VOLUME I

BY

Rev. JAMES MacCAFFREY Lic. Theol. (Maynooth), Ph.D. (Freiburg i. B.) Professor of Ecclesiastical History, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth

Nihil Obstat: Thomas O'Donnell, C.M. Censor Theol. Deput.

Imprimi Potest: Guilielmus, Archiep. Dublinen., Hiberniae Primas.

Dublini, 16 Decembris, 1914.

PREFACE

The fifteenth century may be regarded as a period of transition fromthe ideals of the Middle Ages to those of modern times. The world wasfast becoming more secular in its tendencies, and, as a necessaryresult, theories and principles that had met till then with almostuniversal acceptance in literature, in art, in education, and ingovernment, were challenged by many as untenable.

Scholasticism, which had monopolised the attention of both schools andscholars since the days of St. Anselm and Abelard, was called upon todefend its claims against the advocates of classical culture; thetheocratico-imperial conception of Christian society as expounded bythe canonists and lawyers of an earlier period was forced into thebackground by the appearance of nationalism and individualism, whichby this time had become factors to be reckoned with by theecclesiastical and civil rulers; the Feudal System, which had receiveda mortal blow by the intermingling of the classes and the masses inthe era of the Crusades, was threatened, from above, by the movementtowards centralisation and absolutism, and from below, by the growingdiscontent of the peasantry and artisans, who had begun to realise,but as yet only in a vague way, their own strength. In everydepartment the battle for supremacy was being waged between the oldand the new, and the printing-press was at hand to enable the patronsof both to mould the thoughts and opinions of the Christian world.

It was, therefore, an age of unrest and of great intellectualactivity, and at all such times the claims of the Church as theguardian and expounder of Divine Revelation are sure to be questioned.Not that the Church has need to fear inquiry, or that the claims offaith and reason are incompatible, but because some daring spirits arealways to be reckoned with, who, by mistaking hypotheses for facts,succeed in convincing themselves and their followers that those inauthority are unprogressive, and as such, to be despised.

This was particularly true of some of the Humanists. At first sight,indeed, it is difficult to understand why the revival of classicallearning should lead to the danger of the rejection of ChristianRevelation, seeing that the appreciation of the great literaryproducts of Greece and Rome, and that, even in the days of theRenaissance, the Popes and the bishops were reckoned amongst the mostgenerous patrons of the classical movement. Yet the violence ofextreme partisans on both sides rendered a conflict almostunavoidable.

On the one hand, many of the classical enthusiasts, not content withwinning for their favourite studies a most important place on theprogrammes of the schools, were determined to force on the Christianbody the ideals, the culture, and the outlook on the world, whichfound their best expression in the masterpieces of pagan literature;while, on the other, not a few of the champions of ScholasticPhilosophy seemed to have convinced themselves that Scholasticism andChristianity were identified so closely that rejection or criticism ofthe former must imply disloyalty to the latter. The Humanists mockedat the Scholastics and dubbed them obscurantists on account of theirbarbarous Latinity, their uncritical methods, and their pointlesswranglings; the Scholastics retorted by denouncing their opponents aspagans, or, at least, heretics. In this way the claims of religionwere drawn into the arena, and, as neither the extreme Scholastics northe extreme Humanists had learned to distinguish between dogmas andsystems, between what was essential and what was tentative, there wasgrave danger that religion would suffer in the eyes of educated men onaccount of the crude methods of those who claimed to be its authorisedexponents.

Undoubtedly, at such a period of unrest, the Church could hardlyexpect to escape attack. Never since the days when she was called uponto defend her position against the combined forces of the Pagan worldhad she been confronted with such a serious crisis, and seldom, ifever, was she so badly prepared to withstand the onslaughts of herenemies. The residence at Avignon, the Great Western Schism, and theconciliar theories to which the Schism gave rise, had weakened thepower of the Papacy at the very time when the bonds of religious unitywere being strained almost to the snapping point by the growth ofnational jealousy. Partly owing to the general downward tendency ofthe age, but mainly on account of the interference of the secularauthorities with ecclesiastical appointments, the gravest abuses hadmanifested themselves in nearly every department of clerical life, andthe cry for reform rose unbidden to the lips of thousands whoentertained no thought of revolution. But the distinction between thedivine and the human element in the Church was not appreciated by all,with the result that a great body of Christians, disgusted with theunworthiness of some of their pastors, were quite ready to rise inrevolt whenever a leader should appear to sound the trumpet-call ofwar.

Nor had they long to wait till a man arose, in Germany, to marshal theforces of discontent and to lead them against the Church of Rome.Though in his personal conduct Luther fell far short of what peoplemight reasonably look for in a self-constituted reformer, yet in manyrespects he had exceptional qualifications for the part that he wascalled upon to play. Endowed with great physical strength, gifted witha marvellous memory and a complete mastery of the German language, asinspiring in the pulpit or on the platform as he was with his pen,regardless of nice limitations or even of truth when he wished tostrike down an opponent or to arouse the enthusiasm of a mob, equallyat home with princes in the drawing-room as with peasants in a tavern--Luther was an ideal demagogue to head a semi-religious, semi-socialrevolt. He had a keen appreciation of the tendencies of the age, andof the thoughts that were coursing through men's minds, and he hadsufficient powers of organisation to know how to direct the differentforces at work into the same channel. Though fundamentally the issueraised by him was a religious one, yet it is remarkable what a smallpart religion played in deciding the result of the struggle. Theworld-wide jealousy of the House of Habsburg, the danger of a Turkishinvasion, the long-drawn-out struggle between France and the Empirefor supremacy in Europe and for the provinces on the left bank of theRhine, and the selfish policy of the German princes, contributed muchmore to his success than the question of justification or theprinciple of private judgment. Without doubt, in Germany, inSwitzerland, in England, in the Netherlands, and in the Scandinaviancountries, the Reformation was much more a political than a religiousmovement.

The fundamental principle of the new religion was the principle ofprivate judgment, and yet such a principle found no place in theissues raised by Luther in the beginning. It was only when he wasconfronted with the decrees of previous councils, with the traditionof the Church as contained in the writings of the Fathers, and withthe authoritative pronouncements of the Holy See, all of which were indirect contradiction to his theories, that he felt himself obliged,reluctantly, to abandon the principle of authority in favour of theprinciple of private judgment. In truth it was the only possible wayin which he could hope to defend his novelties, and besides, it hadthe additional advantage of catering for the rising spirit ofindividualism, which was so characteristic of the age.

His second great innovation, so far as the divine constitution of theChurch was concerned, and the one which secured ultimately whateverdegree of success his revolution attained, was the theory of royalsupremacy, or the recognition of the temporal ruler as the source ofspiritual jurisdiction. But even this was more or less of an after-thought. Keen student of contemporary politics that Luther was, heperceived two great influences at work, one, patronised by thesovereigns in favour of absolute rule, the other, supported by themasses in favour of unrestricted liberty. He realised from thebeginning that it was only by combining his religious programme withone or other of these two movements that he could have any hope ofsuccess. At first, impressed by the strength of the popular party asmanifested in the net-work of secret societies then spread throughoutGermany, and by the revolutionary attitude of the landless nobles, whowere prepared to lead the peasants, he determined to raise the cry ofcivil and religious liberty, and to rouse the masses against theprinces and kings, as well as against their bishops and the Pope. Butsoon the success of the German princes in the Peasants' War made itclear to him that an alliance between the religious and the socialrevolution was fraught with dangerous consequences; and, at once, hewent to the other extreme.

The gradual weakening of the Feudal System, which acted as a checkupon the authority of the rulers, and the awakening of the nationalconsciousness, prepared the way for the policy of centralisation.France, which consisted formerly of a collection of almost independentprovinces, was welded together into one united kingdom; a similarchange took place in Spain after the union of Castile and Aragon andthe fall of the Moorish power at Granada. In England the disappearanceof the nobles in the Wars of the Roses led to the establishment of theTudor domination. As a result of this centralisation the Kings ofFrance, Spain, and England, and the sovereign princes of Germanyreceived a great increase of power, and resolved to make themselvesabsolute masters in their own dominions.

Having abandoned the unfortunate peasants who had been led toslaughter by his writings, Luther determined to make it clear that hisreligious policy was in complete harmony with the political absolutismaimed at by the temporal rulers. With this object in view he putforward the principle of royal supremacy, according to which the kingor prince was to be recognised as the head of the church in his ownterritories, and the source of all spiritual jurisdiction. By doing sohe achieved two very important results. He had at hand in themachinery of civil government the nucleus of a new ecclesiasticalorganisation, the shaping of which had been his greatest worry; and,besides, he won for his new movement the sympathy and active supportof the civil rulers, to whom the thought of becoming complete mastersof ecclesiastical patronage and of the wealth of the Church opened upthe most rosy prospects. In Germany, in England, and in the northerncountries of Europe, it was the principle of royal supremacy thatturned the scales eventually in favour of the new religion, while, atthe same time, it led to the establishment of absolutism both intheory and practice. From the recognition of the sovereign as suprememaster both in Church and State the theory of the divine rights ofkings as understood in modern times followed as a necessary corollary.There was no longer any possibility of suggesting limitations or ofcountenancing rebellion. The king, in his own territories, hadsucceeded to all the rights and privileges which, according to thedivine constitution of the Church, belonged to the Pope.

Such a development in the Protestant countries could not fail toproduce its effects even on Catholic rulers who had remained loyal tothe Church. They began to aim at combining, as far as possible, theProtestant theory of ecclesiastical government with obedience to thePope, by taking into their own hands the administration ofecclesiastical affairs, by making the bishops and clergy state-officials, and by leaving to the Pope only a primacy of honour. Thispolicy, known under the different names of Gallicanism in France, andof Febronianism and Josephism in the Empire, led of necessity toconflicts between Rome and the Catholic sovereigns of Europe,conflicts in which, unfortunately, many of the bishops, influenced bymistaken notions of loyalty and patriotism, took the side of their ownsovereigns. As a result, absolute rule was established throughoutEurope; the rights of the people to any voice in government weretrampled upon, and the rules became more despotic than the old RomanEmperors had been even in their two-fold capacity of civil ruler andhigh priest.

Meanwhile, the principle of private judgment had produced its logicaleffects. Many of Luther's followers, even in his own lifetime, hadbeen induced to reject doctrines accepted by their master, but, afterhis death, when the influence of Tradition and of authority had becomeweaker, Lutheranism was reduced to a dogmatic chaos. By theapplication of the principle of private judgment, certain leadersbegan to call in question, not merely individual doctrines, but eventhe very foundations of Christianity, and, in a short time, Atheismand Naturalism were recognised as the hall-mark of education and goodbreeding.

The civil rulers even in Catholic countries took no very active stepsto curb the activity of the anti-Christian writers and philosophers,partly because they themselves were not unaffected by the spirit ofirreligion, and partly also because they were not sorry to see popularresentment diverted from their own excesses by being directed againstthe Church. But, in a short time, they realised, when it was too late,that the overthrow of religious authority carries with it as a rulethe overthrow of civil authority also, and that the attempt to combinethe two principles of private judgment and of royal supremacy mustlead of necessity to revolution.

* * * * *

I wish to express my sincere thanks to the many friends who haveassisted me, and particularly to the Very Rev. Thomas O'Donnell, C.M.,President, All Hallows College. My special thanks are due also to theRev. Patrick O'Neill (Limerick), who relieved me of much anxiety byundertaking the difficult task of compiling the Index.

James MacCaffrey.

St. Patrick's College, Maynooth,Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

From the Renaissance to the French Revolution