CHAPTER X

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES. RELIGIOUS LIFE.

See bibliography, chap. vi. (g). Aubry, /La Methode des etudes ecclesiastiques dans nos seminaires depuis le concile de Trente/, 1900. Picot, /Essai historique sur l'influence de la religion en France/, 1824. Joly, /Les moralistes francais du XVIIe, XVIIIe, et XIXe siecles/, 1900. Andres, /Dell'origine, progressi, e stato attuale di ogni letteratura/, 1843. Backer-Sommervogel, /Bibliotheque des ecrivains de la compagnie de Jesus/, 1890-98. Feret, /La faculte de theologie de Paris. Epoque moderne/ (vii.), 1910. Quetif-Echard, /Scriptores Ord. Praedicatorum/.

The great theological revival that began with the Council of Trent,and that made itself felt in the Latin countries, died away gradually,to be followed in the eighteenth century by a period of decline.Scholars like Bellarmine, De Lugo, and Suarez had passed away withoutleaving anybody behind them worthy to take their places. Except in thefield of ecclesiastical history and of historical theology the wholetendency was downwards.

The principal causes that paved the way for this universal declinewere the spread of Gallicanism and Jansenism with the consequent wasteof energy to which these controversies led, the state of lethargyproduced by the enslavement of the Church, the withdrawal ofecclesiastical students, the suppression of the Society of Jesus, andthe rejection of the Scholastic system of philosophy in favour of thevagaries of Descartes or of the Leibniz-Wolf school in Germany.

The rise of the Rationalist school in France, threatening as it didthe very foundations of Christianity, called for the activity of a newgroup of apologists, who would do for Christianity in the eighteenthcentury what had been done for it against the pagan philosophers ofold by men like Justin Martyr and Lactantius. Unfortunately, however,though many able works were produced at the time, few if any of themcould lay claim to the literary charms or vigour of expression thatcharacterised the works of the enemies of religion. The principalapologists in France at this period were /Huet/ (d. 1721), /Sommier/(d. 1737), the Oratorian /Houteville/ (d. 1742), /Baltius, S.J./ (d.1743), /Bullet/, professor in the University of Besancon (d. 1775),/Bergier/, one of the most distinguished of Bullet's pupils (d. 1790),/Guenee/ (d. 1803), the able opponent of Voltaire, and /Feller, S.J./(d. 1802), whose /Catechisme philosophique/ and /DictionnaireHistorique/ enjoyed a widespread popularity long after the writer hadpassed away.

In dogmatic theology the leading representatives of the Thomisticschool were without doubt /Vincent Louis Gotti/ (1664-1742) and/Charles Rene Billuart/ (1685-1757). The former of these was born atBologna, entered the Dominican novitiate at an early age, was theauthor of several polemical works directed against the Lutherans andCalvinists, and was created cardinal (1728). On account of hisability, prudence, and sanctity of life he exercised a wonderfulinfluence both within and without his order in France, so much so thatin the conclave of 1740 his election to the papacy was favoured by alarge body of his colleagues. Cardinal Gotti's greatest work was hiscommentary on St. Thomas, entitled /Theologia Scholastico-Dogmaticaiuxta mentem D. Thomae/ (1727-1735). /Billuart/ was born at Ardennesin Belgium, and on the completion of his classical studies he became anovice in the Dominican convent at Lille. For the years during whichhe held several positions in Dominican houses in Belgium his abilitiesas a writer, professor, and preacher, attracted so much attention thaton the petition of Billuart's colleagues at Douay, the general of theorder decided to entrust him with the work of preparing an exhaustiveand authoritative commentary on the /Summa/ of Saint Thomas. Afterfive years hard work the edition was completed and was published atLiege in nineteen volumes[1] (1746-51). A compendium was issued in1754.

The best known and ablest exponent of the theological system of DunsScotus was /Claude Frassen/ (1621-1711). He was born at Peronne,joined the Franciscans, and was sent to Paris, where he taughttheology for years. His great work is his /Scotus Academicus/, acommentary or explanation of the theological system of Duns Scotus.Both on account of its faithful exposition of the views of Scotus andof the excellent method and style in which it is composed this workenjoyed and enjoys a considerable reputation.[2] Of the theologians ofthe Augustinian school the two best known were /Lorenzo Berti/ (1696-1766) whose /De Theologies Disciplinis/ (1739-45) led to an imputationof Jansenism, from which the author was cleared by the verdict ofBenedict XIV., and /Cardinal Norris/ (1631-1704) for a long timeprofessor of ecclesiastical history at the University of Padua,against whose books, /Historia Pelagiana/ and /Vindiciae Augustanae/,a prohibition was levelled by the Spanish Inquisition, but reversed onappeal to Benedict XIV.

The endless controversies to which Jansenism gave rise had lowered thereputation of the Sorbonne. The greatest representative of this centreof theological learning at this period was /Honore Tournely/, thesteadfast opponent of Jansenism, whose /Praelectiones Theologicae/(1738-40) was regarded as one of the most important works of the time.In the defence of the Holy See against the attacks of Febronius thegreatest writers were /Zaccaria/ (1714-95) who wrote voluminously ontheology, ecclesiastical history and canon law; /Alfonso Muzzarelli/(1749-1813), the Dominican, /Cardinal Orsi/ (1693-1761), and /CardinalGerdil/ (1718-1802), whose election to the papacy on the death of PiusVI. was vetoed by the Emperor. The /Theologia Wirceburgenis/ publishedby the Jesuits of Wurzburg (1766-71) contained a complete and masterlysummary of the entire theological course.

Though Billuart and many of his contemporaries, following in thefootsteps of St. Thomas, dealt with both dogmatic and moral theology,the tendency to treat the latter as a distinct department and to givemore attention to what may be termed the casuistical side of moraltheology became more marked. To a certain extent, at least in manualsintended for the use of the clergy, such a method was renderednecessary by the frequent and more comprehensive character of theconfessions. Yet it furnished some apparent justification for theonslaughts of the Jansenists, who thought that they detected in thenew method a degradation of theology, a divorce between religion andcasuistry, and a return to the unholy hair-splitting of the Pharisees.

Closely allied with the opposition to the new method adopted by themoral theologians was the controversy on Probabilism, that divided theschools during the greater part of the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies. In the practical solution of doubtful obligationsProbabilism had been applied for centuries, but it was only towardsthe end of the sixteenth century that the principle was formulateddefinitely by the Dominican, De Medina. It was accepted immediately bya great body of the Jesuits, as well as by nearly all writers on moraltheology. The Jansenists, however, in their eagerness to damage thereputation of their Jesuit opponents charged them with havingintroduced this novel and lax system of morals with the object ofcatering for the depraved tastes of their degenerate clients, and thischarge when presented in a popular and telling style by theiropponents created a distinctly unfavourable impression against theSociety. The condemnation of Probabilism by the University of Louvain(1655) and the outcry raised against it by the Rigorist party led mostof the religious orders and the secular clergy to abandon the system.Two incidents that took place shortly afterwards helped to strengthenthe anti-Probabilist party. One of these was the condemnation by theHoly See of certain very lax principles put forward by sometheologians who labelled themselves Probabilists (1679), and the otherwas the decision given by Innocent XI.[3] in the case of the defenceof Probabiliorism written by Thyrsus Gonzalez (1624-1705) afterwardsgeneral of the Jesuits. His superiors refused him permission topublish his work, and on appeal to the Pope this prohibition wasremoved (1680). But though the Pope certainly favoured Probabiliorismit is not clear that his decision gave any practical sanction to thisopinion. Rigorism was dealt a severe blow by the condemnation issuedby Alexander VIII. (1690), and in the end the influence and writingsof St. Alphonsus put an end to both extremes.

Amongst the great theologians of the time were the Jesuit /Lacroix/(1652-1714), /Paul Gabriel Antoine, S.J./ (1679-1743) professor at theJesuit College of Pont-a-Mousson, /Billuart/ (1685-1757), /EusebiusAmort/ (1692-1775), and the /Salmanticenses/, the Jesuit authors ofthe series on moral theology begun in Salamanca in 1665. But by farthe most remarkable writer on moral theology during the eighteenthcentury was /Saint Alphonsus de' Liguori/[4] (1697-1787), the founderof the Redemptorists. A saint, a scholar, and a practical missionary,with a long and varied experience in the care of souls, he understoodbetter than most of his contemporaries how to hold the scales fairlybetween laxity and rigorism. Though his views were attacked severelyenough in his own time they found favour with the great body oftheologians and the approbation given to them by the Church helped toput an end to the rigorist opinions, that remained even after theirJansenistic origin had been forgotten.

The spread of indifferentist or rationalist theories could not fail toweaken the reverence that had been inculcated by the early Reformersfor the Bible as the sole source of God's revelation to men. Actingupon Luther's principle of private judgment others, regardless oftheir inspiration and infallibility, undertook to subject theScriptures to the authority of human reason. Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), one of the founders of the Socinian sect, insisted thateverything in the Scriptures that seems opposed to reason could nothave come from God and should be eliminated. For some time whilereligious fervour was at its height both Lutherans and Calvinists heldfast by their religious formularies and refused to accept thescriptural views of Socinus. But once dogmatic religion had beenassailed by the new philosophico-rationalist school in England,Germany, and France the way was prepared for the acceptance of moreliberal views. On the one hand, many of the extreme opponents ofChristianity set themselves to point out the errors of the Bible, as aproof that it could not have come from God, while, on the other, manyof the Protestant scholars, who still held by a divine Christianrevelation, endeavoured to eliminate from it the supernatural withoutrejecting openly the authority of the Scriptures.

It was with this design that Jacob Semler (1725-91) formulated theAccommodation Theory, according to which Christ and His Apostlesaccommodated their actions and their language to the erroneous notionsprevalent among the Jews in their time, and for this reason all thatbordered upon the mysterious should be regarded merely as a surrenderto contemporary superstition. Another method of arriving at a similarconclusion was adopted by Kant, who maintained that the Bible waswritten only to inculcate morality and to strengthen man's moralsense, and that all that is recorded in it must be interpreted byreason in the light of the object which its authors had in view.

With such liberal theories about the authority and inspiration of theScriptures in the air it was almost impossible that the Catholicexegetists could escape the contagion. One of the ablest Catholicwriters at the time, the French Oratorian /Richard Simon/ (1638-1712),was accused by his contemporaries of having approached too closely tothe rationalist system in his scriptural theories. He was a man well-versed in the Oriental languages and well able to appreciate theliterary and historical difficulties that might be urged against theinspiration and inerrancy of the Old Testament. He maintained that theBible was a literary production, and that, as such it should beinterpreted according to the ideas and methods of compositionprevalent in the country or at the time in which the various bookswere written. His views were contained in his /Histoire Critique deVieux Testament/ (1678) and his /Histoire Critique de Texte du NouveauTestament/ (1689), both of which, though undoubtedly able works thathave considerably influenced scriptural study amongst Catholics sincethat time, were severely criticised, and were condemned by theCongregation of the Index.

Another French Oratorian of the period, /Bernard Lamy/ (1640-1715),dealt with the introduction to the Scriptures in his two books/Apparatus ad Biblia Sacra/ (1687) and /Apparatus Biblicus/ (1696). Asa professor of philosophy Lamy had stirred up already a strongopposition owing to his evident leanings towards Cartesianism, nor washe less unhappy in his scriptural studies. He questioned thehistorical character of the narrations contained in the books ofTobias and Judith, and contended that notwithstanding the decrees ofthe Council of Trent less authority should be attributed to theDeutero-Canonical than to the Proto-Canonical books of the Bible.

Amongst the leading scriptural commentators were /Le Maistre de Saci/(d. 1684), a Jansenist, who published translations of the Old and theNew Testament, the latter of which was put upon the Index; /Piconio/(Henri Bernardine de Picquigny, 1633-1709) a Capuchin whose /TriplexExposito in Sacrosancta D.N. Jesu Christi Evangelia/ (1726), has notbeen surpassed till the present day; /Louis de Carrieres/ (1622-1717),whose /La Sainte Bible en Francais avec un commentaire litteral/founded on De Saci's translation was recognised as one of the simplestand best commentaries on the Scriptures; /Charles Francois Houbigant/(1686-1783), also an Oratorian, who published an edition of the HebrewBible and the Greek text of the Deutero-Canonical books together witha Prolegomena, and /Dom Calmet/ (1672-1757), a Benedictine, whopublished in twenty-three volumes a commentary on the Old and NewTestament accompanied by an introduction to the various books (1707-1716).

In no department of theological science were greater advances madeduring the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries than in that ofecclesiastical history and historical theology. This was due largelyto the labours and example of the Benedictines of St. Maur. Men like/Luc d'Achery/ (1609-1685), /Stephen Baluze/ (1630-1718), /JeanMabillon/ (1632-1704), /Edmond Martene/ (1654-1739), /Ruinart/ (1657-1709), /Muratori/ (1672-1750), /Bouquet/ (1685-1754), /Jean Hardouin,S.J./ (1646-1729), /Domenico Mansi/ (1692-1769), and the OrientalistsJoseph /Simeon Assemani/ (1687-1768) and his brother /Joseph Aloysius/(1710-82) laid the foundations of modern historical research, by theirpublication of correct editions of the Early and Middle Age writersand of the decrees of the various general, national, and provincialcouncils, as well as by the example which they set in their ownscholarly dissertations of how historical materials should be used. Inaddition to the publication of collections of original sources, workslike the /Gallia Christiana/, begun in 1715 by the Benedictines of St.Maur and continued by them till the Revolution, /Espana Sagrada/ begunby the Augustinian Enrique Florez in 1747, and the /Italia Sacra/(1643-1662) of Ferdinand Ughelli contained a veritable mine ofinformation for future historians. Of the historical writers of thisperiod the ablest were /Louis Sebastien Le Nain de Tillemont/ (1637-1689), the author of the /Histoire des Empereurs pendant les sixpremiers Siecles/ and /Memoires pour servir a l'histoire eccl. des sixpremiers siecles/ (1693); /Claude Fleury/ (1640-1725) whose greatwork, /Histoire Ecclesiastique/ (dealing with the period from theAscension till the Council of Constance, 1414) is marred only by theGallican tendencies of its author, and /Natalis Alexander/ (NoelAlexandre, 1639-1724), a French Dominican who published an exceedinglyvaluable Church History under the title /Selecta Historiae Eccl.Capita/, etc., but which was condemned by Innocent XI. (1684) onaccount of the markedly Gallican bias under which it was composed.

Amongst some of the most noted authorities on Canon Law during theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries were /Benedict XIV./ (1675-1758)many of whose treatises are regarded as standard works till thepresent day; /Pirhing/ (1606-1679), a Jesuit, professor at Dillingenand Ingolstadt and well known as a theologian and canonist;/Reiffenstuel/ (1641-1703), a Bavarian Franciscan for some timeprofessor at Freising, the author of several theological works, andunequalled as a Canonist in his own day; /Van Espen/ (1649-1728)professor at Louvain, a strong supporter of Gallicanism and Jansenism,whose great work /Jus Canonicum Universum/ is marred by the pro-Gallican proclivities of its author; /Schmalzgrueber/ (1663-1735), aBavarian Jesuit, professor of Canon Law at Dillingen and Ingolstadt,who in addition to treatises on such subjects as Trials, Espousals,Matrimony, and the Regular and Secular Clergy, published a workcovering the entire Canon Law (/Jus Eccl. Universum/), and the Italian/Lucius Ferraris/ (d. 1763), whose /Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica/ wentthrough several editions in the author's own lifetime and has beenrepublished more than once since his death (latest edition 1899).

In the department of sacred oratory the palm must undoubtedly beawarded to the French Church. /Jacques-Benigne Bossuet/[5] (1627-1704), in many senses the greatest of the French preachers, was theson of a lawyer at Dijon. Even in his early youth he was remarkablefor his mastery of the Bible and classical authors. He studied at theUniversity of Paris, and after remaining two years under the spiritualeducation of St. Vincent de Paul was ordained a priest in 1662. Hereturned to Metz, in the cathedral of which he held a canonry, andwhere his abilities as a preacher and a controversialist soonattracted attention. He was appointed preceptor to the Dauphin ofFrance, an office which he held from 1670 to 1681, when he wasconsecrated Bishop of Meaux. As bishop he took part in the Assembly ofthe French Clergy (1681-82) and, though himself not such an extremedefender of Gallicanism as many of his contemporaries, he is creditedgenerally with having been the author of the famous Declaration of theClergy, known as the Articles of the Gallican Church. At theinvitation of Louis XIV. he composed a treatise in defence of thesearticles, /Defensio Declarationis/, etc., published after his death(1730). As an orator Bossuet was far ahead of the preachers of histime, and as a writer and controversialist he had few equals. Hisuntiring energy and ability are vouched for by the number of ableworks that proceeded from his pen. Of these the most instructive andbest known are the /Discours sur l'histoire Universelle/ (1681), andthe /Histoire des Variations des Eglises Protestantes/ (1688-89). Hiswant of firmness, however, in his relations with the court, leadinghim as it did to show a sympathy which he could not have felt in hisheart towards Gallicanism, his failure to move a finger to stay theravages of Jansenism, his want of zeal for the spiritual care of hisdiocese, in marked contrast with the energy which he displayed whenseeking to score a personal triumph over Fenelon and other less knownadversaries, cannot be forgotten by any one who wishes to arrive at animpartial estimate of Bossuet's character.

/Fenelon/[6] (1651-1715), the great contemporary and rival of Bossuet,was sent as a youth for his education to the Universities of Cahorsand Paris. Later on he returned to the seminary of Saint Sulpice thenpresided over by M. Tronson the superior of the Sulpicians, to whosewise and prudent counsels the future Archbishop of Cambrai was deeplyindebted. After the revocation of the Edict of Nantes he was sent topreach to the Huguenots, upon whom his kindness and humility made amuch more lasting impression than the violence resorted to by some ofthe officials of Louis XIV. Later on he was appointed preceptor to theDuke of Burgundy, grandson of Louis XIV., for whose education hecomposed the /Fables, Telemaque/, etc., and on the completion of hiswork as tutor he was nominated Archbishop of Cambrai (1695). Hardlyhad he received this honour than he was involved in a controversy onQuietism, which controversy cost him the friendship of Bossuet and thepatronage of Louis XIV., by whom he was banished from the Frenchcourt. But Fenelon found much at Cambrai to console him for what hehad lost in Paris. In every sense of the word he proved himself amodel bishop, visiting his parishes regularly, preaching in hiscathedral and throughout his diocese, and always affable to those whocame in contact with him whether they were rich or poor. UnlikeBossuet he never feared to speak out boldly against Jansenism andGallicanism. As a preacher and a master of French literary style hewas inferior to Bossuet, but as a man and as a bishop he wasincomparably his superior. In addition to his works on literary andpolitical questions he wrote voluminously on theology, philosophy, andthe spiritual life.

The opposition to Scholasticism, that manifested itself in thewritings and teaching of so many Humanists, grew more accentuated inthe universities, especially after the establishment of ecclesiasticalseminaries had led to the withdrawal from the universities of a greatbody of the clerical students. For centuries philosophy and theologyhad gone hand in hand, the former supplying the rational basis for theacceptance of revelation, the latter providing the necessary restraintupon the vagaries of human thought. The principal of individualjudgment, proclaimed by the early Reformers and received soenthusiastically by their followers, had as its logical consequence anexaggeration of the powers of the human mind at the expense ofauthority, with the result that scepticism, atheism, and materialism,found favour in learned circles.

In face of such evident proofs of the limitations of the human mind,and with the object of preserving in one way or another the ChristianRevelation, a reaction against the supposed infallibility of reasonset in both amongst Protestant and Catholic scholars. Catholicphilosophers were inclined to distrust reason entirely, and to relysolely on divine authority as a guarantee of truth. In other wordsthey accepted Traditionalism, while Protestants, equally suspicious ofreason, proclaimed that in judging the value of revelation the humanwill and sentiment must be heeded as well as the intellect, that is tosay they accepted Sentimentalism.

The attempt to replace Scholasticism by some new philosophic systemgave rise to various schools of thought, most of which can be tracedback ultimately to Bacon and Descartes, the former a partisan of theinductive, the latter of the deductive method. /Rene Descartes/[7](1596-1649) was born at Touraine, and received his early educationwith the Jesuits. In his desire to see the world for himself he tookservice as a soldier in the army of Prince Maurice of Nassau, andlater on in that of the Elector of Bavaria. He retired from activelife to give himself up to the study of mathematics and philosophy. Atfirst he found a quiet retreat in Holland, from which he migrated toStockholm at the invitation of Queen Christina. Here after a fewmonths' residence he died. Throughout his life Descartes remained asincere and practical Catholic. Putting aside Revelation, with whichhe did not profess to deal, Descartes, by an application of hisprinciple of methodic doubt, arrived at the conclusion that thefoundation of all certainty lay in the proposition /Cogito ergo sum/(I think, therefore I exist). From an examination of his own ideas ofa most perfect being he arrived at the conclusion that God exists, andfrom the existence of a good and wise supreme Being who has given menreason, sense, and perception in order to acquire knowledge, he arguedthat these faculties cannot lead men into error, and that consequentlythe veracity of God was the ultimate basis of certitude.

The theories of Descartes were pushed to their logical conclusion bythose who succeeded him. /Blaise Pascal/[8] (1623-1662) was influencedlargely by the false mysticism of the Middle Ages. He distrustedreason and exalted faith, as the only means of answering thedifficulties that pure intellectualism could not solve. /ArnoldGeulincx/ (1625-1669) at first a Catholic and afterwards a Calvinist,arguing from the antithesis supposed by Descartes to exist betweenmind and matter, maintained that since matter was inert it could notproduce the sensations and volitions which men experienced, and thattherefore these must be caused by God. In other words he propoundedthe theory of Occasionalism. This doctrine of Occasionalism asfurnishing an explanation of sensations was extended by Malebranche[9](1638-1715), a student of the Sorbonne, so as to explain the origin ofhuman ideas. These he maintained could not come from outside, becausethere can be no contact between mind and matter; they could not comefrom the mind itself, because creation is an attribute only of theinfinite being, and therefore they must come from God. Hence,according to him, it is in God or in the divine essence that we seeall things (Ontologism). If all activity and all knowledge comedirectly from God, it was only natural to conclude, as did /Spinoza/(1632-77), that there exists only one substance endowed with the twoattributes of thought and extension (Monism, Pantheism).[10]

From this brief sketch it will be seen that the rejection of theScholastic System and the divorce between theology and philosophy ledto dogmatic chaos, and ultimately to the rejection of divinerevelation. By his attacks on the old proofs given for the existenceof God and the motives of credibility, by the emphasis which he placedupon methodic doubt as the only safe way to certainty, and by thesuspicions raised by him against the reliability of human reason,Descartes unwittingly paved the way for scepticism and atheism. Thoughhis system was condemned by Rome and forbidden more than once by LouisXIV. it was taken up by the Oratorians and by most of the leadingscholars in France.

The spirit of the eighteenth century was distinctly unfavourable tothe religious orders. The Rationalists, the Freemasons, and thefriends of absolutism joined hands in opposing the foundation of newestablishments and in securing the suppression of the houses that hadalready been founded. In Austria, in Naples, in Spain, and in France aviolent campaign was carried on to bring about the dissolution ofseveral of the religious orders and congregations, or at least to soalter their rules and constitutions that they should be cut adriftfrom Rome and subject to the authority of the secular rulers. Duringthe campaign many houses were suppressed in Austria and in the otherterritories of the empire, but by far the greatest victory of whichits authors could boast was the suppression of the Society of Jesus.

Yet in spite of the enemies of the Church the religious orders heldtheir ground, and apostolic men arose to lay the foundations of newbodies, that were destined to take a glorious part in the religiousrevival of the nineteenth century. One of the most remarkable of thesewas St. Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori[11] (1696-1787). He was born nearNaples, adopted at first the profession of a lawyer, but he soonforsook the bar to give himself entirely to God, and was ordained apriest in 1726. In 1732 he laid the foundation of a new religioussociety, the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, which wasapproved by Benedict XIV. in 1749. After having refused varioushonours he was compelled to accept the Bishopric of St. Agatha (1762)from which he retired in 1775 to devote himself to prayer, and to thecomposition of those spiritual treatises that have given him such aleading place not merely as a moral theologian but as a master in theascetic life. In 1744 he issued his Notes on Busenbaum's MoralTheology, which notes formed the basis of his /Theologia Moralis/published in 1753-55, and which went through nine editions during hisown life-time. He was declared Venerable (1796), canonised (1839), andrecognised as a Doctor of the Church (1871).

The Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (The Redemptorists) wasfounded by St. Alphonsus at Scala, near Amalfi, in the kingdom ofNaples (1732), and was approved in 1749. The aim of its members was toimitate the virtues and example of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, byconsecrating themselves especially to preaching the word of God to thepoor. The opposition of the Neapolitan prime minister, Tanucci, was asource of great trouble to the holy founder. On the fall of TanucciSt. Alphonsus thought that a favourable opportunity had come forsecuring the approval of the government, but he was betrayed by hisfriends into accepting a modification of the constitution, the/Regolamento/ (1779-80), which led to a separation between theRedemptorist houses in Naples and those situated in the Papal States.The dispute was, however, healed in 1793. The Society spread rapidlyin Italy, in Germany, where its interests were safeguarded by FatherHofbauer, and during the nineteenth century houses were established inevery country in Europe, in America and in Australia.

The Passionists[12] (The Congregation of Discalced Clerics of the MostHoly Cross and Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ) were founded by St.Paul of the Cross (1694-1775). The latter was born at Ovada nearGenoa, was ordained by Pope Benedict XIII. (1727) who at the same timegave his approval of the rules drawn up for the new society, foundedhis first house at Argentaro, and thereby laid the foundation of theCongregation of the Passionists. The new society received the formalsanction and approval of Clement XIV. (1769) and of Pius VI. (1775).Before the death of the founder several houses had been established inItaly, all of which were suppressed during the disturbances thatfollowed in the wake of the French Revolution. The congregation was,however, re-constituted by Pius VII. (1814), and spread rapidly inEurope, in the United States, and in South America. The first house ofthe Passionists in England was established by the celebrated FatherDominic at Aston Hall in Staffordshire (1842), and the first house inIreland was opened at Mount Argus in 1856. ----------

[1] /Summa S. Thomas hodiernis Academiarum moribus accomodata/.

[2] New edition, 10 vols., 1902-5.

[3] Denzinger, op. cit., no. 1219.

[4] Berthe-Castle, /Life of St. Alphonsus de' Liguori/, 1905.

[5] Bausset, /Histoire de Bossuet/, 4 vols., 1814. Jovy, /Etudes et recherches sur Jacques-Benigne Bossuet/, etc., 1903.

[6] Bausset, /Histoire de Fenelon/, 1809. De Broglie, /Episcopat de Fenelon/, 1884.

[7] Bouillier, /Histoire de la philosophie cartesienne/, 2 vols., 1868. Haldane, /Descartes, His Life and Times/, 1906.

[8] Giraud, /Pascal, l'homme, l'oeuvre, l'influence/, 1905. Janssens, /La philosophie et l'apologetique de Pascal/, 1896.

[9] Andre, /Vie du R. P. Malebranche/, 1886. Olle-Laprune, /La philosophie de Malebranche/, 2 vols., 1870.

[10] Ferriere, /La doctrine de Spinoza exposee et commentee/, 1899.

[11] Berthe-Castle, /Life of St. Alphonsus de' Liguori/, 2 vols., 1905.

[12] Pius a Spiritu Sancto, /The Life of St. Paul of the Cross/, 1868.

HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION