of truth in the writings of pagan philosophers should be taken from them, as from “unjust possessors”, and adapted to the teaching of the true religion (Sum. theol., I, Q. lxxxiv, a. 5). In the “Summa” alone he quotes from the writings of 46 philosophers and poets, his favourite authors being Aristotle, Plato, and, among Christian writers, Boethius. From Aristotle he learned that love of order and accuracy of expression which are characteristic of his own works. From Boethius he learned that Aristotle's works could be used without detriment to Christianity. He did not follow Boethius in his vain attempt to reconcile Plato and Aristotle. In general the Stagirite was his master, but the elevation and grandeur of St. Thomas's conceptions and the majestic dignity of his methods of treatment speak strongly of the sublime Plato.

B. Supernatural Causes

Even if we do not accept as literally true the declaration of John XXII, that St. Thomas wrought as many miracles as there are articles in the “Summa”, we must, nevertheless, go beyond causes merely natural in attempting to explain his extraordinary career and wonderful writings.

(1) Purity of mind and body contributes in no small degree to clearness of vision (see St. Thomas, “Commentaries on I Cor., c.vii”, Lesson v). By the gift of purity, miraculously granted at the time of the mystic girdling, God made Thomas's life angelic; the perspicacity and depth of his intellect, Divine grace aiding, made him the “Angelic Doctor”.

(2) The spirit of prayer, his great piety and devotion, drew down blessings on his studies. Explaining why he read, every day, portions of the “Conferences” of Cassian, he said: “In such reading I find devotion, whence I readily ascend to contemplation” (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 32). In the lessons of the Breviary read on his feast day it is explicitly stated that he never began to study without first invoking the assistance of God in prayer; and when he wrestled with obscure passages of the Scriptures, to prayer he added fasting.

(3) Facts narrated by persons who either knew St. Thomas in life or wrote at about the time of his canonization prove that he received assistance from heaven. To Father Reginald he declared that he had learned more in prayer and contemplation than he had acquired from men or books (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 36). These same authors tell of mysterious visitors who came to encourage and enlighten him. The Blessed Virgin appeared, to assure him that his life and his writings were acceptable to God, and that he would persevere in his holy vocation. Sts. Peter and Paul came to aid him in interpreting an obscure passage in Isaias. When humility caused him to consider himself unworthy of the doctorate, a venerable religious of his order (supposed to be St. Dominic) appeared to encourage him and suggested the text for his opening discourse (Prümmer, op. cit., 29, 37; Tocco in “Acta SS.”, VII Mar.; Vaughan, op. cit., II, 91). His ecstasies have been mentioned. His abstractions in presence of King Louis IX (St. Louis) and of distinguished visitors are related by all biographers. Hence, even if allowance be made for great enthusiasm on the part of his admirers, we must conclude that his extraordinary learning cannot be attributed to merely natural causes. Of him it may truly be said that he laboured as if all depended on his own efforts and prayed as if all depended on God.

IV. Influence of St. Thomas

A. Influence on Sanctity

The great Scholastics were holy as well as learned men. Alexander of Hales, St. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure prove that learning does not necessarily dry up devotion. The angelic Thomas and the seraphic Bonaventure represent the highest types of Christian scholarship, combining eminent learning with heroic sanctity. Cardinal Bessarion called St. Thomas “the most saintly of learned men and the most learned of saints”. His works breathe the spirit of Cod, a tender and enlightened piety, built on a solid foundation, viz. the knowledge of God, of Christ, of man. The “Summa theologica” may he made a manual of piety as well as a text-book for the study of theology (Cf. Drane, op. cit., p. 446). St. Francis de Sales, St. Philip Neri, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Pius V, St. Antoninus constantly studied St. Thomas. Nothing could be more inspiring than his treatises on Christ, in His sacred Person, in His life and sufferings. His treatise on the sacraments, especially on penance and the Eucharist, would melt even hardened hearts. He takes pains to explain the various ceremonies of the Mass (“De ritu Eucharistiae” in “Sum. theol.”, III, Q. lxxxiii, and no writer has explained more clearly than St. Thomas the effects produced in the souls of men by this heavenly Bread (ibid., Q. lxxix). The principles recently urged, in regard to frequent Communion, by Pius X (“Sacra Trid. Synodus”, 1905) are found in St. Thomas (Q. lxxix, a. 8, Q. lxxx, a. 10), although he is not so explicit on this point as he is on the Communion of children. In the Decree “Quam Singulari” (1910) the pope cites St. Thomas, who teaches that, when children begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive some devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, they may be allowed to communicate (Q. lxxx, a. 9, ad 3um). The spiritual and devotional aspects of St. Thomas's theology have been pointed out by Father Contenson, O.P., in his “Theologia mentis et cordis”. They are more fully explained by Father Vallgornera, O.P., in his “Theologia Mystica D. Thomae”, wherein the author leads the soul to God through the purgative, illuminative, and unitive ways. The Encyclical Letter of Leo XIII on the Holy Spirit is drawn largely from St. Thomas, and those who have studied the “Prima Secundae” and the “Secunda Secundae” know how admirably the saint explains the gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost, as well as the Beatitudes, and their relations to the different virtues Nearly all good spiritual writers seek in St. Thomas definitions of the virtues which they recommend.

B. Influence on Intellectual Life

Since the days of Aristotle, probably no one man has exercised such a powerful influence on the thinking world as did St. Thomas. His authority was very great during his lifetime. The popes, the universities, the studia of his order were anxious to profit by his learning and prudence. Several of his important works were written at the request of others, and his opinion was sought by all classes. On several occasions the doctors of Paris referred their disputes to him and gratefully abided by his decision (Vaughan, op. cit., II, 1 p. 544). His principles, made known by his writings, have continued to influence men even to this day. This subject cannot be considered in all its aspects, nor is that necessary. His influence on matters purely philosophical is fully explained in histories of philosophy. (Theologians who followed St. Thomas will be mentioned in THOMISM. See also PREACHERS, ORDER OF — II, A, 2, d) His paramount importance and influence may be explained by considering him as the Christian Aristotle, combining in his person the best that the world has known in philosophy and theology. It is in this light that he is proposed as a model by Leo XIII in the famous Encyclical “Aeterni Patris”. The work of his life may be summed up in two propositions: he established the true relations between faith and reason; he systematized theology.

(1) Faith and Reason

The principles of St. Thomas on the relations between faith and reason were solemnly proclaimed in the Vatican Council The second, third, and fourth chapters of the Constitution “Dei Filius” read like pages taken from the works of the Angelic Doctor. First, reason alone is no sufficient to guide men: they need Revelation; we must carefully distinguish the truths known by reason from higher truths (mysteries) known by Revelation. Secondly, reason and Revelation, though distinct, are not opposed to each other. Thirdly, faith preserves reason from error; reason should do service in the cause of faith. Fourthly, this service is rendered in three ways:

• reason should prepare the minds of men to receive the Faith by proving the truths which faith presupposes (praeambula fidei);
• reason should explain and develop the truths of Faith and should propose them in scientific form;
• reason should defend the truths revealed by Almighty God.

This is a development of St. Augustine's famous saying (De Trin., XIV, c. i), that the right use of reason is “that by which the most wholesome faith is begotten . . . is nourished, defended, and made strong” These principles are proposed by St. Thomas in many places, especially in the following: “In Boethium, d a Trin. Proem.”, Q. ii, a. 1; “Sum. cont. gent.”, I, cc I iii-ix; “Summa”, I, Q. i, aa. 1, 5, 8; Q. xxxii, a. 1; Q i lxxxiv, a. 5. St. Thomas's services to the Faith are thus summed up by Leo XIII in the Encyclical “Aeterni Patris”: “He won this title of distinction for himself: that singlehanded he victoriously combated the errors of former times, and supplied invincible arms to put to rout those which might in after times spring up. Again, clearly distinguishing, as is fitting, reason and faith, he both preserved and had regard for the rights of each; so much so, indeed, that reason, borne on the wings of Thomas, can scarcely rise higher, while faith could scarcely expect more or stronger aids from reason than those which she has already obtained through Thomas.” St. Thomas did not combat imaginary foes; he attacked living adversaries. The works of Aristotle had been introduced into France in faulty translations and with the misleading commentaries of Jewish and Moorish philosophers. This gave rise to a flood of errors which so alarmed the authorities that the reading of Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics was forbidden by Robert de Courçon in 1210, the decree being moderated by Gregory IX in 1231. There crept into the University of Paris an insidious spirit of irreverence and Rationalism, represented especially by Abelard and Raymond Lullus, which claimed that reason could know and prove all things, even the mysteries of Faith. Under the authority of Averroes dangerous doctrines were propagated, especially two very pernicious errors: first, that philosophy and religion being in different regions, what is true in religion might be false in philosophy; secondly, that all men have but one soul. Averroes was commonly styled “The Commentator”, but St. Thomas says he was “not so much a Peripatetic as a corruptor of Peripatetic philosophy” (Opuse. de unit. intell.). Applying a principle of St. Augustine (see I, Q. lxxxiv, a. 5), following in the footsteps of Alexander of Hales and Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas resolved to take what was true from the “unjust possessors”, in order to press it into the service of revealed religion. Objections to Aristotle would cease if the true Aristotle were made known; hence his first care was to obtain a new translation of the works of the great philosopher. Aristotle was to be purified; false commentators were to be refuted; the most influential of these was Averroes, hence St. Thomas is continually rejecting his false interpretations.

(2) Theology Systematized

The next step was to press reason into the service of the Faith, by putting Christian doctrine into scientific form. Scholasticism does not consist, as some persons imagine, in useless discussions and subtleties, but in this, that it expresses sound doctrine in language which is accurate, clear, and concise. In the Encyclical “Aeterni Patris” Leo XIII, citing the words of Sixtus V (Bull “Triumphantis”, 1588), declares that to the right use of philosophy we are indebted for “those noble endowments which make Scholastic theology so formidable to the enemies of truth”, because “that ready coherence of cause and effect, that order and array of a disciplined army in battle, those clear definitions and distinctions, that strength of argument and those keen discussions by which light is distinguished from darkness, the true from the false, expose and lay bare, as it were, the falsehoods of heretics wrapped around by a cloud of subterfuges and fallacies”. When the great Scholastics had written, there was light where there had been darkness, there was order where confusion had prevailed. The work of St. Anselm and of Peter Lombard was perfected by the Scholastic theologians. Since their days no substantial improvements have been made in the plan and system of theology, although the field of apologetics has been widened, and positive theology has become more important.

C. St. Thomas's Doctrine Followed

Within a short time after his death the writings of St. Thomas were universally esteemed. The Dominicans naturally took the lead in following St. Thomas. The general chapter held in Paris in 1279 pronounced severe penalties against all who dared to speak irreverently (of him or of his writings. The chapters held in Paris in 1286, at Bordeaux in 1287, and at Lucca in 1288 expressly required the brethren to follow the doctrine of Thomas, who at that time had not been canonized (Const. Ord. Praed., n. 1130). The University of Paris, on the occasion of Thomas's death, sent an official letter of condolence to the general chapter of the Dominicans, declaring that, equally with his brethren, the university experienced sorrow at the loss of one who was their own by many titles (see text of letter in Vaughan, op. cit., II, p. 82). In the Encyclical “Aeterni Patris” Leo XIII mentions the Universities of Paris, Salamanca, Alcalá, Douai Toulouse, Louvain, Padua, Bologna, Naples, Coimbra as “the homes of human wisdom where Thomas reigned supreme, and the minds of all, of teachers as well as of taught, rested in wonderful harmony under the shield and authority of the Angelic Doctor”. To the list may be added Lima and Manila, Fribourg and Washington. Seminaries and colleges followed the lead of the universities. The “Summa” gradually supplanted the “Sentences” as the textbook of theology. Minds were formed in accordance with the principles of St. Thomas; he became the great master, exercising a world-wide influence on the opinions of men and on their writings; for even those who did not adopt all of his conclusions were obliged to give due consideration to his opinions. It has been estimated that 6000 commentaries on St. Thomas's works have been written. Manuals of theology and of philosophy, composed with the intention of imparting his teaching, translations, and studies, or digests (études), of portions of his works have been published in profusion during the last six hundred years and to-day his name is in honour all over the world (see THOMISM).

In every one of the general councils held since his death St. Thomas has been singularly honoured. At the Council of Lyons his book “Contra errores Graecorum” was used with telling effect against the Greeks. In later disputes, before and during the Council of Florence, John of Montenegro, the champion of Latin orthodoxy, found St. Thomas's works a source of irrefragable arguments. The “Decretum pro Armenis” (Instruction for the Armenians), issued by the authority of that council, is taken almost verbatim from his treatise, “De fidei articulis et septem sacramentis” (see Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 695). “In the Councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence, and the Vatican”, writes Leo XIII (Encyclical “Aeterni Patris”), “one might almost say that Thomas took part in and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics, and Rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of Sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. Greater influence than this no man could have. Before this section is closed mention should be made of two books widely known and highly esteemed, which were inspired by and drawn from the writings of St. Thomas. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, composed by disciples of the Angelic Doctor, is in reality a compendium of his theology, in convenient form for the use of parish priests. Dante's “Divina Commedia” has been called “the Summa of St. Thomas in verse”, and commentators trace the great Florentine poet's divisions and descriptions of the virtues and vices to the “Secunda Secundae”.

D. Appreciation of St. Thomas

(1) In the Church

The esteem in which he was held during his life has not been diminished, but rather increased, in the course of the six centuries that have elapsed since his death. The position which he occupies in the Church is well explained by that great scholar Leo XIII, in the Encyclical “Aeterni Patris”, recommending the study of Scholastic philosophy: “It is known that nearly all the founders and framers of laws of religious orders commanded their societies to study and religiously adhere to the teachings of St. Thomas. . . To say nothing of the family of St. Dominic, which rightly claims this great teacher for its own glory, the statutes of the Benedictines, the Carmelites, the Augustinians, the Society of Jesus, and many others, all testify that they are bound by this law.” Amongst the “many others” the Servites, the Passionists, the Barnabites, and the Sulpicians have been devoted in an especial manner to the study of St. Thomas. The principal ancient universities where St. Thomas ruled as the great master have been enumerated above. The Paris doctors called him the morning star, the luminous sun, the light of the whole Church. Stephen, Bishop of Paris, repressing those who dared to attack the doctrine of “that most excellent Doctor, the blessed Thomas”, calls him “the great luminary of the Catholic Church, the precious stone of the priesthood, the flower of doctors, and the bright mirror of the University of Paris” (Drane, op. cit., p. 431). In the old Louvain University the doctors were required to uncover and bow their heads when they pronounced the name of Thomas (Goudin, op. cit., p. 21).

“The oecumenical councils, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honour” (Leo XIII in “Aet. Patris”). This subject has been sufficiently treated above. The “Bullarium Ordinis Praedicatorum”, published in 1729-39, gives thirty-eight Bulls in which eighteen sovereign pontiffs praised and recommended the doctrine of St. Thomas (see also Vaughan, op. cit., II, c. ii; Berthier, op. cit., pp. 7 sqq.). These approbations are recalled and renewed by Leo XIII, who lays special stress on “the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: `His teaching above that of others, the canons alone excepted, enjoys such an elegance of phraseology, a method of statement, a truth of proposition, that those who hold it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error (ibid.). Leo XIII surpassed his predecessors in admiration of St. Thomas, in whose works he declared a remedy can be found for many evils that afflict society (see Berthier, op. cit., introd.). The notable Encyclical Letters with which the name of that illustrious pontiff will always be associated show how he had studied the works of the Angelic Doctor. This is very noticeable in the letters on Christian marriage, the Christian constitution of states, the condition of the working classes, and the study of Holy Scripture. Pope Pius X, in several Letters, e.g. in the “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” (Sept., 1907), has insisted on the observance of the recommendations of Leo XIII concerning the study of St. Thomas. An attempt to give names of Catholic writers who have expressed their appreciation of St. Thomas and of his influence would be an impossible undertaking; for the list would include nearly all who have written on philosophy or theology since the thirteenth century, as well as hundreds of writers on other subjects. Commendations and eulogies are found in the introductory chapters of all good commentaries. An incomplete list of authors who have collected these testimonies is given by Father Berthier (op. cit., p. 22). . . .

(2) Outside the Church

(a) Anti-Scholastics — Some persons have been and are still opposed to everything that comes under the name of Scholasticism, which they bold to be synonymous with subtleties and useless discussions. From the prologue to the “Summa” it is clear that St. Thomas was opposed to all that was superfluous and confusing in Scholastic studies. When people understand what true Scholasticism means, their objections will cease.

(b) Heretics and Schismatics — “A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man — namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name” (Leo XIII, ibid.). St. Thomas's orthodoxy drew upon him the hatred of all Greeks who were opposed to union with Rome. The united Greeks, however, admire St. Thomas and study his works (see above Translations of the “Summa”). The leaders of the sixteenth-century revolt honoured St. Thomas by attacking him, Luther being particularly violent in his coarse invectives against the great doctor. Citing Bucer's wild boast, “Take away Thomas and I will destroy the Church”, Leo XIII (ibid.) remarks, “The hope was vain, but the testimony has its value”. Calo, Tocco, and other biographers relate that St. Thomas, travelling from Rome to Naples, converted two celebrated Jewish rabbis, whom he met at the country house of Cardinal Richard (Prümmer, op. cit., p. 33; Vaughan, op. cit., I, p. 795). Rabbi Paul of Burgos, in the fifteenth century, was converted by reading the works of St. Thomas. Theobald Thamer, a disciple of Melancthon, abjured his heresy after he had read the “Summa”, which he intended to refute. The Calvinist Duperron was converted in the same way, subsequently becoming Archbishop of Sens and a cardinal (see Conway, O.P., op. cit., p. 96). After the bitterness of the first period of Protestantism had passed away, Protestants saw the necessity of retaining many parts of Catholic philosophy and theology, and those who came to know St. Thomas were compelled to admire him. Ueberweg says “He brought the Scholastic philosophy to its highest stage of development, by effecting the most perfect accommodation that was possible of the Aristotelian philosophy to ecclesiastical orthodoxy” (op. cit., p. 440). R. Seeberg in the “New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia” (New York, 1911) devotes ten columns to St. Thomas, and says that “at all points he succeeded in upholding the church doctrine as credible and reasonable” (XI, p. 427). For many years, especially since the days of Pusey and Newman, St. Thomas has been in high repute at Oxford. Recently the “Summa contra gentiles” was placed on the list of subjects which a candidate may offer in the final honour schools of Litterae Humaniores at that university (cf. Walsh, op. cit., c. xvii). For several years Father De Groot, O.P., has been the professor of Scholastic philosophy in the University of Amsterdam, and courses in Scholastic philosophy have been established in some of the leading non-Catholic universities of the United States. Anglicans have a deep admiration for St. Thomas. Alfred Mortimer, in the chapter “The Study of Theology” of his work entitled “Catholic Faith and Practice” (2 vols., New York, 1909), regretting that “the English priest has ordinarily no scientific acquaintance with the Queen of Sciences”, and proposing a remedy, says, “The simplest and most perfect sketch of universal theology is to be found in the Summa of St. Thomas” (vol. II, pp. 454, 465).

V. St. Thomas and Modern Thought

In the Syllabus of 1864 Pius IX condemned a proposition in which it was stated that the method and principles of the ancient Scholastic doctors were not suited to the needs of our times and the progress of science (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1713). In the Encyclical “Aeterni Patris” Leo XIII points out the benefits to be derived from “a practical reform of philosophy by restoring the renowned teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas”. He exhorts the bishops to “restore the golden wisdom of Thomas and to spread it far and wide for the defence and beauty of the Catholic Faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences”. In the pages of the Encyclical immediately preceding these words he explains why the teaching of St. Thomas would produce such most desirable results: St. Thomas is the great master to explain and defend the Faith, for his is “the solid doctrine of the Fathers and the Scholastics, who so clearly and forcibly demonstrate the firm foundations of the Faith, its Divine origin, its certain truth, the arguments that sustain it, the benefits it has conferred on the human race, and its perfect accord with reason, in a manner to satisfy completely minds open to persuasion, however unwilling and repugnant”. The career of St. Thomas would in itself have justified Leo XIII in assuring men of the nineteenth century that the Catholic Church was not opposed to the right use of reason. The sociological aspects of St. Thomas are also pointed out: “The teachings of Thomas on the true meaning of liberty, which at this time is running into license, on the Divine origin of all authority, on laws and their force, on the paternal and just rule of princes, on obedience to the highest powers, on mutual charity one towards another — on all of these and kindred subjects, have very great and invincible force to overturn those principles of the new order which are well known to be dangerous to the peaceful order of things and to public safety” (ibid.). The evils affecting modern society had been pointed out by the pope in the Letter “Inscrutabili” of 21 April, 1878, and in the one on Socialism, Communism, and Nihilism (“The Great Encyclicals of Leo XIII”, pp. 9 sqq.; 22 sqq.). How the principles of the Angelic Doctor will furnish a remedy for these evils is explained here in a general way, more particularly in the Letters on the Christian constitution of states, human liberty, the chief duties of Christians as citizens, and on the conditions of the working classes (ibid., pp. 107, 135, 180, 208).

It is in relation to the sciences that some persons doubt the availability of St. Thomas's writings; and the doubters are thinking of the physical and experimental sciences, for in metaphysics the scholastics are admitted to be masters. Leo XIII calls attention to the following truths: (a) The Scholastics were not opposed to investigation. Holding as a principle in anthropology “that the human intelligence is only led to the knowledge of things without body and matter by things sensible, they well understood that nothing was of greater use to the philosopher than diligently to search into the mysteries of nature, and to be earnest and constant in the study of physical things” (ibid., p. 55). This principle was reduced to practice: St. Thomas, St. Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, and others “gave large attention to the knowledge of natural things” (ibid., p. 56). (b) Investigation alone is not sufficient for true science. “When facts have been established, it is necessary to rise and apply ourselves to the study of the nature of corporeal things, to inquire into the laws which govern them and the principles whence their order and varied unity and mutual attraction in diversity arise” (p. 55). Will the scientists of to-day pretend to be better reasoners than St. Thomas, or more powerful in synthesis? It is the method and the principles of St. Thomas that Leo XIII recommends: “If anything is taken up with too great subtlety by the scholastic doctors, or too carelessly stated; if there be anything that ill agrees with the discoveries of a later age or, in a word, is improbable in any way, it does not enter into our mind to propose that for imitation to our age” (p. 56). Just as St. Thomas, in his day, saw a movement towards Aristotle and philosophical studies which could not be checked, but could be guided in the right direction and made to serve the cause of truth, so also, Leo XIII, seeing in the world of his time a spirit of study and investigation which might be productive of evil or of good, had no desire to check it, but resolved to propose a moderator and master who could guide it in the paths of truth.

No better guide could have been chosen than the clear-minded, analytic, synthetic, and sympathetic Thomas Aquinas. His extraordinary patience and fairness in dealing with erring philosophers, his approbation of all that was true in their writings, his gentleness in condemning what was false, his clear-sightedness in pointing out the direction to true knowledge in all its branches, his aptness and accuracy in expressing the truth — these qualities mark him as a great master not only for the thirteenth century, but for all times. If any persons are inclined to consider him too subtle, it is because they do not know how clear, concise, and simple are his definitions and divisions. His two summae are masterpieces of pedagogy, and mark him as the greatest of human teachers. Moreover, he dealt with errors similar to many which go under the name of philosophy or science in our days. The Rationalism of Abelard and others called forth St. Thomas's luminous and everlasting principles on the true relations of faith and reason. Ontologism was solidly refuted by St. Thomas nearly six centuries before the days of Malebranche, Gioberti, and Ubaghs (see “Sum. theol.”, I, Q. lxxxiv, a. 5). The true doctrine on first principles and on universals, given by him and by the other great Scholastics, is the best refutation of Kant's criticism of metaphysical ideas (see, e.g., “Post. Analyt.”, I, lect. xix; “De ente et essentia”, c. iv; “Sum. theol.”, I, Q. xvii, a. 3, corp. and ad 2um; Q. lxxix, a. 3; Q. lxxxiv, a. 5, a. 6, corp. and ad 1um, Q. lxxxv, a. 2, ad 2um, a. 3, ad 1um, ad 4um. Cf. index to “Summa”: “Veritas”, “Principium”, “Universale”). Modern psychological Pantheism does not differ substantially from the theory of one soul for all men asserted by Averroes (see “De unit. intell.” and “Sum. theol.”, I, Q. lxxvi, a. 2; Q. lxxix, a.5). The Modernistic error, which distinguishes the Christ of faith from the Christ of history, had as its forerunner the Averroistic principle that a thing might be true in philosophy and false in religion.

In the Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” (18 Nov., 1893) Leo XIII draws from St. Thomas's writings the principles and wise rules which should govern scientific criticism of the Sacred Books. From the same source recent writers have drawn principles which are most helpful in the solution of questions pertaining to Spiritism and Hypnotism. Are we to conclude, then, that St. Thomas's works, as he left them, furnish sufficient instruction for scientists, philosophers, and theologians of our times? By no means. Vetera novis augere et perficere — “To strengthen and complete the old by aid of the new “ — is the motto of the restoration proposed by Leo XIII. Were St. Thomas living to-day he would gladly adopt and use all the facts made known by recent scientific and historical investigations, but he would carefully weigh all evidence offered in favour of the facts. Positive theology is more necessary in our days than it was in the thirteenth century. Leo XIII calls attention to its necessity in his Encyclical, and his admonition is renewed by Pius X in his Letter on Modernism. But both pontiffs declare that positive theology must not be extolled to the detriment of Scholastic theology. In the Encyclical “Pascendi”, prescribing remedies against Modernism, Pius X, following in this his illustrious predecessor, gives the first place to “Scholastic philosophy, especially as it was taught by Thomas Aquinas”, St. Thomas is still “The Angel of the Schools”.

D.J. KENNEDY

Blessed Thomas Ford

Born in Devonshire; died at Tyburn, 28 May, 1582. He incepted M.A. at Trinity College, Oxford, 14 July, 1567, and was a fellow, Woods says president, of the college. He went to the English College, Douai, in 1570, and was one of the first three of its students to be ordained, receiving all orders in March, 1573, at Brussels. After becoming B.D. at Douai he left for England, 2 May, 1576, and soon became chaplain to Edward Yate and his Bridgettine guests at Lyford, Berkshire. Arrested with St. Edmund Campion (q.v.) 17 July, 1581, and committed to the Tower 22 July, he was thrice tortured. He was brought before the Queen's Bench 16 November, with his fellow martyr Blessed John Shert, on an absurd charge of conspiracy at Rome and Reims, where he had never been, on dates when he was in England, and both were condemned 21 November. With him suffered John Shert and Robert Johnson.

JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT

Blessed Thomas Johnson

Carthusian martyr, died in Newgate gaol, London, 20 September, 1537. On 18 May, 1537, the twenty choir monks and eighteen brothers remaining in the London Charterhouse were required to take the Oath of Supremacy. Of these choir monks Thomas Johnson, Richard Bere, Thomas Green (priests), and John Davy (deacon) refused; and of the brothers Robert Salt, William Greenwood, Thomas Redyng, Thommas Scryven, Walter Pierson, and William Horne. On 29 May all were sent to Newgate, where they were chained standing and with their hands tied behind them to posts in the prison, and so left to die of starvation. However Margaret Clement, who as Margaret Giggs had been brought up in the household of St. Thomas More, bribed the gaoler to let her have access to the prisoners, and disguised herself as a milkmaid and carried in a milk-can full of meat, wherewith she fed them. After the king's inquiry as to whether they were not already dead, the gaoler was afraid to let her enter again; but she was allowed to go on the roof, and uncovering the tiles, she let down meat in a basket as near as she could to their mouths. However they could get little or nothing from the basket, and as the gaoler feared discovery, even this plan was soon discontinued. Greenwood died first (6 June), then Davy (8 June), Salt ( 9 June), Pierson and Green (10 June), Scryven (15 June), Redyng (16 June). It is probable that then Cromwell interfered and ordered those still living to be given food in order that they might be preserved for execution; for Bere did not die till 9 August, nor Johnson till 20 September. Horne survived, and though he could never be induced to quit his religious habit, was not attainted till 1540, when he was hanged, disembowelled, and quartered at Tyburn (4 August) with the five Praetermissi Robert Bird (layman), Lawrence Cook (Carmelite Prior of Doncaster), Thomas Epson (Benedictine), Giles Heron (layman), and probably with William Bird (Rector of Fittleton and Vicar of Bradford, Wiltshire). All ten Carthusians were beatified by Leo XIII on Dec., 1886. Blessed Richard Bere (Abbot of Glastonbury 1493-1525), and became a Carthusian on Feb., 1523. Blessed Thomas Green has been identified by Dom Bede Camm with Thomas Greenwood (B.A., Oxon, M.A., Cantab, 1511), who became Fellow of St. John's College Cambridge in 1515 and D.D. in 1532.

JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT

St. Thomas More

Saint, knight, Lord Chancellor of England, author and martyr, born in London, 7 February, 1477-78; executed at Tower Hill, 6 July, 1535. He was the sole surviving son of Sir John More, barrister and later judge, by his first wife Agnes, daughter of Thomas Graunger. While still a child Thomas was sent to St. Anthony's School in Threadneedle Street, kept by Nicholas Holt, and when thirteen years old was placed in the household of Cardinal Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Chancellor. Here his merry character and brilliant intellect attracted the notice of the archbishop, who sent him to Oxford, where he entered at Canterbury Hall (subsequently absorbed by Christ Church) about 1492. His father made him an allowance barely sufficient to supply the necessaries of life and, in consequence, he had no opportunity to indulge in “vain or hurtful amusements” to the detriment of his studies. At Oxford he made friends with William Grocyn and Thomas Linacre, the latter becoming his first instructor in Greek. Without ever becoming an exact scholar he mastered Greek “by an instinct of genius” as witnessed by Pace (De fructu qui ex doctrina percipitur, 1517), who adds “his eloquence is incomparable and twofold, for he speaks with the same facility in Latin as in his own language”. Besides the classics he studied French, history, and mathematics, and also learned to play the flute and the viol. After two years' residence at Oxford, More was recalled to London and entered as a law student at New Inn about 1494. In February, 1496, he was admitted to Lincoln's Inn as a student, and in due course was called to the outer bar and subsequently made a bencher. His great abilities now began to attract attention and the governors of Lincoln's Inn appointed him “reader” or lecturer on law at Furnival's Inn, his lectures being esteemed so highly that the appointment was renewed for three successive years.

It is clear however that law did not absorb all More's energies, for much of his time was given to letters. He wrote poetry, both Latin and English, a considerable amount of which has been preserved and is of good quality, though not particularly striking, and he was especially devoted to the works of Pico della Mirandola, of whose life he published an English translation some years later. He cultivated the acquaintance of scholars and learned men and, through his former tutors, Grocyn and Linacre, who were now living in London, he made friends with Colet, Dean of St. Paul's, and William Lilly, both renowned scholars. Colet became More's confessor and Lilly vied with him in translating epigrams from the Greek Anthology into Latin, then joint productions being published in 1518 (Progymnasnata T. More et Gul. Liliisodalium). In 1497 More was introduced to Erasmus, probably at the house of Lord Mountjoy, the great scholar's pupil and patron. The friendship at once became intimate, and later on Erasmus paid several long visits at More's Chelsea house, and the two friends corresponded regularly until death separated them. Besides law and the Classics More read the Fathers with care, and he delivered, in the Church of St. Lawrence Jewry, a series of lectures on St. Augustine's “De civitate Dei”, which were attended by many learned men, among whom Grocyn, the rector of the church, is expressly mentioned. For such an audience the lectures must have been prepared with great care, but unhappily not a fragment of them has survived. These lectures were given somewhere between 1499 and 1503, a period during which More's mind was occupied almost wholly with religion and the question of his own vocation for the priesthood.

This portion of his life has caused much misunderstanding among his various biographers. It is certain that he went to live near the London Charterhouse and often joined in the spiritual exercises of the monks there. He wore “a sharp shirt of hair next his skin, which he never left off wholly” (Cresacre More), and gave himself up to a life of prayer and penance. His mind wavered for some time between joining the Carthusians or the Observant Franciscans, both of which orders observed the religious life with extreme strictness and fervour. In the end, apparently with the approval of Colet, he abandoned the hope of becoming a priest or religious, his decision being due to a mistrust of his powers of perseverance. Erasmus, his intimate friend and confidant, writes on this matter as follows (Epp.447): “Meanwhile he applied his whole mind to exercises of piety, looking to and pondering on the priesthood in vigils, fasts and prayers and similar austerities. In which matter he proved himself far more prudent than most candidates who thrust themselves rashly into that arduous profession without any previous trial of their powers. The one thing that prevented him from giving himself to that kind of life was that he could not shake off the desire of the married state. He chose, therefore, to be a chaste husband rather than an impure priest.” The last sentence of this passage has led certain writers, notably Mr. Seebohm and Lord Campbell, to expatiate at great length on the supposed corruption of the religious orders at this date, which, they declare, disgusted More so much that he abandoned his wish to enter religion on that account. Father Bridgett deals with this question at considerable length (Lifeand Writings of Sir Thomas More, pp. 23-36), but it is enough to say that this view has now been abandoned even by non-Catholic writers, as witness Mr. W.H.Hutton: “It is absurd to assert that More was disgusted with monastic corruption, that he 'loathed monks as a disgrace to the Church'. He was throughout his life a warm friend of the religious orders, and a devoted admirer of the monastic ideal. He condemmned the vices of individuals; he said, as his great-grandson says, 'that at that time religious men in England had somewhat degenerated from their ancient strictness and fervour of spirit'; but there is not the slightest sign that his decision to decline the monastic life was due in the smallest degree to a distrust of the system or a distaste for the theology of the Church.”

The question of religious vocation being disposed of, More threw himself into his work at the Bar and scored immediate success. In 1501 he was elected a member of Parliament, but as the returns are missing his constituency is unknown. Here he immediately began to oppose the large and unjust exactions of money which King Henry VII was making from his subjects through the agency of Empson and Dudley, the latter being Speaker of the House of Commons. In this Parliament Henry demanded a grant of three-fifteenths, about 113,000 pounds, but thanks to More's protests the Commons reduced the sum to 30,000. Some years later Dudley told More that his boldness would have cost him his head but for the fact that he had not attacked the king in person. Even as it was Henry was so enraged with More that he “devised a causeless quarrel against his father, keeping him in the Tower till he had made him pay a hundred pounds fine” (Roper). Meanwhile More had made friends with one “Maister John Colte, a gentleman” of Newhall, Essex, whose oldest daughter, Jane, he married in 1505. Roper writes of his choice: “albeit his mind most served him to the second daughter, for that he thought her the fairest and best favoured, yet when he considered that it would be great grief and some shame also to the eldest to see her younger sister preferred before her in marriage, he then, of a certain pity, framed his fancy towards” the eldest of the three sisters. The union proved a supremely happy one; of it were born three daughters, Margaret, Elizabeth, and Cecilia, and a son, John; and then, in 1511, Jane More died, still almost a child. In the epitaph which More himself composed twenty years later he calls her “uxorcula Mori”, and a few lines in one of Erasmmus' letters are almmost all we know of her gentle, winning personality.

Of More himself Erasmus has left us a wonderful portrait in his famous letter to Ulrich von Hutten dated 23 July, 1519 (Epp. 447). The description is too long to give in full, but some extracts must be made. “To begin then with what is least known to you, in stature he is not tall, though not remarkably short. His limbs are formed with such perfect symmetry as to leave nothing to be desired. His complexion is white, his face rather than pale and though by no means ruddy, a faint flush of pink appears beneath the whiteness of his skin. His hair is dark brown or brownish black. The eyes are grayish blue, with some spots, a kind which betokens singular talent,and among the English is considered attractive, whereas Germans generally prefer black. It is said that none are so free of vice. His countenance is in harmony with his character, being always expressive of an amiable joyousness, and even an incipient laughter and, to speak condidly, it is better framed for gladness than for gravity or dignity, though without any approach to folly or buffoonery. The right shoulder is a little higher than the left, especially when he walks. This isnot a defect of birth, but the result of habit such as we often contract. In the rest of his person there is nothing to offend...He seemms born and framed for friendship, and is a most faithful and enduring friend...When he finds any sincere and according to his heart, he so delights in their society and conversation as to place in it the principal charm of life...In a word, if you want a perfect model of friendship, you will find it in no one better than in More...In human affairs there is nothing from which he does not extract enjoyment, even from things that are most serious.If he converses with the learned and judicious, he delights in their talent, if with the ignorant and foolish, he enjoys their stupidity. He is not even offended by professional jesters. With a wonderful dexterity ha accommodates himself to every disposition. As a rule, in talking with women, even with his own wife, he is full of jokes and banter. No one is less led by the opinions of the crowd, yet no one departs less from common sense...” (see Father Bridgett's Life, p. 56-60, for the entire letter). More married again very soon after his first wife's death, his choice being a widow, Alice Middleton. She was older than he by seven years, a good, somewhat commonplace soul without beauty or education; but she was a capital housewife and was devoted to the care of More's young children. On the whole the marriage seems to have been quite satisfactory, although Mistress More usually failed to see the point of her husband's jokes.

More's fame as a lawyer was now very great. In 1510 he was made Under-Sheriff of London, and four years later was chosen by Cardinal Wolsey as one of an embassy to Flanders to protect the interests of English merchants. Hde was thus absent from England for more than six months in 1515, during which period he made the first sketch of the “Utopia”, his most famous work, which was published the following year. Both Wolsey and the king were anxious to secure More's services at Court. In 1516 he was granted a pension of 100 pounds for life, was made a member of the embassy to Calais in the next year, and became a privy councillor about the same time. In 1519 he resigned his post as Under-Sheriff and became completely attached to the Court. In June, 1520, he was in Henry's suite at the “Field of the Cloth of Gold”, in 1521 was knighted and made sub-treasurer to the king. When the Emperor Charles V visited London in the following year, More was chosen to deliver the Latin address of welcome; and grants of land in Oxford and Kent, made then and three years later, gave further proof of Henry's favour. In 1523 he was elected Speaker of the House of Commons on Wolsey's recommendation; became High Steward of Cambridge University in 1525; and in the same year was made Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to be held in addition to his other ofices. In 1523 More had purchased a piece ofand in Chelsea, where he built himself a mansion about a hundred yards from the north bank of the Thames, with a large garden stretching along the river. Here at times the king would come as an unbidden guest at dinner time, or would walk in the garden with his arm round More's neck enjoying his brilliant conversation. But More had no ilusions about the royal favour he enjoyed. “If my head should win him a castle in France,” he said to Roper, his son-in-law, in 1525, “it should not fail to go”. The Lutheran controversy had now spread throughout Europe and, with some reluctance, More was drawn into it. His controversial writings are mentioned below in the list of his works, and it is sufficient here to say that, while far more refined than most polemical writers of the period, there is still a certain amount that tastes unpleasant to the modern reader. At first he wrote in Latin but, when the books of Tindal and other English Reformers began to be read by people of all classes, he adopted English as more fitted to his purpose and, by doing so, gave no little aid to the development of English prose.

In October, 1529, More succeeded Wolsey as Chancellor of England, a post never before held by a layman. In matters political, however, he is nowise succeeded to Wolsey's position, and his tenure of the chancellorship is chiefly memorable for his unparallele success as a judge. His despatch was so great that the supply of causes was actually exhausted, an incident commemorated in the well-known rhyme,

As chancellor it was his duty to enforce the laws against heretics and, by doing so, he provoked the attacks of Protestant writers both in his own time and since. The subject need not be discussed here, but More's attitude is patent. He agreed with the principle of the anti-heresy laws and had no hesitation in enforcing them. As he himself wrote in his “Apologia” (cap.49) it was the vices of heretics that he hated, not their persons; and he never proceeded to extremities until he had made every effort to get those brought before him to recant. How successful he was in this is clear from the fact that only four persons suffered the supreme penalty for heresy during his whole term of office. More's first public appearance as chancellor was at the opening of the new Parliament in November, 1529. The accounts of his speech on this occasion vary considerably, but it is quite certain that he had no knowledge of the long series of encroachments on the Church which this very Parliament was to accomplish. A few months later came the royal proclamation ordering the clergy to acknowledge Henry as “Supreme Head” of the Church “as far as the law of God will permit”, and we have Chapuy's testimony that More at once proferred his resignation of the chancellorship, which however was not accepted. His firm opposition to Henry's designs in regard to the divorce, the papal supremacy, and the laws against heretics, speedily lost him the royal favour, and in May, 1532, he resigned his post of Lord Chancellor after holding it less than three years. This meant the lloss of all his income except about 100 pounds a year, the rent of some property he had purchased; and, with cheerful indifference, he at once reduced his style of living to match his strained means. The epitaph he wrote at this time for the tomb in Chelsea church states that he intended to devote his last years to preparing himself for the life to come.

For the next eighteen months Morelived in seclusion and gave much time to controversial writing. Anxious to avoid a public rupture with Henry he stayed away from Anne Boleyn's coronation, and when, in 1533, his nephew William Rastell wrote a pamphlet supporting the pope, which was attributed to More, he wrote a letter to Cromwell disclaiming any share therein and declaring that he knew his duty to his prince too well to criticize his policy. Neutrality, however, did not suit Henry, and More's name was included in the Bill of Attainder introduced into the Lords against the Holy Maid of Kent and her friends. Brought before four members of the Council, More was asked why he did not approve Henry's anti-papal action. He answered that he had several times explained his position to the king in person and without incurring his displeasure. Eventually, in view ofhis extraordinary popularity, Henry thought it expedient to remove his name from the Bill of Attainder. The incident showed that he might expect, however, and the Duke of Norfolk personally warned him of his grave danger, adding “indignatio principis mors est”. “Is that all, my Lord,” answered More, “then, in good faith, between your grace and me is but this, that I shall die today, and you tomorrow.” In March, 1534, the Act of Succession was passed which required all who should be called upon to take an oath acknowledging the issue of Henry and Anne as legitimate heirs to the throne, and to this was added a clause repudiating “any foreign authority, prince or potentate”. On 14 April, More was summoned to Lambeth to take the oath and, on his refusal, was committed to the custody of the Abbot of Westminster. Four days later he was removed to the Tower, and in the following November was attainted of misprision of treason, the grants of land made to him in 1523 and 1525 being resumed by the Crown. In prison, though suffering greatly from “his old disease of the chest...gravel, stone, and the cramp”, his habitual gaiety remained and he joked with his family and friends whenever they were permitted to see him as merrily as in the old days at Chelsea. When alone his time was given up to prayer and penitential exercises; and he wrote a “Dialogue of comfort against tribulation”, treatise (unfinished) on the Passion of Christ, and many letters to his family and others. In April and May, 1535, Cromwell visited him in person to demand his opinion of the new statutes conferring on Henry the title of Supreme Head of the Church. More refused to give any answer beyond declaring himself a faithful subject of the king. In June, Rich, the solicitor-general, held a conversation with More and, in reporting it, declared that More had denied Parliament's power to confer ecclesiastical supremacy on Henry. It was now discovered that More and Fisher, The Bishop of Rochester, had exchanged letters in prison, and a fresh inquiry was held which resulted in his being deprived of all books and writing materials, but he contrived to write to his wife and favourite daughter, Margaret, on stray scraps of paper with a charred stick or piece of coal.

On 1 July, More was indicted for high treason at Westminster Hall before a special commission of twenty. More denied the chief charges of the indictment, which was enormously long, and denounced Rich, the solicitor-general and chief witness against him as a perjuror. The jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to be hanged at Tyburn, but some days later this was changed by Henry to beheading on Tower Hill. The story of his last days on earth, as given by Roper and Cresacre More, is of the tenderest beauty and should be read in full; certainly no martyr ever surpassed him in fortitude. As Addison wrote in the Spectator (No. 349) “that innocent mirth which had been so conspicuous in his life, did not forsake him to the last...his death was of a piece with his life. There was nothing in it new, forced or affected. He did not look upon the severing of his head from his body as a circumstance that ought to produce any change in the disposition of his mind”. The execution took place on Tower Hill “before nine of the clock” on 6 July, the body being buried in thee Church of St. Peter ad vincula. The head, after being parboiled, was exposed on London Bridge for a month when Margaret Roper bribed the man, whose business it was to throw it into the river, to give it to her instead. The final fate of the relic is somewhat uncertain, but in 1824 a leaden box was found in the Roper vault at St. Dunstan's, Canterbury, which on being opened was found to contain a head presumed to be More's. The Jesuit Fathers at Stonyhurst possess a remarkable collection of secondary relics, most of which came to them from Father Thomas More, S.J. (d. 1795), the last male heir of the martyr. These include his hat, cap, crucifix of gold, a silver seal, “George”, and other articles. The hair shirt, worn by him for many years and sent to Margaret Roper the day before his martyrdom, is preserved by the Augustinian canonesses of Abbots Leigh, Devonshire, to whom it was brought by Margaret Clements, the adopted child of Sir Thomas. A number of autograph letters are in the British Museum. Several portraits exist, the best being that by Holbein in the possession of E. Huth, Esq. Holbein also painted a large group of More's household which has disappeared, but the original sketch for it is in the Basle Museum, and a sixteenth-century copy is the property of Lord St. Oswald. Thomas More was formally beatified by Pope Leo XIII, in the Decree of 29 December, 1886. In 1935, he was canonized by Pope Pius XI.

WRITINGS

More was a ready writer and not a few of his works remained in manuscript until some years after his death, while several have been lost altogether. Of all his writings the most famous is unquestionably the “Utopia”, first published at Louvain in 1516. The volume recounts the fictitious travels of one Raphael Hythlodaye, a mythical character, who, in the course of a voyage to America, was left behind near Cape Frio and thence wandered on till he chanced upon the Island of Utopia (“nowhere”) in which he found an ideal constitution in operation. The whole work is really an exercise of the imagination with much brilliant satire upon the world of More's own day. Real persons, such as Peter Giles, Cardinal Morton, and More himself, take part in the dialogue with Hythlodaye, so that an air of reality pervades the whole which leaves the reader sadly puzzled to detect where truth ends and fiction begins, and has led not a few to take the book seriously. But this is precisely what More intended, and there can be no doubt that he would have been delighted at entrapping William Morris, who discovered in it a complete gospel of Socialism; or Cardinal Zigliara, who denounced it as “no less foolish than impious”; as he must have been with his own contemporaries who proposed to hire a ship and send out missionaries to his non-existent island. The book ran through a number of editions in the original Latin version and, within a few years, was translated into German, Italian, French, Dutch, Spanish, and English.

A collected edition of More's English works was published by William Rastell, his nephew, at London in 1557; it has never been reprinted and is now rare and costly. The first collected edition of the Latin Works appeared at Basle in 1563; a more complete collection was published at Louvain in 1565 and again in 1566. In 1689 the most complete edition of all appeared at Frankfort-on-Main, and Leipzig. After the “Utopia” the following are the most important works:

• “Luciani Dialogi...compluria opuscula... ab Erasmo Roterodamo et Thoma Moro interpretibus optimis in Latinorum lingua traducta...” (Paris, 1506);
• “Here is conteigned the lyfe of John Picus, Earle of Mirandula...” (London, 1510);
• “Historie of the pitiful life and unfortunate death of Edward the fifth and the then Duke of York his brother...”, printed incomplete in the “English Works” (1557) and reissued with a completion from Hall's Chronicle by Wm. Sheares (London, 1641);
• “Thomae Mori v.c. Dissertatio Epistolica de aliquot sui temporis theologastrorum ineptiis...” (Leyden, 1625);
• Epigrammata...Thomae Mori Britanni, pleraque e Graecis versa. (Basle, 1518); Eruditissimi viri Gul. Rossi Opus elegans quo pulcherrime retegit ac refellit insanas Lutheri calumnias (London, 1523), written at the request of Henry VIII in answer to Luther's reply to the royal “Defensio Septem Sacramentorum”;
• “A dyaloge of Syr Thomas More Knyght...of divers maters, as of the veneration and worshyp of ymages and relyques, praying to sayntys and goyng on pylgrymage...” (London,1529);
• “The Supplycacyon of Soulys” (London, 1529[?]), written in answer to Fish's “Supplication of the Beggars”;
• “Syr Thomas More's answer to the fyrste parte of the poysoned booke... named 'The Souper of the Lorde' “ (London, 1532);
• “The Second parte of the Confutacion of Tyndal's Answere...” (London, 1533); these two works together form the most lengthy of all More's writings; besides Tindal, Robert Barnes is dealt with in the last book of the whole;
• “A Letter impugnynge the erronyouse wrytyng of John Fryth against the Blessed Sacrament of the Aultare” (London, 1533);
• “The Apologye of Syr Thomas More, Hnyght, made by him anno 1533, after he had given over the office of Lord Chancellour of Englande” (London, 1533);
• “The Debellacyon of Salem and Bizance” (London, 1533), an answer to the anonymous work entitled “Salem and Bizance”, and vindicating the severe punishment of heresy;
• “A Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation...” (London, 1553).

Among the other writings in the collected volume of “English Works” are the following which had not been previously published:

• An unfinished treatise “uppon those words of Holy Scripture, 'Memorare novissima et in eternum non peccabis' “, dated 1522;
• “Treatise to receive the blessed Body of our Lorde, sacramentally and virtually both”;
• “Treatise upon the Passion” unfinished;
• “Certein devout and vertuouse Instruccions, Meditacions and Prayers”;
• some letters written in the Tower, including his touching correspondence with his daughter Margaret.

G. ROGER HUDLESTON

St. Thomas of Villanova

Educator, philanthropist, born at Fuentellana, Spain, 1488; died at Valencia, 8 September, 1555. Son of Aloazo Tomas Garcia and Lucia Martínez Castellanos, the saint was brought up in the practices of religion and charity. Every Friday his father was wont to give in alms all the meal he earned at the mill, besides his usual daily dole of bread. On great feast-days he added wood, wine, and money; while to poor farmers he loaned money and seed. On the death of her husband, Lucia continued the usual alms, and supplied indigent maidens in the neighbourhood with clothing and money. When sixteen tears old, Thomas entered the University of Alcalá, where, after proceeding master of arts and licentiate in theology, he filled the chair (1514) of arts, logic, and philosophy. Among his auditors were the famed scholars Ferdinand de Encina and Dominic Soto. With Alcala, however, ended his university associations, he having declined the chair of natural philosophy at Salamanca, where he joined the Augustinians in 1516, his vows following a year later, and his ordination to priesthood the year after; his first Mass was celebrated at Christmas, 1518. At Salamanca Convent Thomas was given the class of scholastic theology because of his attachment for books, chiefly the Lombard and St. Thomas, and his exemplary life. Preaching in the pulpits of Spain was soon added to his duties, among other places at Valencia, the field of his later trials, and Valladolid, seat of the imperial Court and residence of the Emperor Charles V when on his visits to the Low Countries. In this last-named city St. Thomas was named by the emperor his court preacher, and one of his councillors of state. Rarely, however, did the saint pay visits of ceremony to the then master of Europe, though his written correspondence with Charles, who held his opinions in high esteem, was voluminous. Towards the close of his life, while at Valencia, he had all the emperor's letters destroyed; his own letters to the emperor, however, are now stored at Simancas.

Apart from these burdens Thomas held many offices of trust in his order, e.g. as convent prior in various cities, among others at Valladolid in 1544, the very year he was called to the See of Valencia. Moreover, he was twice provincial-prior, first of Andalusia and Castile in 1527, then six years later of Castile alone, whence the first mission band of his brethren was sent across the Atlantic in 1533 to establish houses of their order in Mexico. On 5 Aug., 1544, he received his nomination to the Archbishopric of Valencia, a post that for well-nigh a hundred years had witnessed no bishop in residence, an appointment that was confirmed by Paul III. Previously St. Thomas had declined the See of Granada, offered him by the emperor, while that of Valencia he accepted only through obedience to his superiors. He was consecrated in the church of his order at Valladolid by Juan, Cardinal Tavera de Pardo, Archbishop of Toledo. On his entrance to his see on 1 Jan., 1545, of which he was thirty-second bishop and eighth archbishop, St. Thomas opened his career as legislator and philanthropist, which won for him the titles of “Almsgiver”, “Father of the Poor”, and “Model of Bishops”, given him at his beatification in 1618 by Paul V. During his eleven years of episcopal rule his most noteworthy deeds were as follows: a visitation of his diocese, opened a few weeks after entrance into his see. Among other amendments he inhibited his visitators from accepting any gifts whatever. He then held a synod, the first at Valencia for mmany years, whereby he sought to do away with a number of abuses, as bloodshed, divorce, concubinage, and many excessive privileges or unreasonable exemptions; he abolished the underground prisons; rebuilt the general hospital at Valencia which had just been destroyed by fire; founded two colleges, one for young ecclesiastics, the other for poor students; laboured for the conversion of the nuevos Cristianos, whose profession of Christianity was largely mere outward show; established a creche near his palace for foundlings and the offspring of indigent parents; had Mass said at early hours for the working-classes; and in brief, by statutes, by preaching, and by example, strove to reform the morals of churchman and layman.

Towards the poor especially his heart was ever alive with pity; to them his palace gate was always open; daily he had a repast for every poor person that applied for help, as many even as four to five hundred thus getting their meals at his hands. In every district of the city he had almoners appointed with orders especially to search out the respectable persons who shrank from asking alms; these he had supplied with money, food, clothing, while as to indigent workmen, poor farmers, and mechanics, he replenished their stock and brought them tools, thus putting them in the way of making a living. His whole life as replete with acts of practical kindness. He spent his spare time chiefly in prayer and study; his table was one of simple fare, with no luxuries. His dress was inexpensive; he mended with his own hands whatever needed repairs. Numberless are the instances of St. Thomas' supernatural gifts, of his power of healing the sick, of multiplication of food, of redressing grievances, of his ecstasies, of his conversions of sinners. He was taken ill in August, 1555, of angina pectoris, of which he died at the age of 67, at the termination of Mass in his bedroomm. His last words were the versicles: “In manus tuas, Domine”, etc.; his remains were entombed at the convent Church of Our Lady of Help of his order outside the city walls, whence later they were brought to the cathedral. The saint was of well-knit frame, of medium height, with dark complexion, brilliant eyes, ruddy cheeks, and Roman nose. He was beatified by Paul V (7 Oct., 1618), who set his feast-day for 18 Sept., and canonized by Alexander VII on 1 Nov., 1658.

Various reasons are given to account for St. Thomas' non-appearance at the Council of Trent, among them that he was ill, unable to stand the fatigue of travel; that his people would not brook his absence; and that the emperor was unable to do without his aid at home. The writings of St. Thomas, mainly sermons, are replete with practical norms of mystic theology. Some twenty editions have been published, the best and most complete being probablt that of Manila, 1882-1884, in 5 tomes.

EDWARD G. DOHAN

Blessed Thomas Woodhouse

Martyr who suffered at Tyburn 19 June, 1573, being disembowelled alive. Ordained in Mary's reign, he was a Lincolnshire rector for under a year, and in 1560 acted as a private tutor in Wales. On 14 May, 1561, he was committed to the Fleet, London, having been arrested while saying Mass. For the rest of his life he remained in custody, uncompromising in his opposition to heresy, saying Mass in secret daily, reciting his Office regularly, and thirsting for martyrdom; but treated with considerable leniency till on 19 November, 1572, he sent the prison washerwoman to Lord Burghley's house with his famous letter. In it he begs him to seek reconciliation with the pope and earnestly to “persuade the Lady Elizabeth, who for her own great disobedience is most justly deposed, to submit herself unto her spiritual prince and father”. Some days later in a personal interview he used equally definite language. Confined then by himself he wrote “divers papers, persuading men to the true faith and obedience”, which he signed, tied to stones, and flung into the street. He was repeatedly examined both publicly and privately. Once, when he had denied the queen's title, someone said, “If you saw her Majesty, you would not say so, for her Majesty is great”. “But the Majesty of God is greater”, he answered. After being sentenced at the Guildhall either in April or on 16 June, he was taken to Newgate. He was admitted to the Society of Jesus in prison, though the Decree of the Congregation of Rites, 4 December, 1886, describes him as a secular priest. He is not to be confused with Thomas Wood (q.v.).

JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT

Thomism

In a broad sense, Thomism is the name given to the system which follows the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas in philosophical and theological questions. In a restricted sense the term is applied to a group of opinions held by a school called Thomistic, composed principally, but not exclusively, of members of the Order of St. Dominic, these same opinions being attacked by other philosophers or theologians, many of whom profess to be followers of St. Thomas.

• To Thomism in the first sense are opposed, e.g., the Scotists, who deny that satisfaction is a part of the proximate matter (materia proxima) of the Sacrament of Penance. Anti-Thomists, in this sense of the word, reject opinions admittedly taught by St. Thomas.
• To Thomism in the second sense are opposed, e.g. the Molinists, as well as all who defend the moral instrumental causality of the sacraments in producing grace against the system of physical instrumental causality, the latter being a doctrine of the Thomistic School.

Anti-Thomism in such cases does not necessarily imply opposition to St. Thomas: It means opposition to tenets of the Thomistic School. Cardinal Billot, for instance, would not admit that he opposed St. Thomas by rejecting the Thomistic theory on the causality of the sacraments. In the Thomistic School, also, we do not always find absolute unanimity. Baflez and Billuart do not always agree with Cajetan, though all belong to the Thomistic School. It does not come within the scope of this article to determine who have the best right to be considered the true exponents of St. Thomas.

The subject may be treated under the following headings:
I. Thomism in general, from the thirteenth century down to the nineteenth;
II. The Thomistic School;
III. Neo-Thomism and the revival of Scholasticism.
IV. Eminent Thomists

I. THE DOCTRINE IN GENERAL

A. Early Opposition Overcome

Although St. Thomas (d. 1274) was highly esteemed by all classes, his opinions did not at once gain the ascendancy and influence which they acquired during the first half of the fourteenth century and which they have since maintained. Strange as it may appear, the first serious opposition came from Paris, of which he was such an ornament, and from some of his own monastic brethren. In the year 1277 Stephen Tempier, Bishop of Paris, censured certain philosophical propositions, embodying doctrines taught by St. Thomas, relating especially to the principle of individuation and to the possibility of creating several angels of the same species. In the same year Robert Kilwardby, a Dominican, Archbishop of Canterbury, in conjunction with some doctors of Oxford, condemned those same propositions and moreover attacked St. Thomas's doctrine of the unity of the substantial form in man. Kilwardby and his associates pretended to see in the condemned propositions something of Averroistic Aristoteleanism, whilst the secular doctors of Paris had not fully forgiven one who had triumphed over them in the controversy as to the rights of the mendicant friars. The storm excited by these condemnations was of short duration. Blessed Albertus Magnus, in his old age, hastened to Paris to defend his beloved disciple. The Dominican Order, assembled in general chapter at Milan in 1278 and at Paris in 1279, adopted severe measures against the members who had spoken injuriously of the venerable Brother Thomas. When William de la Mare, O.S.F., wrote a “Correptorium fratris Thom~”, an English Dominican, Richard Clapwell (or Clapole), replied in a treatise “Contra corruptorium fratris Thomae”. About the same time there appeared a work, which was afterwards printed at Venice (1516) under the title, “Correctorium corruptorii S. Thomae”, attributed by some to AEgidius Romanus, by others to Clapwell, by others to Father John of Paris. St. Thomas was solemnly vindicated when the Council of Vienna (1311-12) defined, against Peter John Olivi, that the rational soul is the substantial form of the human body (on this definition see Zigliara, “De mente Conc. Vicnn.”, Rome, 1878). The canonization of St. Thomas by John XXII, in 1323, was a death-blow to his detractors. In 1324 Stephen de Bourret, Bishop of Paris, revoked the censure pronounced by his predecessor, declaring that “that blessed confessor and excellent doctor, Thomas Aquinas, had never believed, taught, or written anything contrary to the Faith or good morals”. It is doubtful whether Tempier and his associates acted in the name of the University of Paris, which had always been loyal to St. Thomas. When this university, in 1378, wrote a letter condemning the errors of John de Montesono, it was explicitly declared that the condemnation was not aimed at St. Thomas: “We have said a thousand times, and yet, it would seem, not often enough, that we by no means include the doctrine of St. Thomas in our condemnation.” An account of these attacks and defences will be found in the following works: Echard, “Script. ord. prad.”, I, 279 (Paris, 1719); De Rubeis, “Diss. crit.”, Diss. xxv, xxvi, I, p. cclxviii; Leonine edit. Works of St. Thomas; Denifle, “Chart. univ. Paris” (Paris, 1890-91), I, 543, 558, 566; II, 6, 280; Duplessis d'Argentré, “Collectio judiciorum de novis erroribus” (3 vols., Paris, 1733-36), 1, 175 sqq.; Du Boulay, “Hist. univ. Par.”, IV, 205, 436, 618, 622, 627; Jourdain, “La phil. de S. Thomas d'Aquin” (Paris, 1858), II, i; Douais, “Essai sur l'organization des études dans l'ordre des ff. prêcheurs” (Paris and Toulouse, 1884), 87 sqq.; Mortier, “Hist. des maîtres gén. de l'ordre des ff. prêch.”, II, 115142, 571; “Acta cap. gen. ord. praed.”, ed. Reichert (9 vols., Rome, 1893-1904, II; Turner, “Hist. of Phil.” (Boston, 1903), xxxix.

B. Progress of Thomism

The general chapter of the Dominican Order, held at Carcassonne in 1342, declared that the doctrine of St. Thomas had been received as sound and solid throughout the world (Douais, op. cit., 106). His works were consulted from the time they became known, and by the middle of the fourteenth century his “Summa Theologica” had supplanted the “Libri quatuor sententiarum”, of Peter Lombard as the text-book of theology in the Dominican schools. With the growth of the order and the widening of its influence Thomism spread throughout the world; St. Thomas became the great master in the universities and in the studia of the religious orders (see Encyc. “Aeterni Patris” of Leo XIII). The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries saw Thomism in a triumphal march which led to the crowning of St. Thomas as the Prince of Theologians, when his “Summa was laid beside the Sacred Scriptures at the Council of Trent, and St. Pius V, in 1567, proclaimed him a Doctor of the Universal Church. The publication of the “Piana” edition of his works, in 1570, and the multiplication of editions of the “Opera omnia” and of the “Summa” during the seventeenth century and part of the eighteenth show that Thomism flourished during that period. In fact it was during that period that some of the great commentators (for example, Suárez, Sylvius, and Billuart) adapted his works to the needs of the times.

C. Decline of Scholasticism and of Thomism

Gradually, however, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, there came a decline in the study of the works of the great Scholastics. Scholars believed that there was need of a new system of studies, and, instead of building upon and around Scholasticism, they drifted away from it. The chief causes which brought about the change were Protestantism, Humanism, the study of nature, and the French Revolution. Positive theology was considered more necessary in discussions with the Protestants than Scholastic definitions and divisions. Elegance of dietion was sought by the Humanists in the Greek and Latin classics, rather than in the works of the Scholastics, many of whom were far from being masters of style. The discoveries of Copernicus (d. 1543), Kepler (d. 1631), Galileo (d. 1642), and Newton (d. 1727) were not favourably received by the Scholastics. The experimental sciences were in honour; the Scholastics including St. Thomas, were neglected (cf. Turner, op cit., 433). Finally, the French Revolution disorganized all ecclesiastical studies, dealing to Thomisn a blow from which it did not fully recover until th last quarter of the nineteenth century. At the tim when Billuart (d. 1757) published his “Summa Sancti Thoma hodiernis academiarum moribus accomodata” Thomism still held an important place in all theological discussion. The tremendous upheaval which disturbed Europe from 1798 to 1815 affected the Church as well as the State. The University of Louvain, which had been largely Thomistic, was compelled to close its doors, and other important institutions of learning were either closed or seriously hampered in their work. The Dominican Order, which naturally had supplied the most ardent Thomists, was crushed in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium. The province of Holland was almost destroyed, whilst the provinces of Austria and Italy were left to struggle for their very existence. The University of Manila (1645) continued to teach the doctrines of St. Thomas and in due time gave to the world Cardinal Zephyrinus González, O.P., who contributed in no small degree to the revival of Thomism under Leo XIII.

D. Distinctive Doctrines of Thomism in General

(1) In Philosophy

• The angels and human souls are without matter, but every material composite being (compositum) has two parts, prime matter and substantial form. In a composite being which has substantial unity and is not merely an aggregate of distinct units, there can be but one substantial form. The substantial form of man is his soul (anima rationalis) to the exclusion of any other soul and of any other substantial form. The principle of individuation, for material composites, is matter with its dimensions: without this there can be no merely numerical multiplication: distinction in the form makes specific distinction: hence there cannot be two angels of the same species.
• The essences of things do not depend on the free will of God, but on His intellect, and ultimately on His essence, which is immutable. The natural law, being derived from the eternal law, depends on the mind of God, ultimately on the essence of God; hence it is intrinsically immutable. Some actions are forbidden by God because they are bad: they are not bad simply because He forbids them [see Zigliara, “Sum. phil.” (3 vols., Paris, 1889), ccx, xi, II, M. 23, 24, 25].
• The will moves the intellect quoad exercitium, i.e. in its actual operation: the intellect moves the will quoad specificationem, i.e. by presenting objects to it: nil volitum nisi praecognitum. The beginning of all our acts is the apprehension and desire of good in general (bonum in communi). We desire happiness (bonum in communi) naturally and necessarily, not by a free deliberate act. Particular goods (bona particularia) we choose freely; and the will is a blind faculty, always following the last practical judgment of the intellect (Zigliara, 51).
• The senses and the intellect are passive, i.e. recipient, faculties; they do not create, but receive (i.e. perceive) their objects (St. Thomas, I, Q. lxxviii, a. 3; Q. lxxix, a. 2; Zigliara, 26, 27). If this principle is borne in mind there is no reason for Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason”. On the other hand those faculties are not like wax, or the sensitive plate used by photog raphers, in the sense that they are inert and receive impressions unconsciously. The will controls the exercise of the faculties, and the process of acquiring knowledge is a vital process: the moving cause is always within the living agent.
• The Peripatetic axiom: “Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu” (Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses), is admitted; but St. Thomas modifies it by saying: first, that, once the sense objects have been perceived, the intellect ascends to the knowledge of higher things, even of God; and, secondly, that the soul knows its own existence by itself (i.e. by its own act), although it knows its own nature only by refiection on its acts. Knowledge begins by sense perception, but the range of the intellect is far beyond that of the senses. In the soul as soon as it begins to act are found the first principles (prima principia) of all knowledge, not in the form of an objective illumination, but in the form of a subjective inclination to admit them on account of their evidence. As soon as they are proposed we see that they are true; there is no more reason for doubting them than there is for denying the existence of the sun when we see it shining (see Zigliara, op. cit., pp. 32-42).
• The direct and primary object of the intellect is the universal, which is prepared and presented to the passive intellect (intellectus possibilis) by the active intellect (intellectus agens) which illuminates the phantasmata, or mental images, received through the senses, and divests them of all individuating conditions. This is called abstracting the universal idea from the phantasmata, but the term must not be taken in a matrialistic sense. Abstraction is not a transferring of something from one place to another; the illumination causes all material and individuating conditions to disappear, then the universal alone shines out and is perceived by the vital action of the intellect (Q. lxxxiv, a. 4; Q. lxxxv, a. 1, ad lum, 3um, 4um). The process throughout is so vital, and so far elevated above material conditions and modes of action, that the nature of the acts and of the objects apprehended proves the soul to be immaterial and spiritual.
• The soul, by its very nature, is immortal. Not only is it true that God will not annihilate the soul, but from its very nature it will always continue to exist, there being in it no principle of disintegration (Zigliara, p. 9). Hence human reason can prove the incorruptibility (i.e. immortality) of the soul.
• The existence of God is not known by an innate idea, it cannot be proved by arguments a priori or a simultaneo; but it can be demonstrated by a posteriori arguments. Ontologism was never taught by St. Thomas or by Thomists (see Lepidi, “Exam. phil. theol. de ontologismo”, Louvain, 1874, c. 19; Zigliara, Theses I, VIII).
• There are no human (i.e. deliberate) acts indifferent in individuo.

(2) In Theology

• Faith and science, i.e. knowledge by demonstration, cannot co-exist in the same subject with regard to the same object (Zigliara, O, 32, VII); and the same is true of knowledge and opinion.
• The metaphysical essence of God consists, according to some Thomists, in the intelligere actualissimum, i.e. fulness of pure intellection, according to others in the perfection of aseitas, i.e. in dependent existence (Zigliara, Th. VIII, IX).
• The happiness of heaven, formally and in the ultimate analysis, consists in the vision, not in the fruition, of God.
• The Divine attributes are distinguished from the Divine nature and from each other by a virtual distinction, i.e. by a distinctio rationis cum fundamento a parte rei. The distinctio actualis formalis of Scotus is rejected.
• In attempting to explain the mystery of the Trinity — in as far as man can conceive it — the relations must be considered perfectiones simpliciter simplices, i.e. excluding all imperfection. The Holy Ghost would not be distinct from the Son if He did not proceed from the Son as well as from the Father.
• The angels, being pure spirits, are not, properly speaking, in any place; they are said to be in the place, or in the places, where they exercise their activity (Summa, I, Q. lii, a. 1). Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an angel passing from place to place; but if an angel wishes to exercise its activity first in Japan and afterwards in America, it can do so in two instants (of angelic time), and need not pass through the intervening space (Q. liii). St. Thomas does not discuss the question “How many angels can dance on the point of a needle?” He reminds us that we must not think of angels as if they were corporeal, and that, for an angel, it makes no difference whether the sphere of his activity be the point of a needle or a continent (Q. lii, a.2). Many angels cannot be said to be in the same place at the same time, for this would mean that whilst one angel is producing an effect others could be producing the same effect at the same time. There can be but one angel in the same place at the same time (Q. lii, a. 3). The knowledge of the angels comes through ideas (species) infused by God (QQ. lv, a.2, lvii, a.2, lviii, a.7). They do not naturally know future contingents, the secrets of souls, or the mysteries of grace (Q. lvii, aa. 3, 45). The angels choose either good or evil instantly, and with full knowledge; hence their judgment is naturally final and irrevocable (Q. lxiv, a. 2).
• Man was created in the state of sanctifying grace. Grace was not due to his nature, but God granted it to him from the beginning (I, Q. xcv, a. 1). So great was the per fection of man in the state of original justice, and so perfect the subjection of his lower faculties to the higher, that his first sin could not have been a venia] sin (I-II, Q. lxxxix, a. 3).
• It is more probable that the Incarnation would not have taken place had man not sinned (III, Q. i, a. 3). In Christ there were three kinds of knowledge: the scientia beata, i.e. the knowledge of things in the Divine Essence; the scientia infusa, i.e. the knowledge of things through infused ideas (species), and the scientia acquisita, i.e. acquired or experimental knowledge, which was nothing more than the actual experience of things which he already knew. On this last point St. Thomas, in the “Summa” (Q. ix, a. 4), explicitly retracts an opinion which he had once held (III Sent., d. 14, Q. iii, a. 3).
• All sacraments of the New Law, including confirmation and extreme unction, were instituted immediately by Christ. Circumcision was a sacrament of the Old Law and conferred grace which removed the stain of original sin. The children of Jews or of other unbelievers may not be baptized without the consent of their parents (III, Q. lxviii, a. 10; 11-Il, Q. x, a. 12; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1481). Contrition, confession, and satisfaction are the proximate matter (materia proxima) of the Sacrament of Penance. Thomists hold, against the Scotists, that when Transubstantiation takes place in the Mass the Body of Christ is not made present per modum adduclionis, i.e. is not brought to the altar, but they do not agree in selecting the term which should be used to express this action (cf. Billuart, “De Euchar.”, Diss. i, a. 7). Cardinal Billot holds (“Dc cccl. sacr.”, Rome, 1900, Th. XI, “Dc euchar.”, p. 379) that the best, and the only possible, explanation is the one given by St. Thomas himself: Christ becomes present by transubstantiation, i.e. by the conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of His body (III, Q. lxxv, a. 4; Sent., d. XI, Q. i, a. 1, q. 1). After the consecration the accidents (accidentia) of the bread and wine are preserved by Almighty God without a subject (Q. lxxxvii, a. 1). It was on this question that the doctors of Paris sought enlightenment from St. Thomas (see Vaughan, “Life and Labours of St. Thomas”, London, 1872, II, p. 544). The earlier Thomists, following St. Thomas (Suppl., Q. xxxvii, a. 2), taught that the sub-diaconate and the four minor orders were partial sacraments. Some recent Thomists — e. g., Billot (op. cit., p. 282) and Tanquerey (De ordine, n. 16) — defend this opinion as more probable and more in conformity with the definitions of the councils. The giving of the chalice with wine and of the paten with bread Thomists generally held to be an essential part of ordination to the priesthood. Some, however, taught that the imposition of hands was at least necessary. On the question of divorce under the Mosaic Law the disciples of St. Thomas, like the saint himself (Suppl., Q. lxvii, a. 3), wavered, some holding that a dispensation was granted, others teaching that divorce was merely tolerated in order to avoid greater evils.

THE THOMISTIC SCHOOL

The chief doctrines distinctive of this school, composed principally of Dominican writers, are the following:

A. In Philosophy

1. The unity of substantial form in composite beings, applied to man, requires that the soul be the substantial form of the man, so as to exclude even the forma corporeitatis, admitted by Henry of Ghent, Scotus, and others (cf. Zigliara, P. 13; Denzinger-Bannwart, in note to n. 1655).
2. In created beings there is a real distinction between the essentia (essence) and the existentia (existence); between the essentia and the subsistentia; between the real relation and its foundation; between the soul and its faculties; between the several faculties. There can be no medium between a distinctio realis and a distinctio rationis, or conceptual distinction; hence the distinctio formalis a parte rei of Scotus cannot be admitted. For Thomistic doctrines on free will, God's knowledge, etc., see below.

B. In Theology

1. In the beatific vision God's essence takes the place not only of the species impressa, but also of the species expressa.
2. All moral virtues, the acquired as well as the infused, in their perfect state, are interconneted.
3. According to Billuart (De pecc., diss. vii, a. 6), it has been a matter of controversy between Thomists whether the malice of a mortal sin is absolutely infinite.
4. In choosing a medium between Rigorism and Laxism, the Thomistic school has been Antiprobabilistic and generally has adopted Probabiliorism. Some defended Equiprobabilism, or Probabilism cum cornpensatione. Medina and St. Antoninus are claimed by the Probabilists.
5. Thomistic theologians generally, whilst they defended the infallibility of the Roman pontiff, denied that the pope had the power to dissolve a matrimonium ratum or to dispense from a solemn vow made to God. When it was urged that some popes had granted such favours, they cited other pontiffs who declared that they could not grant them (cf. Billuart, “De matrim.”, Diss. v, a. 2), and said, with Dominic Soto, “Factum pontificium non facit articulum fidei” (The action of a pope does not constitute an article of faith, in 4 dist., 27, Q. i, a. 4). Thomists of to-day are of a different mind, owing to the practice of the Church.
6. The hypostatic union, without any additional grace, rendered Christ impeccable. The Word was hypostatically united to the blood of Christ and remained united to it, even during the interval between His death and resurrection (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 718). During that same interval the Body of Christ had a transitory form, called forma cadaverica (Zigliara, P. 16, 17, IV).
7. The sacraments of the New Law cause grace not only as instrumental moral causes, but by a mode of causality which should be called instrumental and physical. In the attrition required in the Sacrament of Penance there should be at least a beginning of the love of God; sorrow for sin springing solely from the fear of hell will not suffice.
8. Many theologians of the Thomistic School, especially before the Council of Trent, opposed the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception, claiming that in this they were following St. Thomas. This, however, has not been the opinion either of the entire school or of the Dominican Order as a body. Father Rouard de Card, in his book “L'ordre des freres precheurs et l'Immaculée Conception “(Brussels, 1864), called attention to the fact that ten thousand professors of the order defended Mary's great privilege. At the Council of Trent twenty-five Dominican bishops signed a petition for the definition of the dogma. Thousands of Dominicans, in taking degrees at the University of Paris, solemnly pledged themselves to defend the Immaculate Conception.
9. The Thomistic School is distinguished from other schools of theology chiefly by its doctrines on the difficult questions relating to God's action on the free will of man, God's foreknowledge, grace, and predestination. In the articles on these subjects will be found an exposition of the different theories advanced by the different schools in their effort to explain these mysteries, for such they are in reality. As to the value of these theories the following points should be borne in mind:
10. No theory has as yet been proposed which avoids all difficulties and solves all doubts;
11. on the main and most difficult of these questions some who are at times listed as Molinists — notably Bellarmine, Suárez, Francis de Lugo, and, in our own days, Cardinal Billot (“De deo uno et trino”, Rome, 1902, Th. XXXII) — agree with the Thomists in defending predestination ante praevisa merita. Bossuet, after a long study of the question of physical premotion, adapted the Thomistic opinion (“Du libre arbitre”, c. viii).
12. Thomists do not claim to be able to explain, except by a general reference to God's omnipotence, how man remains free under the action of God, which they consider necessary in order to preserve and explain the universality of God's causality and the independent certainty of His foreknowledge. No man can explain, except by a reference to God's infinite power, how the world was created out of nothing, yet we do not on this account deny creation, for we know that it must be admitted. In like manner the main question put to Thomists in this controversy should be not “How will you explain man's liberty?” but “What are your reasons for claiming so much for God's action?” If the reasons assigned are insufficient, then one great difficulty is removed, but there remains to be solved the problem of God's foreknowledge of man's free acts. If they are valid, then we must accept them with their necessary consequences and humbly confess our inability fully to explain how wisdom “reacheth . . . from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly” (Wis., viii, 1).
13. Most important of all, it must be clearly understood and remembered that the Thomistic system on predestination neither saves fewer nor sends to perdition more souls than any other system held by Catholic theologians. In regard to the number of the elect there is no unanimity on either side; this is not the question in dispute between the Molinists and the Thomists. The discussions, too often animated and needlessly sharp, turned on this point: How does it happen that, although God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, some are to be saved, and must thank God for whatever merits they may have amassed, whilst others will be lost, and will know that they themselves, and not God, are to be blamed? — The facts in the case are admitted by all Catholic theologians. The Thomists, appealing to the authority of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, defend a system which follows the admitted facts to their logical conclusions. The elect are saved by the grace of God, which operates on their wills efficaciously and infallibly without detriment to their liberty; and since God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, He is prepared to grant that same grace to others, if they do not, by a free act, render themselves unworthy of it. The faculty of placing obstacles to Divine grace is the unhappy faculty of sinning; and the existence of moral evil in the world is a problem to be solved by all, not by the Thomists alone. The fundamental difficulties in this mysterious question are the existence of evil and the non-salvation of some, be they few or be they many, under the rule of an omnipotent, all-wise, and all-merciful God, and they miss the point of the controversy who suppose that these difficulties exist only for the Thomists. The truth is known to lie somewhere between Calvinism and Jansenism on the one hand, and Semipelagianism on the other. The efforts made by theologians and the various explanations offered by Augustinians, Thomists, Molinists, and Congruists show how difficult of solution are the questions involved. Perhaps we shall never know, in this world, how a just and merciful God provides in some special manner for the elect and yet sincerely loves all men. The celebrated Congregatio de Auxiliis (q.v.) did not forever put an end to the controversies, and the question is not yet settled.

III. NEO-THOMISM AND THE REVIVAL OF SCHOLASTICISM

When the world in the first part of the nineteenth century began to enjoy a period of peace and rest after the disturbances caused by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, closer attention was given to ecclesiastical studies and Scholasticism was revived. This movement eventually caused a revival of Thomism, because the great master and model proposed by Leo XIII in the encyclicai “Aeterni Patris” (4 Aug., 1879) was St. Thomas Aquinas. . . . The Thomistic doctrine had received strong support from the older universities. Among these the Encyclical “Aeterni Patris” mentions Paris, Salamanca, Alcalá Douai, Toulouse, Louvain, Padua, Bologna, Naples, and Coimbra as “the homes of human wisdom where Thomas reigned supreme, and the minds of all, teachers as well as taught, rested in wonderful harmony under the shield and authority of the Angelic Doctor”. In the universities established by the Dominicans at Lima (1551) and Manila (1645) St. Thomas always held sway. The same is true of the Minerva school at Rome (1255), which ranked as a university from the year 1580, and is now the international Collegio Angelico. Coming down to our own times and the results of the Encyclical, which gave a new impetus to the study of St. Thomas's works, the most important centres of activity are Rome, Louvain, Fribourg (Switzerland), and Washington. At Louvain the chair of Thomistic philosophy, established in 1880, became, in 1889-90, the “Institut supérieur de philosophie” or “Ecole St. Thomas d'Aquin,” where Professor Mercier, now Cardinal Archbishop of Mechlin, ably and wisely directed the new Thomistic movement (see De Wulf, “Scholasticism Old and New”, tr. Coffey, New York, 1907, append., p. 261; “Irish Ecel. Record”, Jan. 1906). The theological department of the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, established in 1889, has been entrusted to the Dominicans. By the publication of the “Revue thomiste” the professors of that university have contributed greatly to a new knowledge and appreciation of St. Thomas. The Constitution of the Catholic University of America at Washington enjoins special veneration for St. Thomas; the School of Sacred Sciences must follow his leadership (“Const. Cath. Univ. Amer.”, Rome, 1889, pp. 38, 43). The University of Ottawa and Laval University are the centres of Thomism in Canada. The appreciation of St. Thomas in our days, in Europe and in America, is well set forth in Perrier's excellent “Revival of Scholastic Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century” (New York, 1909).

IV. EMINENT THOMISTS

After the middle of the fourteenth century the vast majority of philosophical and theological writers either wrote commentaries on the works of St. Thomas or based their teachings on his writings. It is impossible, therefore, to give here a complete list of the Thomists: only the more important names can be given. Unless otherwise noted, the authors belonged to the Order of St. Dominic. Those marked (*) were devoted to Thomism in general, but were not of the Thomistic School. A more complete list will be found in the works cited at the end of this article.

Thirteenth Century

Thomas de Cantimpré (1270); Hugh of St. Cher (1263); Vincent of Bauvais (1264); St. Raymond de Pennafort (1275); Peter of Tarentaise (Pope Innocent V — 1276); Giles de Lassines (1278); Reginald de Piperno (1279); William de Moerbeka (1286); Raymond Marti (1286); Bernard de Trilia (1292); Bernard of Hotun, Bishop of Dublin (1298); Theodoric of Apoldia (1299); Thomas Sutton (1300).

Fourteenth Century

Peter of Auvergne (1301); Nicholas Boccasini, Benedict XI (1304); Godfrey of Fontaines (1304); Walter of Winterburn (1305); AEgidius Colonna (Aigidius Romanus), O.S.A (1243-1316); William of Paris (1314); Gerard of Bologna, Carmelite (1317); four biographers, viz Peter Calo (1310); William de Tocco (1324); Bartolommeo of Lucca (1327); Bernard Guidonis* (1331); Dante (1321); Natalis Hervieus (1323); Petrus de Palude (Paludanusi — 1342); Thomas Bradwardin, Archbishop of Canterbury (1349); Robert Holkott (1349); John Tauler (1361); Bl. Henry Suso (1365); Thomas of Strasburg, O.S.A. (1357); Jacobus Passavante (1357); Nicholas Roselli (1362); Durandus of Aurillac (1382), sometimes called Durandulus, because he wrote against Durandus a S. Portiano*, who was first a Thomist, afterwards an independent writer, attacking many of St. Thomas's doctrines; John Bromyard (1390); Nicholas Eymeric (1399).

Fifteenth Century

Manuel Calecas (1410); St. Vincent Ferrer (1415); Bl. John Dominici (1419); John Gerson*, chancellor of the University of Paris (1429); Luis of Valladolid (1436); Raymond Sabunde (1437); John Nieder (1437); Capreolus (1444), called the “Prince of Thomists”; John de Montenegro (1445); Fra Angelico (1455); St. Antoninus (1459); Nicholas of Cusa*, of the Brothers of the Common Life (1464); John of Torquemada (de Turrecrematai, 1468); Bessarion, Basilian (1472); Alanus de Rupe (1475); John Faber (1477); Petrus Niger (1471); Peter of Bergamo (1482); Jerome Savonarola (1498).

Sixteenth Century

Felix Faber (1502); Vincent Bandelli (1506); John Tetzel (1519); Diego de Deza (1523); Sylvester Mazzolini (1523); Francesco Silvestro di Ferrara (1528); Thomas de Vio Cajetan (1534) (commentaries by these two are published in the Leonine edition of the works of St. Thomas); Conrad Koellin (1536); Chrysostom Javelli (1538); Santes Pagnino (1541); Francisco de Vitoria (1546); Franc. Romseus (1552); Ambrosius Catherinus* (Lancelot Politi, 1553); St. Ignatius of Loyola (1556) enjoined devotion to St. Thomas; Matthew Ory (1557); Dominic Soto (1560); Melehior Cano (1560); Ambrose Pelargus (1561); Peter Soto (1563); Sixtus of Siena (1569); John Faber (1570); St. Pius V (1572); Bartholomew Medina (1581); Vincent Justiniani (1582); Maldonatus* (Juan Maldonado, 1583); St. Charles Borromeo* (1584); Salmerón* (1585); Ven. Louis of Granada (1588); Bartholomew of Braga (1590); Toletus* (1596); Bl. Peter Canisius* (1597); Thomas Stapleton*, Doctor of Louvain (1598); Fonseca (1599); Molina* (1600).

Seventeenth Century

Valentia* (1603); Domingo Baflez (1604); Vásquez* (1604); Bart. Ledesma (1604); Sánchez* (1610); Baronius * (1607); Capponi a Porrecta (1614); Aur. Menochio * (1615); Petr. Ledesma (1616); Suárez* (1617); Du Perron, a converted Calvinist, cardinal (1618); Bellarmine* (1621); St. Francis de Sales* (1622); Hieronymus Medices (1622); Lessius* (1623); Becanus* (1624); Malvenda (1628); Thomas de Lemos (1629); Alvarez; Laymann* (1635); Joann. Wiggers*, doctor of Louvain (1639); Gravina (1643); John of St. Thomas (1644); Serra (1647); Ripalda*, S.J. (1648); Sylvius (Du Bois), doctor of Douai (1649); Petavius* (1652); Goar (1625); Steph. Menochio*, S.J. (1655); Franc. Pignatelli* (1656); De Lugo* (1660); Bollandus* (1665); Jammy (1665); Vallgornera (1665); Labbe* (1667); Pallavicini* (1667); Busenbaum* (1668); Nicolni* (1673); Contenson (1674); Jac. Pignatelli* (1675); Passerini* (1677); Gonet (1681); Bancel (1685); Thomassin* (1695); Goudin (1695); Sfrondati* (1696); Quetif (1698); Rocaberti (1699); Casanate (1700). To this period belong the Carmelite Salmanticenses, authors of the “Cursus theologicus” (1631-72).

Eighteenth Century

Guerinois (1703); Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux; Norisins, O.S.A. (1704); Diana (1705); Thyrsus González* (1705); Massoulié (1706); Du hamel* (1706); Wigandt (1708); Piny (1709); Lacroix* (1714); Carrieres* (1717); Natalis Alexander (1724); Echard (1724); Tourney*, doctor of the Sorbonne (1729); Livarius de Meyer* (1730); Benedict XIII* (1730); Graveson (1733); Th. du Jardin (1733); Hyacintha Serry (1738); Duplessis d'Argentré* (1740); Gotti (1742); Drouin* (1742); Antoine* (1743); Lallemant* (1748); Milante* (1749); Preingue (1752); Concina (1759); Billuart (1757); Benedict XIV* (1758); Cuiliati (1759); Orsi (1761); Charlevoix* (1761); Reuter* (1762); Baumgartner* (1764); Berti* (1766); Patuzzi (1769); De Rubeis (1775); Touron (1775); Thomas de Burgo (1776); Gener* (1781); Roselli (1783); St. Aiphonsus Liguori (1787); Mamachi (1792); Richard (1794).

Nineteenth Century

In this century there are few names to be recorded outside of those who were connected with the Thomistic revival either as the forerunners, the promoters, or the writers of the NeoScholastic period.

D.J. KENNEDY

Tintern Abbey

This abbey, in Monmouthshire, England, was founded in 1131 by Walter de Clare for Cistercian monks, who came from the Abbey of Aumone, in the Diocese of Chartres, itself founded only ten years before. Walter's son Gilbert, first earl of Pembroke, and probably also his grandson Richard Strongbow, conqueror of Ireland under Henry II, were buried at Tintern, the magnificent church of which dates from the end of the thirteenth century. They abbey received rich benefactions not only from the family of its founder but from other noble houses; and lists of its possessions, both from the taxation-roll of 1291, and at the time of the Dissolution under Henry VIII, are given in detail by Dugdale. The accounts submitted by the last abbot, Richard Wych, in 1535, place the net income at under 200 pounds a year; and the abbey, containing at that time thirteen monks, was suppressed under the Act of 1536 which dissolved the smaller monasteries. The king granted it in 1537 to Henry, Earl of Worcester, in whose family (afterwards dukes of Beaufort) it remained until the sale of his Monmouthshire property by the ninth duke, when it was acquired by the Crown.

The ruins of Tintern, which stands on the right bank of the river Wye, backed by a semicircle of wooded hills, ranks with Fountains Abbey in Yorkshire as the most beautiful in England. The church, measuring 245 feet in length, with transepts of 110 feet, is almost perfect, though roofless, the architecture being of the transitional style from Early English to Decorated. The window-tracery is especially fine. Hardly anything remains of the domestic buildings of the abbey, the stone having been used for cottages and farm buildings in the neighborhood.

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The tomb of the Blessed Virgin is venerated in the Valley of Cedron, near Jerusalem. Modern writers hold, however, that Mary died and was buried at Ephesus. The main points of the question to be taken into consideration are as follows.

I. The apocryphal works of the second to the fourth century are all favourable to the Jerusalem tradition. According to the “Acts of St. John by Prochurus”, written (160-70) by Lencius, the Evangelist went to Ephesus accompanied by Prochurus alone and at a very advanced age, i.e. after Mary's death. The two letters “B. Inatii missa S. Joanni”, written about 370, show that the Blessed Virgin passed the remainder of her days at Jerusalem. That of Dionysius the Areopagite to the Bishop Titus (363), the “Joannis liber de Dormitione Mariae” (third to fourth century), and the treatise “De transitu B. M. Virginis” (fourth century) place her tomb at Gethsemane. From an historical standpoint these works, although apocryphal, have a real value, reflecting as they do the tradition of the early centuries. At the beginning of the fifth century a pilgrim from Armenia visited “the tomb of the Virgin in the valley of Josaphat”, and about 431 the “Breviarius de Hierusalem” mentions in that valley “the basilica of Holy Mary, which contains her sepulchre”. Thenceforth pilgrims of various rites repaired thither to venerate the empty tomb of Mary. St. Gregory of Tours, St. Modestus, St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Andrew, bishop of Crete, John of Thessalonica, Hippolytus of Thebes, and Venerable Bede teach this same fact and bear witness that this tradition was accepted by all the Churches of East and West. St. John Damascene, preaching on the feast of the Assumption at Gethsemane, recalls that, according to the “Euthymian History”, III, xl (written probably by Cyril of Scythopolis in the fifth century), Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, sent to Constantinople in 452 at the command of the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, his wife, the Shroud of the Blessed Virgin preserved in the church of Gethsemane (P. G., XCVI, 747-51). The relic has since been venerated in that city at the Church of Our Lady of Blachernae.

II. There was never any tradition connecting Mary's death and burial with the city of Ephesus. Not a single writer or pilgrim speaks of her tomb as being there; and in the thirteenth century Perdicas, prothonotary of Ephesus, visited “the glorious tomb of the Virgin at Gethsemane”, and describes it in his poem (P. G., CXXXIII, 969). In a letter sent in 431 by the members of the Council of Ephesus to the clergy of Constantinople we read that Nestorius “reached the city of Ephesus where John the Theologian and the Mother of God, the Holy Virgin, were separated from the assembly of the holy Fathers”, etc. Tillemont has completed the elliptical phrase by adding arbitrarily, “have their tombs”. He is followed by a few writers. According to the meditations of Sister Catherine Emmerich (d. 1824), compiled and published in 1852, the Blessed Virgin died and was buried not at Ephesus but three or four leagues south of the city. She is followed by those who accept her visions or meditations as Divine revelations. However, St. Brigid relates that at the time of her visit to the church of Gethsemane the Blessed Virgin appeared to her and spoke to her of her stay of three days in that place and of her Assumption into Heaven. The revelations of Ven. Maria d'Agreda do not contradict those of Catherine Emmerich.

III. As the soil is considerably raised in the Valley of the Cedron, the ancient Church of the Sepulchre of Mary is completely covered and hidden. A score of steps descend from the road into the court (see Plan: B), at the back of which is a beautiful twelfth century porch (C). It opens on a monumental stairway of forty-eight steps. The twentieth step leads into the Church built in the fifth century, to a great extent cut from the rock. It forms a cross of unequal arms (D). In the centre of the eastern arm, 52 feet long and 20 feet wide is the glorious tomb of the Mother of Christ. It is a little room with a bench hewn from the rocky mass in imitation of the tomb of Christ. This has given it the shape of a cubical edicule, about ten feet in circumference and eight feet high. Until the fourteenth century the little monument was covered with magnificent marble slabs and the walls of the church were covered with frescoes. Since 1187 the tomb has been the property of the Mussulman Government which nevertheless authorizes the Christians to officiate in it.

BARNABAS MEISTERMANN

Transept

A rectangular space inserted between the apse and nave in the early Christian basilica. It sprang from the need of procuring sufficient space for the increased number of clergy and for the proper celebration of the service. The length of the rectangle either equals the entire breadth of the nave, as in Santa Maria Maggiore and Santa Croce at Rome, or it exceeds this breadth more or less, so that the transept extends beyond the walls of the nave. The transept, though, is not peculiar to the Roman basilica, as was for a long time believed; it is also to be found in the churches of Asia Minor, as at Sagalassos. Beside this first form, in which the apse was directly united with the transept, there were to be found in Asia Minor and Sicily, even in the early era, a number of churches of a second form. These were formerly considered to belong to the medieval period, because they were not fully developed until the Middle Ages. This is the cross-shaped or cruciform church, over the origin of which a violent literary controversy raged for a long time. In the cruciform design the transept is organically developed from the structure. It contains three squares which in height and breadth correspond to that of the main nave. Beyond the central square, called the bay, and connected with it is a fourth square, the choir, and beyond, and connected with the choir, is the apse; in this way the cruciform shape of the church is produced. The transept generally terminates towards the north and south in a straight line. Still there are a number of churches, especially in Germany, that end in a semicircular or triple conch shape. Strzygowski thinks he has found the model of this style of structure in the Roman imperial palace; this form of transept is found in as early a church as that of the Virgin at Bethlehem erected by Constantine. A favourite method in the Romanesque style was to construct small apses opening into the transept to the right and left of the choir. In the churches of the Cistercians and of the mendicant orders these small apses were transformed at a later date into numerous chapels, as at Santa Croce at Florence. the prototype of this design can also be proved to have existed in the East and the districts under its influence. The doubling of the transept, however, seems to have been peculiar to Western architecture; this type of transept appeared both in the Romanesque and in the Gothic periods, although the manner of producing it varied greatly. Many Romanesque churches are constructed at the west end the same as at the east, that is, the west end also contains a transept and choir. The earliest known church with this double transept is the eighth-century church of St-Riquier at Centula in France. The style was also adopted in the church of St. Pantaleon at Cologne (981), and almost at the same time by Mittelzell on the island of Reichenau in Lake Constance, and in many other churches. The west transept disappeared in Gothic architecture, excepting that in England some of the great cathedrals have a second, short transept added to the east choir, as at Salisbury. Gothic architecture also emphasized the choir by giving it in the large cathedrals three aisles; in this way very beautiful vistas are produced. In the effort to gain large, well-lighted spaces the architecture of the Renaissance and the Baroque periods enlarged the transept and covered the bay with a cupola which caused the transept to dominate the entire structure.

BEDA KLEINSCHMIDT

Usury

In the article INTEREST we have reserved the question of the lawfulness of taking interest on money lent; we have here to consider first, usury as condemned by all honest men.

Plato (Laws, v. 742) and Aristotle (Politics, I, x,xi) considered interest as contrary to the nature of things; Aristophanes expressed his disapproval of it, in the “Clouds” (1283 sqq.); Cato condemned it (see Cicero, “De officiis, II, xxv), comparing it to homicide, as also did Seneca (De beneficiis, VII, x) and Plutarch in his treatise against incurring debts. So much for Greek and Roman writers, who, it is true, knew little of economic science. Aristotle disapproved of the money trader's profit; and the ruinous rates at which money was lent explain his severity. On the other hand, the Roman and Greek laws, while considering the mutuum, or loan for consumption, as a contract gratuitous in principle, allowed a clause, stipulating for the payment of interest, to be added to the bond. The Law of the Twelve Tables allowed only unciarium fenus, probably one-twelfth of the capital, or 8.33 per cent. A plebiscitum, lex Ganucia, 412 a.u.c. went so far as to forbid all interest whatever, but, at a later period, the Roman law allowed interest at 1 per cent monthly, or 12 per cent per annum. Justinian laid down as a general rule that this maximum should be reduced by half (L. 26, I, c. De usuris, IV, 32). Chaldea allowed interest on loans (cf. Law of Hammurabi, 48 sqq.). No absolute prohibition can be found in the Old Testament; at most, Exod., xxii, 25, and Deut., xxiii, 19, 20, forbid the taking of interest by one Jew from another.

In the Christian era, the New Testament is silent on the subject; the passage in St. Luke (vi, 34, 35), which some persons interpret asa condemnation of interest, is only an exhortation to general and disinterested benevolence. A certain number of authors, amonge them Benedict XIV (De synodo diocesana, X., iv, n. 6), believed in the existence of a Patristic tradition which regarded the prohibitory passages of Holy Scripture as of universal application. Examination of the texts, however, leads us to the following conclusions: until the fourth century all that can be inferred from the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers is that it is contrary to mercy and humanity to demand interest from a poor and needy man. The vehement denunciation of the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries were called forth by the moral decadence and avarice of the time, and we cannot find in them any expression of a general doctrine on this point; nor do the Fathers of the following centuries say anything remarkable on usury; they simply protest against the exploitation of misfortune, and such transactions as, under the pretence of rendering service to the borrower, really threw him into great distress. The question of moderate rates of interest seems scarcely to have presented itself to their minds as a matter of discussion. The texts bearing on the question are collected in Vermeersch, “Querstiones morales de justitia” II, n. 359. - The councils condemned in the first place clerics who lent money at interest. This is the purpose of the 44th of the Apostolic Canons; of the Council of Arles (314), and of the 17th canon the First Council of Niceaea (325). It is true that a text of the Council of Elvira (305 or 6) is quoted which, while ordering the degradation of clerics, would also have punishment inflicted on laymen, who obstinately persisted in usurious practices; but the mention of layman is of extremely doubtful authenticity. It may then be said that until the ninth century canonical decrees forbade this profit, shameful as it was considered, only to clerics.

Nevertheless, the 12th canon of the First Council of Carthage (345) and the 36th canon of the Council of Aix (789) have declared it to be reprehensible even for laymen to make money by lending at interest. The canonical laws of the Middle Ages absolutely forbade the practice. This prohibition is contained in the Decree of Gratian, q. 3, C. IV, at the beginning, and c. 4, q. 4, C. IV; and in 1. 5, t. 19 of the Decretals, for example in chapters 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 13. These chapters order the profit so obtained to be restored; and Alexander III (c. 4,”Super eo”, eodem) declares that he has no power to dispense from the obligation. Chapters 1, 2, and 6, eodem, condemns the startagems to which even clerics resorted to evade the law of the general councils, and the Third of the Lateran (1179) and the Second of Lyons (1274) condemn usurers. In the Council of Vienne (1311) it was declared that if any person obstinately maintained that there was no sin in the practice of demanding interest, he should be punished as a heretic (see c. “Ex gravi”, unic. Clem., “De usuris”, V, 5). It is a curious fact that for a long time impunity in such matters was granted to jews. The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), c. 27, only forbids them to exact excessive interest. Urban III, c. 12, “De usuris” (V. 19) and St. Louis in twenty-three of his regulations extended the prohibition to the Jews. With the exception of c. 27 of the Fourth Council of the Lateran, we know of no canon law which takes into consideration the question of moderate interest; and canon law nowhere states distinctly that interest is, under any circumstances whatsoever, contrary to justice. Theologians and canonists of the Middle Ages constructed a rational theory of the loan for consumption, which contains this fundamental statement: The mutuum, or loan of things meant for immediate consumption, does not legalize, as such, any stipulation to pay interest; and interest exacted on such a loan must be returned, as having been unjustly claimed. This was the doctrine of St. Thomas and Scotus; of Molina, Lessius, and de Lugo. Canonists adopted it as well as the theologians; and Benedict XIV made it his own in his famous Encyclical “Vix pervenit” of 1 November, 1745, which was promulgated after thorough examination, but addressed only to the bishops of Italy, and therefore not an infallible Decree. On 29, July, 1836, the Holy Office incidentally declared that this Encyclical applied to the whole Church; but such a declaration could not give to a document an infallible character which it did not otherwise possess. The schismatic Greeks, at least since the sixteenth century, do not consider the taking of interest on loans as intrinsically bad.

While Luther, Melanchthon, and Zwingle condemned loaning for interest, Calvin permitted interest on money advanced to rich persons; his disciple Salmasius gave effect to this opinion by a systematic code of rules. By degrees a certain number of Catholic wriers relaxed their severity. Scipio Maffei, a friend of Benedict XIV, wrote a celebrated treatise, “Dell' impiego del danaro”, to justify an opinion which in this matter resembles that of Calvin. Economists generally uphold the theoretical lawfulness of interest on loans. For a long time civil law was in agreement with canon law; but as early as the sixteenth century, Germany allowed interest at 5 per cent; in France, on the contrary, interest on loans was forbidden until the Decree of 2 and 3 October, 1789. Contemporary laws always consider the loan for consumption as gratuitous in principle, but allow a stipulation for the payment of interest to be added. In modern legislation two questions remain to be decided:

1. whether it is desirable to establish a maximum legal rate; and
2. by what means usurious exactions may be prevented.

The Holy See admits practically the lawfulness of interest on loans, even for ecclesiastical property, though t has not promulgated any doctrinal decree on the subject. See the replies of the Holy Office dated 18 August, 1830, 31 August, 1831, 17 January, 1838, 26 March, 1840, and 28 February, 1871; and that of the Sacred Penitentiary of 11 February, 1832. These replies will be found collected in “Collectio Lacensis” (Acta et decreta s. conciliorum recentiorum), VI, col. 677, Appendix to the Council of Pondicherry; and in the “Enchiridion” of Father Bucceroni.

Everyone admits that a duty of charity may command us to lend gratuitously, just as it commands us to give freely. The point in question is one of justice: is it contrary to the equity required in mutual contracts to ask from the borrower interest in addition to the money lent? It may be remarked that the best authors have long since recognized the lawfulness of interest to compensate a lender for the risk of losing his capital, or for positive loss, such as the privation of the profit which he might otherwise have made, if he had not advanced the loan. They also admit that the lender is justified in exacting a fine of some kind ( a conventional penalty) in case of any delay in payment arising from the fault of the borrower. These are what are called extrinsic grounds, admitted without dispute since the end of the sixteenth century, and justifying the stipulation for reasonable interest, proportionate to the risk involved in the loan. Another discussion, which has not been closed, but only suspended, relates to the question whether the civil law creates a new and real title, whether the State can, in order to extend and promote credit for the good of the community, permit interest on loans. We think it can. But there will scarcely be any need for such a law except in circumstance which already justify the general practice of lending for interest. (On these extrinsic rights see: Funk, “Geschichte des kirchlichen Zinsverbotes”; Lehmkuhl, “Theologia moralis”, I, n. 1306 sqq., 11th ed.)

The precise question then is this: if we consider justice only, without reference to extrinsic circumstances, can the loan of money, or any chattel which is not destroyed by use, entitle the lender to a gain or profit which is called interest? To this question some persons, namely the economists of the classic school, and some Catholic writers, answer “yes, and always”; others, namely Socialists and some Catholic writers, answer, “no, never”; and lastly some Catholics give a less unconditional answer, “sometimes, but not always”; and they explain the different attitudes of he Church in condemning at one time, and at another authorizing, the practice of taking interest on loans, by the difference of circumstances and the state of society. The principal argument in favour of the first opinion is that the lender does the borrower a service which should be paid for. This is, of course, a materialistic view of human service, which when rendered in a spirit of active benevolence is repaid by gratitude: only onerous service, which costs or represents some trouble or privation, is sold or hired for money. Now, at times when opportunities for investing money in commercial undertakings or converting it into revenue-producing property were comparatively rare, a loan made to a solvent person, instead of being onerous to the lender, was rather an advantage, in giving him full security for his money, for the borrower insured him against its accidental loss. And we have just shown that the loan of things for immediate consumption was not, as such, a source of revenue. Father Ballarini, (Opus morale, III, pt. III, ii) thought that the justice or injustice of taking interest depends on one's intention; thus, we may give credit gratuitously, or we may give the use of our money for a consideration. In the first case the contract is essentially gratuitous; and as formerly this gratuitous contract was the ordinary practice, the Church was opposed to all claim of interest. However, as the use of money has its value, like the use of anything else, the Church on this ground at the present day permits the lending of money for interest. In spite of the assent of many authors to this explanation, we do not approve it. In Roman Law, gratuitousness was not essential to the mutuum, but only presumed in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary. Persons who openly or secretly demanded interest proved conclusively that they were not actuated by motives of benevolence; and the Church, in condemning them, did not raise the question of their intention. The answer to Ballerini is that rent is a price paid for the use of a thing not destroyed by use. The expenditure of money may be productive, and the person lending money and so depriving himself of profit may claim a compensation for that privation; but this is a question of extrinsic circumstances, not of justice itself.

Others with Claudio-Jannet (Le capital, la spéculation et la finance, iii, II and III) distinguish between the loan for consumption and the loan for production: we may ask interest from the borrower who takes money or credit in order to produce or gain money; but not from one who borrows under pressure of necessity, or for some unproductive expenditure. The increased frequency of loans for production considered in the connexion with the different extrinsic circumstances would seem to justify the demand for interest on such loans at the present day. In a spirit that is not irreconcilable with the rulings of the Fathers in the matter, this system contains this element of truth, that the lender of a sum of money which is intended for productive use may refuse to lend except on condition of being made a partner in the undertaking, and may claim a fixed interest which represents that share of the profit, which he might reasonably expect to receive. The system, nevertheless, is formally condemned by the Encyclical “Vix pervenit”, and contradicts the principle of the just value; it tends in fact to make the borrower pay the special advantage, while the compensation is regulated by the general advantage procured by the possession of a thing, not by the special circumstances of the borrower. Others justify the existing practice by a presumption of extrinsic circumstances, which is confirmed, according to some persons, by the permission of the civil law. This explanation appears to us to be unsatisfactory. The extrinsic circumstances do not always exist, while we can always lend at interest, without any scruple on the score of justice. And what is there to show that modern legislators pass laws merely to quiet men's consciences?

But we may correct this last opinion by the aid of the general principles of contractual justice; and we shall then more fully understand the strictness of the laws of earlier times, and the greater liberty allowed at the present day. The just price of a thing is based on the general estimate, which depends not in all cases on universal utility, but on general utility. Since the possession of an object is generally useful, I may require the price of that general utility, even when the object is of no use to me. There is much greater facility nowadays for making profitable investment of savings, and a true value, therefore, is always attached to the possession of money, as also to credit itself. A lender, during the whole time that the loan continues, deprives himself of a valuable thing, for the price of which he is compensated by the interest. It is right at the present day to permit interest on money lent, as it was not wrong to condemn the practice at a time when it was more difficult to find profitable investments for money. So long as no objection was made to the profitable investment of capital in industrial undertakings, discouragement of interest on loans acted as an encouragement of legitimate trade; it also led to the creation of new contractual associations, such as insurance companies, which give a reasonable hope of gain without risk. The action of the Church has found distinguished defenders, even outside her own pale, among the representatives of contemporary economic science. We may mention three English authors: Marshall, professor of political economy at the University of Cambridge (Principles of Economics, I, I, ii, secs. 8 etc.); Ashley, professor at the new university of Birmingham (An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory, I, I, i, sec. 17); and the celebrated historian of political economy, Professor Cunningham (Growth of English Industry and Commerce, I, II, vi, sec. 85, third edition). Even at the present day, a small number of French catholics (Abbé Morel, “Du prêt à intéret”; Modeste, “Le prêt à intérecirc;t, dernière forme de l'esclavage”) see in the attitude of the Church only a tolerance justified by the fear of greater evils. This is not so. The change in the attitude of the Church is due entirely to a change in economic matters that require the present system. The Holy See itself puts its funds out at interest, and requires ecclesiastical administrators to do the same. One writer, Father Belliot of the friars minor, denounces in loans for interest “the principal economic scourge of civilization”, though the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few capitalists, which he deplores so much, does not arise so much from lending money at proper interest as from industrial investments, banking operations, and speculations, which have never been condemned as unjust in principle. There has never been at any time any prohibition against the investment of capital in commercial or industrial undertakings or in the public funds.

Lending money at interest gives us the opportunity to exploit the passions or necessities of other men by compelling them to submit to ruinous conditions; men are robbed and left destitute under the pretext of charity. Such is the usury against which the Fathers of the Church have always protested, and which is universally condemned at the present day. Dr. Funk defined it as the abuse of a certain superiority at the expense of another man's necessity; but in this description he points to the opportunity and the means which enable a man to commit the sin of usury, rather than the formal malice of the sin itself. It is in itself unjust extortion, or robbery. The sin is frequently committed. In some countries are found the exaction of interest at 30, 50, 100 per cent and more. The evil is so great in India that we might expect legal provisions to fight against such ruinous abuse. The exorbitant charges of pawnbrokers for money lent on pledge, and, in some instances, of persons selling goods to be paid for by installments, are also instances of usury disguised under another name. As a remedy for the evil, respectable associations for mutual lending have been instituted, such as the banks known by the name of their founder, Raiffeisen, and help has been sought from legislators; but there is no general agreement as to the form which legislation on this subject should take.

A. VERMEERSCH

Vestibule (Porch)

A hall projecting in front of the façade of a church, found from the fifth century both in the East and the West. In western Europe it was generally a narrow open ante-chamber with sloping roof and closed on the smaller sides, which were probably, when connected with the main buildings, provided with apses, as in the baptistery of San Giovanni at Rome. In the East, especially in Syria, this ante-chamber was given a fine façade, and was flanked by two towers. It was also frequently closed in front in Oriental countries and entered by one or three doors, and often had two stories, as in the churches of Turmanin and Suweda. The purpose of the vestibule, at least in western Europe, was not to provide a resting-place for penitents, but to deaden the noise outside. In medieval times Italy held firmly to the simple open chamber with sloping roof. North of the Alps, however, the vestibule developed into a projecting structure united with the main building, recalling the Syrian churches. The method of construction shown in the palace church of Charlemagne at Aachen, an ante-structure of several stories between the two western round towers, was adopted in the early Romanesque period, especially by the Cluniac monks. The Romanesque architecture also made use of a covered ante-structure placed before the west front. This style was first used on a large scale in the cathedral at Speyer, where the vestibule has three stories. The churches in which the main entrance was on the side aisle had a vestibule or portico (called the “Paradise”) on the same aisle, as in the cathedrals at Münster and Paderborn. The name “Paradise”, originally given to the atrium, was given later to the ante-chamber. In Gothic architecture the vestibule was reduced in size, and became an ornamental baldachino-like structure, which also served as an entrance, as in the cathedral at Freiburg in Baden. The name “Paradise” for the vestibule explains the festival, popular among the common people and called the Expulsion of Adam, held at Halberstadt as early as 1391, and which took place in the vestibule. In the Middle Ages alms were distributed and offerings made in the vestibule. The latter was used at times also for judicial proceedings, and in many such ante-chambers the announcements of the standard weights and measures were posted up, as at Freiburg in Baden the standard weight of bread in 1270, 1317, and 1320.

In Italy the architecture of the Renaissance and of the Rococo style held to the vestibule, which had been made sacred by tradition. Alberti considered its use necessary on all occasions. Even basilicas, as San Giovanni in Lateran and Santa Maria Maggiore, received new porticoes, which in the two churches mentioned were constructed as loggias in two stories. These vestibules were detrimental to both churches, concealing the façades and giving the buildings a somewhat secular appearance. The Carmelite church at Arezzo has a vestibule with columns built by Benedetto da Majano.

BEDA KLEINSCHMIDT

Walsingham Priory

Walsingham Priory stood a few miles from the sea in the northern part of Norfolk, England. Founded in the time of Edward the Confessor, the chapel of Our Lady of Walsingham was confirmed to the Augustinian Canons a century later and enclosed within the priory. From the first this shrine of Our Lady was a famous place of pilgrimage. Hither came the faithful from all parts of England and from the continent until the destruction of the priory by Henry VIII in 1538. To this day the main road of the pilgrims through Newmarket, Brandon, and Fakenham is still called the Palmers' Way. Many were the gifts of lands, rents, and churches to the canons of Walsingham, and many the miracles wrought at Our Lady's shrine. Henry III came on a pilgrimage to Walsingham in 1241, Edward I in 1280 and 1296, Edward II in 1315, Henry VI in 1455, Henry VII in 1487, and Henry VIII in 1513. Erasmus in fulfilment of a vow made a pilgrimage from Cambridge in 1511, and left as his offering a set of Greek verses expressive of his piety. Thirteen years later her wrote his colloquy on pilgrimages, wherein the wealth and magnificence of Walsingham are set forth, and some of the reputed miracles rationalized. In 1537 while the last prior, Richard Vowell, was paying obsequious respect to Cromwell, the sub-prior Nicholas Milcham was charged with conspiring to rebel against the suppression of the lesser monasteries, and on flimsy evidence was convicted of high treason and hanged outside the priory walls. In July, 1538, Prior Vowell assented to the destruction of Walsingham Priory and assisted the king's commissioners in the removal of the figure of Our Lady, of many of the gold and silver ornaments and in the general spoliation of the shrine. For his ready compliance the prior received a pension of 100 pounds a year, a large sum in those days, while fifteen of the canons received pensions varying from 4 pounds to 6 pounds. The shrine dismantled, and the priory destroyed, its site was sold by order of Henry VIII to one Thomas Sidney for 90 pounds, and a private mansion was subsequently erected on the spot. The Elizabethan ballad, “A Lament for Walsingham,” expresses something of what the Norfolk people felt at the loss of their glorious shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham.

JOSEPH CLAYTON
In memory of Gloverdale Tarver Baker

Rose Window

A circular window, with mullions and traceries generally radiating from the centre, and filled with stained glasses. The term is suggested by the fancied resemblance of the window with its traceries to the rose and its petals. The rose window is one of the most beautiful and characteristic features of medieval architecture, especially of the French Gothic, in which it achieved its most perfect development. Its origin is to be found in the Roman oculus. During the Romanesque period the oculus became a window, and from about the middle of the twelfth century its dimensions began to increase with the development of gothic of Gothic architecture. By the middle of the thirteenth century it had attained the greatest possible size — the entire width of the nave. Its possible size — the entire width of the nave. Its splendour continued in France until the misfortunes of the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries prevented the construction of large churches. The most beautiful examples of rose windows are to be found in the Ile de France and the adjoining provinces, Picardy and Champagne. The earliest important examples are the west rose of the Cathedral of Mantes (c. 1200); the west rose of Notre Dame of Paris (c. 1220), the most beautiful of all, and those of Laon and Chartres. In al these cases the rose was put under a circular arch. The next important step was to put it under a pointed arch, as was done in the beautiful rose windows of the Cathedral of Reims, 1230, as well in the transepts as in the later roses of the facade. Thereupon the rose was inscribed in square, with pierced spandrils as in the transepts of Notre Dame of Paris (1257). The last step was to place the rose in the tier of lower windows, in which case it became the centre of a vast window composition, covering the whole end of the transepts, as in Rouen Cathedral.

In England the use of the rose window was usually confined to the transepts, although roses of great span were constructed in Byland Abbey and in the east front of Old St. Paul's, London. In Germany it was more frequently used as well in the Romanesque as in the Gothic period; a fine example is in the facade of the Cathedral of Strassburg. In Italy it was particularly used by the Lombard architects, as in San Zeno, Verona, and in the Cathedral of Modena, and in the Tuscan Gothic churches like the Cathedrals of Siena and Orvieto. These rose were always filled with stained glasses of great beauty, adding not a little to the picturesque effect of the interior of the cathedral.

G. KRIEHN

Windows in Church Architecture

From the beginning Christian churches, in contrast to the ancient temples, were intended to be places for the assembling of the faithful. The temperament of the people of the East and of the South where Christian houses of worship first appeared, required the admission of much light by large openings in the walls, that is, by windows. As a matter of fact the early Christian basilicas were richly provided with large windows, placed partly in the central nave, that was raised for this purpose, partly in the side aisles and facade. In Western Europe, or rather in the countries under Roman influence, the places where the windows existed on the side aisles can no longer be identified with absolute certainty, owing to the chapels and additions that were later frequently built. In the East, however, where it was customary to select isolated sites for church buildings large windows were the rule. The place of the window was determined by the architectural membering of the basilica, the distance between two columns generally indicating the position of a window. However, there were endless exceptions to this rule in the East; thus at Bakusa in Syria the windows are close together as well as over the columns; at Kalat-Seman each intercolumnar space contained two windows. In general two or three windows united in a group, as was later the rule in Roman architecture, were even then of frequent occurrence in the early Christian architecture of Asia Minor. The form of the window is nearly everywhere the same; a rectangle that usually has a rounded top, but seldom a straight lintel. When the latter is used it is generally balanced by a semicircular arch of wedge-shaped stones. Ornamentation of the windows was hardly possible in the basilicas of Western Europe, which were generally built of brick, while the Syrian stone churches, and as an exceptional case those of the school of Spoleto, displayed rich contours and ribbon-like ornamentation. Of that troublous period which extended to the time of Charlemagne and later until the beginning of Romanesque art, few monuments remain that give a clear conception of the window architecture then in vogue. According to Haupt's researches, the windows of the earliest Germanic churches had a round arch above, which was generally a hollowed stone. Towards the bottom these windows, strange to say, were frequently somewhat broader than above. It was not unusual in Spain, England, and France to finish the window-casement with a horseshoe arch, the upper part being formed by two stone shafts set obliquely, that is, like ribs of an arch. An example of this method is found at Deerhurst in England. The windows of this period are frequently very different on the inner and outer sides, the richer ornamentation being found on the inner side, as at Saint-Germain-des-Pré in France where there are engaged columns and ornamented archivolts.

Up to the twelfth century the windows of the Romanesque churches had small openings for light, a sloping intrados, and an inclined sill. Originally without decoration, they later received a framework, that is, they were surrounded by a border of slender shafts as by a frame. In the further development these round shafts received small bases and capitals, the intrados was divided into rectangular intervals in which small columns were set. Gothic art adopted this framework, merely changing the round arch into a pointed one, and later replacing the rectangular intervals of the intrados by flutings. As the style grew the small capitals of the round shafts were abandoned and later the shafts themselves, by which the style returned to the simple framework. The late Gothic ceased to use even the framework and employed the sloping intrados alone, without further ornament. Naturally there were innumerable exceptions to the development sketched here only in its general features. In Romanesque art the sills had originally only a slight inclination. This gradually became greater until it became more than a right angle. characteristic of the Romanesque style is the grouping together of two to four windows, the so-called clustered window. Above the window the flat surface of the arch remained without ornamentation or was pierced by small round windows. Romanesque art used, in addition to windows enclosed by the round arch, others surrounded by the trefoil or fan-arch, and even openings for light entirely Baroque in design with arbitrarily curved arches. In the Gothic period the windows were longer and broader, in a number of cathedrals they almost replace the walls. Although the clustered window with three openings did not entirely disappear, yet it was more customary to use two narrow windows combined by a common shaft and a common pointed arch above them. The shafts grew constantly more slender and a circular arch was introduced under the pointed arch. This led in the course of time to the appearance of tracery which was so largely used in window ornamentation in the Gothic period that it became almost the most important consideration in the construction of windows. Tracery is formed by setting together separate parts of a circle called foils; their points of contact are named cusps. By means of tracery the pointed arches of the windows were constantly filled with new forms and devices, simple in the early Gothic, artificial and confused the more the style developed, until finally in the late Gothic or Flamboyant style the wavy tracery was used which no longer consisted of circles and segments of circles but assumed forms comparable to flames, a style particularly in vogue in England and France. Towards the end of the Gothic period greater sobriety of form came into use and tracery began to decline. The elaboration undergone by the tracery was also shared by the shafts of the windows and intrados. Undivided at first they gradually received richer contours and were separated into main and subordinate pillars. The earliest tracery of which the date is known is that still existing in the choir chapels of the cathedral at Reims (1211).

The Renaissance returned to the round-arched clustered windows of the Romanesque style, particularly in brick buildings. Still light openings with slender connexions between them and enclosed in rectangular frames are to found in houses built of stone, particularly in the late Renaissance. They generally received as ornament, in imitation of antiquity, a frame of broad profile, which at the height of the Renaissance was generally surrounded by two supports, pilasters, or columns, and the entablature rested upon these. Framing of this kind has many forms, but the following are the most noticeable styles:

• The opening for light is enclosed by a frame running parallel to it which has the profile of an architrave and generally has a horizontal cornice as a finish at the top (simple framework);
• instead of the simple framework supports, pillars, pilasters, or columns, are arranged on the perpendicular sides, which carry above them a straight entablature, a gable-cornice, or an archivolt (truss-frame);
• the most frequent and most artistic form is the combination of the simple frame and the truss-frame, from which spring the most varied combinations, as sometimes the simple frame encloses a truss-frame, or the reverse, or sometimes two truss-frames are combined with each other (combined frame);
• abandoning frames and supports the openings for light are surrounded only by quarry-faced ashlar. In costly buildings the windows had an ornamental finish below, either a breast-moulding resting on consoles, or a panel surrounded by a frame or carried by supports.

The Baroque style added to the round-arched and rectangular light- openings those in the shape of a basket handle-arch and even of an oval shape, and sought to enrich them by drawing in the corners and by curving the sides in and out. This led to the appearance of a great variety of lines the number and lack of repose of which is characteristic of the Baroque. The framing which the Renaissance had given the windows remained customary during the Baroque period, but in agreement with the entire development of the style they were augmented, were more artificial, and had less repose. The most frequently used was the flat or profiled framing, in which the cornice no longer ran parallel to the light- opening, but assumed an independent arbitrary form; at times the frame was interrupted by quarry-faced ashlar. The support-framing was seldom used, the combined framing was changed so that the frames were no longer laid one by the other, but one over the other, only a small part of the under one being visible on the two sides. The part of the frame above the window received a rich development; it was generally either a horizontal cornice or a gable cornice; where the windows were arched it also followed the curved line, with the result of an unlimited variety of artistic forms. Classicism first abandoned the combination of the two framings, it next gave up the truss-frame, so that finally nothing remained of the former variety but the simple unadorned frame with or without a top piece. As regards the Louis XVI and Empire styles the simplifying of the frame was retained and ornamentation was limited almost exclusively to the top-piece, which was supported by consoles and adorned with garlands of fruit and other ornaments in imitation of the antique.

BEDA KLEINSCHMIDT