F. X. von (Franz Xaver) Funk.

A manual of church history (Volume 2) online

. (page 4 of 34)
Online LibraryF. X. von (Franz Xaver) FunkA manual of church history (Volume 2) → online text (page 4 of 34)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Her second marriage with the duke of Bisceglia ended tragically
by his murder at the hand of Caesar Borgia (1500) ; as for her
first marriage with Giovanni Sforza of Pesaro, it was considerately
annulled by the Pope, the same being done for two previous
espousals. For the sake of Juan, whom Ferdinand the Catholic
had appointed duke of Gandia, a number of towns were united
to form a new dukedom of Benevento (1497) ; Juan was, however,
murdered five weeks later. If the deed was not the outcome
of some love adventure, then suspicion must rest on the Orsini.
Some months after the murder, and especially after the assassina-
tion of his brother-in-law in 1500, the crime came to be attributed
to Caesar. The material at our disposal, however, furnishes no
proof against him, though at the same time it does not exclude
the possibility of his having been implicated in the business.
Pastor, III, 375-88 (Engl. Trans. V. pp. 493 ff.) ; Hist. J. 1900,
pp. 1-21.

Pius III, formerly cardinal Piccolomini,i reigned only
twenty-six days, and was succeeded by Giuliano della Rovere

' ArcMvio Stor. Ilal. 1903, III. pp. 102-38,

Last of the MedicBval Popes 2g

as Julius II (1503-13). Like Alexander, he was wholly given
up to politics, though the object of his ambitions was not the
enriching of his family, so much as the promotion of the arts
and the strengthening of the papacy by the restoration and
aggrandisement of the Papal States, which during the last
few decades had been sadly i educed. Perugia and Bologna
he easily recovered, and by entering the League of Cambrai
he also succeeded in obtaining back the Romagna which had
been in the occupation of Venice (1509). Having achieved his
end, the Pope assumed the immediate government of the
Papal States, now in a stronger position than ever. In spite
of these successes, the sword was never sheathed. The wish
to expel the French from northern Italy drew Julius into new
undertakings in which he encountered resistance even from
the French bishops. The French National Council of Tours
in 1510 discussed the measures to be adopted against him in
certain eventuahties, and a Council summoned by a few
refractory cardinals to meet at Pisa, in the autumn, 15 11 —
later on removed to Milan, and then after the departure of the
French from Italy transferred to Lyons (15 12) — even pro-
nounced the Pope's suspension as a ' new Goliath.' Julius was,
however, not to be foiled, and to deprive his opponents of
the pretext that had been afforded them by the non-fulfilment
of the promise made at his election, viz. to summon within two
years a General Council for the reform of the Church, he
opened in the spring, 1512, a Council in the Lateran.^ He
thereby deprived his enemies of their main grievance, though
the question of reform was scarcely mooted at the assembly.

Leo X (1513-21),- a son of Lorenzo de' Medici, lived to
see the end of the schism. Lewis XII, by coming to an under-
standing with the Pope in 15 13, cut the ground from under
the feet of the opposition Council of which the existence
depended on the good-will of the king of France. His suc-
cessor, Francis I, was even persuaded to renounce (1516)
the Pragmatic Sanction agreed to at Bourges in 1438, by which
certain restrictions had been placed on the exercise of the papal

' GuGhiA, Studten zur Gesck. d. V Laterankonzils, 1S99-1906 [SB. Wien) ;
MICE. 1900, pp. 679-91 (for the debate on the Turlvish question at the
Fifth Lateran Council).

- Mg. by KoscoE, 1805 ; Audin, 1S45 ; Nitti, 1892 ; Z.f. d. G. 1893-94 ;
A. ScHULTE, K. Maximilian als Kandidat filr den pdpstl. Stuhl (15 11), 1906,

30 A Manual of Church History

power in France. As for the pressing reforms of the Church,
they received scant regard. The Lateran Council, though
it sat for five years, did practically nothing. Leo himself
was more interested in art and learning, in the government
of the Papal States, and in the promotion of his family, on
which he bestowed the duchy of Urbino as a papal fief (1516),
than in religion. ' Let us enjoy the papacy, since it has
pleased God to bestow it on us,' he is reported to have remarked
to his brother Giuliano on his election, and these words, even
if they be not truly authentic, certainly describe his general
habits and inclinations. Similar feelings were shared by most
of the cardinals, and a lurid light is thrown on the then state
of the Church by the conspiracy of Petrucci and other cardinals
against the Pope's life (1517). At any rate, Leo, however
worldly-minded, was not immoral.

The Lateran Council (1512-17), as may be seen from a comparison
of its results with those of the Council of Trent, made no seriousj
attempt at reforming the Church. The Council was also very
meagrely attended, there being usually present only about one
hundred prelates, mostly Italians. In spite of this it is commonly
reckoned an oecumenical Council, being assigned the fifth place
among the Councils of the Lateran.



§ 142

John Wiclifi

The need of ecclesiastical reform which — as we have seen from
the previous chapter, and shall have occasion to see again
(§ 158) — was so sorely felt, and yet so Httle heeded by those
in power, incited certain private individuals to undertake
reforms on their own account, their unenlightened zeal some-
times causing them to outstep due bounds. Of these the
first and most noteworthy was the Englishman John Wiclif
(1320/30-84). Seeing how the Church had been spoiled by
the possession of wealth, he put forth doctrines concerning
property and the royal supremacy which threatened the
independence of the Church in the administration of her
temporalities. His view was that the Church should be poor
as in the time of the Apostles, that the possession of property
was her ruin, and that it would be better for the State to under-
take the support of the clergy. He was especially adverse to
property being held by monks, and as his keenest opponents
were found in the ranks of the Regulars, it was not long before
he began to attack monasticism as an institution. On the
outbreak of the Great Schism (1378) he assailed not only the
anti-Pope, but also Urban VI, and the papacy itself. It was
probably at this time, if not before, that he put forth his
thesis that papal or episcopal excommunication can do no
harm to him whom God Himself does not excommunicate,

1 Mg. by Lechler, 2 vol. 1873 (Engl. Trans. 1878); R. Buddensieg, 1885 ;
H. FijRSTENAU (on Wiclif s doctrine regarding the division of the Church and
the position of the secular power), 1900 ; Z.f. KG. XVII, 282 ff. ; SB. Wten,
1897, vol. 136.

32 A Manual of Church History

and that such measures arc no hindrance to preaching and
hearing the Word of God. By preference he spoke of the
Church as the company of the predestined, a definition which,
driven to its consequences, made the vahdity of the sacraments
and the legitimacy of any ecclesiastical office depend on
predestination, or, in other words, on a state of grace. He
himself, however, never drew this inference from his premises ;
on the contrary, he repeatedly acknowledged the saving-
power of the sacraments whenever they are rightly adminis-
tered. He held Scripture to be the unconditional and highest
authority, and, to put it within the ken of all, he procured its
translation into English, doing a part of the work himself.
As opposed to Transubstantiation he taught the remainder-
theory, according to which the Bread and Wine remain essenti-
ally present even after consecration. Auricular confession he
held to be a late invention, and celibacy he denounced as
immoral and pernicious. He also opposed the honouring of the
saints, of relics and pictures, the practice of making pilgrimages
and offering masses for the dead, and, lastly, the doctrine
of purgatory.

His proceedings were early the object of inquiries (1377-78),
but with no result, as WicHf was under high protection. This
reason probably also accounts for his never having been
submitted to any persecution for his views. Several (24) of
his theses were condemned by the ' Earthquake Council '
of London in 1382, though his name was not mentioned in
connection with them. He himself spent the closing days of
his life at his vicarage of Lutterworth, devoting himself to
literary work, especially to the composition of his Trialogus.
Subsequently to the Council of London, his friends at the
University of Oxford were compelled to renounce his doctrine,
though this measure was not effective in stamping it out.
The preachers whom he had sent forth, the so-called Lollards
(from Lolium, tares, i.e. sowers of tares), continued their
labours after the master's demise, and though his teaching was
soon to be forcibly driven out of England, it was favourably
received in certain parts of the continent.

The number of Wiclif's writings is considerable (Cp. Lechler,
II' 553-73)- Their publication has been undertaken onl\^ of recent
years, chiefly with the help of the Wiclif Society. To the works

Hus and the Husites 33

mentioned by J. Loserth, Gesch. des spdteren MA.{ 1 197-1492),
1903, pp. 390 ff., others must be added, amongst them being De
veritate S. Scripturae (ed. Buddensieg, 3 vol. 1904).

Hus and the Husites ^

In the latter half of the fourteenth century, the crimes being
committed in the Church were denounced by several of the
Bohemian clergy, among them by Conrad of Waldhausen
(11369), Milicz of Kremsier (f 1374), and Matthias of Janov
(f 1394). Later on these men were followed by John Hus, a
University professor and preacher at the Bethlehem chapel
in Prague (1402). Whereas, however, his predecessors, with all
their zeal for reform, had never strayed from the path of
orthodoxy, he preferred to adopt, almost in their entirety, the
tenets of Wiclif, whose works — owing to the intercourse
between the Universities of Oxford and Prague, which had been
increased by the marriage of Richard II with Anna of Luxem-
burg, a sister of king Wenzel — had early found their way into
Bohemia. The only point of difference was that Hus held
fast to the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Naturally enough, opposition was not wanting to Wicliiism
in its new home. The University of Prague censured a series
of Wiclifite theses (1403), among them being those already
condemned by the Earthquake Council. But the admirers
of the new doctrine were not to be discouraged, and, belonging
as they mostly did to the Bohemian nation, they profited by
the action of king Wenzel, who reversed, to the disadvantage
of the Germans, the old proportion of three to one in the votes at
convocation, thus driving away the Germans from the Univer-
sity (1409). Nor was a stop put to the movement by the

' /. Hus 0pp. edd. Flasjhans & Kominkova, 1903 ff. ; C. Krofta,
Acta Urhani VI et Bonifatii IX, I, 1903 [Monum. Vatic, res Bohemicas illus-
trantia, t. V) ; Palacky, Gesch. v. Bohmen, vol. III. 1S45; Hofler, Geschicht-
schreiber der hus. Bewegung, 3 vol. 1856-66 (Pontes rer. Austr. II, VI-VII) ;
Mag. Joh. Hus, 1864; H. R. Workman, The Dawn of the Reformation, II:
The Age of Hus, 1902 ; Hefele, CG. vol. VII ; Loserth, Hus u. Wiclif,
1884 (Engl. Trans. Wiclif and Hus, 1SS4); A. f. ost. Gesch. 82 (1895), 327-417
(on the spread of Wiclifism in Bohemia and Moravia, 1410-19); Tomek, /.
Ziska, 1882; MICE. 1900, pp. 445-57 (on the trial at Vienna of Jerome of
Prague, 1410-12).

34 ^ Manual of Church History

burning of a number of Wiclifite works and by all preaching
being forbidden save in the parish churches (1410), nor even
when excommunication was launched against Hus (141 1) and
interdict threatened on every locality which should afford him
shelter (1412). On the contrary, the indulgences granted by
John XXIII, on the occasion of the promulgation of a crusade
against king Ladislaus of Naples, gave Hus and his friends
new grounds for complaint. They denounced the indulgences,
and the papal Bull was burnt by a mob led by the knight
Waldstein. These doings induced a few, such as Stanislaus of
Znaim and Stephen of Palecz, to withdraw from Hus's circle,
Hus himself, who in the meantime had appealed against the
Pope to a General Council, and to Christ the highest judge,
was obliged to quit Prague, as the clergy, on account of the
interdict, refused to hold Divine service. He was, however,
harboured by friendly noblemen, on whose estates he wrote
his De ecclesia, a work similar to Wiclif's hke-named book.
His party gained the upper hand when Wenzel, resenting the
manner in which his overtures had been rejected, took the
course of banishing Stanislaus, Palecz, and Hus's other oppon-
ents, and gave the Czechs equal votes with the Germans in the
government of the city of Prague,

On the assembling of the Council of Constance, attempts
were again made to bring the trouble to an end ; the emperor
Sigismund, being heir to the crown of Bohemia, was especially
desirous of securing peace. Hus was accordingly invited to
attend personally at Constance to clear himself and his nation
of the ill-repute which he had earned for it. Hus accepted
the call, but any hope he may have cherished of being excul-
pated was certainly not fulfilled. Several theses extracted
from his works were submitted to him as erroneous, and finally
thirty of them were solemnly anathematised. As he refused
to recant when called upon to do so, he was condemned as a
heretic and burnt (July 6, 1415) . Eleven months later (May 30,
1416) a like fate overtook his friend Jerome of Prague.

The originator of the trouble had now been removed,
but the trouble itself was by no means at an end. The news
of Hus's execution caused a great outcry in Bohemia, and for
a time the Church was in grave danger. Most of the clergy
who were unfavourably disposed to Hus were driven away.

Hits and the Husites 35

and even the archbishop of Prague had to fly for his hfe.
The queen openly espoused the cause of Hus, who had been
her confessor, and nearly the whole of the Bohemian and
Moravian nobility was represented in the letter dispatched to
Constance, in which Hus was praised as a virtuous and orthodox
man, and in which the talk of a Bohemian heresy was roundly
denounced as a monstrous lie and invention of Hell. Simul-
taneously a league was formed for the defence of the freedom
of the pulpit, to oppose unjust excommunication, &c., and
the presenting of the chalice to the laity — a practice which
until then had been indulged in only by Jacob of Mies (known
as Jacobellus) and a few other priests — was now adopted
generally as a symbol of the Husite union. In the meantime,
Wenzel, though he did not favour the movement, did practi-
cally nothing to hinder it, whilst the Catholic league, formed
to withstand the pretensions of the Husites, was too small
and insignificant to be of any service. For several years
the Husites remained in almost undisputed possession. When,
at last, more energetic measures were resolved on, and
the expelled priests were restored to their positions (1419), the
Husites still continued to hold their ground. Led by the
knights Nicholas of Pistna and John Ziska, they claimed
fuller rights, and on their demand for the release of certain
prisoners being refused, they stormed the council-house of
Prague-Neustadt, seven councillors finding their death in
the tumult. When, soon after, Sigismund inherited the
crown of his brother Wenzel, the Husites refused to acknow-
ledge him. Crusading armies dispatched against them (1420-21)
returned home defeated, and the Bohemians themselves,
assuming the offensive (1427), began a series of raids into
the neighbouring countries, in the hope of inducing the Church
to come to terms.

After a new crusade in 1431 had ended in failure, it was
judged politic to enter into negotiations. In the beginning
of 1433 many Husite deputies arrived at Basel, among them
being their great theological luminary Rokyzana, parish
priest of the Teynkirche at Prague, and Procopius the Great,
chieftain of the Radical party, or Taborites, so called after
the stronghold of Tabor erected during the religious wars.
Their demands were that Communion should be administered

36 A Manual of Church History

under both species, that grievous sin should be punishable
at law, that no restriction should be placed on preaching,
and that the clergy should be incapable of holding property.
These demands led to prolonged debate ; when negotiations
were resumed at Prague in the autumn, 1433, the articles
agreed to were as follows : i. Persons having attained the
use of reason may, in Bohemia and Moravia, receive Com-
munion under both species, provided they acknowledge
Christ to be wholly present under each species; 2. Mortal
sins, especially such as are notorious, must be hindered so
far as possible, sinners being punished by their rightful superiors ;
3. The Word of God is free to all the clergy who are qualified
to preach and who have been approved and sent forth by
their superiors, provided their preaching be in accordance
with the Church's ruhngs; 4. Church property is, according
to the principles laid down by the Fathers, to be rightly
administered, nor may it be usurped by others. At the
Parliament of Iglau in 1436 the latter portion of the last article
was interpreted to mean that Church property must not be
unjustly detained by others, and with this modification the
compact of Prague was at last ratified. The Husites had
recently fallen out among themselves, and the Taborites and
Orphans {i.e. Ziska's ; he died in 1424) had been utterly
defeated at Lipan (1434) by the moderate party composed of
the citizens of Prague and the nobles. This victory must,
to some extent, account for the ultimate success of the

After an understanding had been reached, the name of Husites
gradually disappears from history, and in its stead we find other
names. From the use of the chalice or the practice of communi-
cating under both species, they were called Calixtines or Utraquists,
whilst the other Catholics were dubbed Unists or Subunitae. The
permission for the use of the chalice by the laity did not, however,
satisfy all, and soon some, such as Chelczicky, began to denounce
saint-worship, Masses for the dead, property, oaths, the death
penalty, military service, and, generally, all public offices. A few
also denied the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In Kunwald,
near Senftenberg, whither the irreconciliables betook themselves
under the leadership of Gregory, a nephew of Rokyzana (1457),
a simpler mode of worship was introduced, thus laying the founda-
tion of a new religious society or confraternity, that of the Bohemian

Pre-Reformation Reformers 37

Brethren.^ This society was finally established as a sect when,
with the help of the Waldensians, it set about ordaining priests on
its own account (1467). Though in its beginnings it was insigni-
ficant, it soon grew in importance, especially when it consented to
accommodate itself to the requirements of social life, i.e. subse-
quently to the Council of Reichenau (1494). On the other hand,
the Catholics of Bohemia were not successful in retaining the use of
the chalice for the laity. Communion under both species was
abolished by the edict of restitution issued by Ferdinand II in 1629.
The safe conduct granted to Hus by Sigismund promised
protection for the journey, for the return journey naturally only
on the assumption that it took place. The emperor also, by word
of mouth, promised Hus a free hearing, probably even in the case
of Hus's refusing to submit to the ruling of the Council. This
promise was, however, not valid according to Canon Law. The
Council claimed a right to deal with Hus (it did so expressly,
September 25, 1415, in spite of the formal escort provided by the
sovereign ; on the other hand, it dismissed as untenable the view
that promises made to heretics generally are not binding), and the
emperor could not gainsay it without endangering the continuance
of the assembly. Hence the impossibility in which the emperor
found himself of fulfilling his verbal promise must absolve him
from the imputation of unfaithfulness. Cp. W. Berger, /. Hus u.
K. Sigismund, 1871 ; Hist. Viertsljahrschrift, III (1898), 41-86.

§ 144
Later Reformers ^

Wiclif and Hus by their opposition to the Church are to
be considered in some sense as forerunners of the Reformers of
the sixteenth century. The same may be said of others of
later date and whose historical importance is not to be com-
pared with that of the two men just spoken of.

I. The Netherlander, Jan (Pupper) of Goch,^ who
founded, and acted as confessor to, a convent of women at
Mechlin (ti475), refused to acknowledge as true any doctrine
not vouched for by Scripture. He rejected the idea that there
was any merit in vows or in the Religious Life [De lihertate

^ Mg. by GiNDELY, 2 vol. 1857-58 ; Goll (Quellen u. Unters. z. G. dcr
B. Br.), 2 vol. 1878-82 ; CharvIiRIat, Les affaires religieuses en Bofteme,
1886 ; Monatsschrift der Comenius-Gesells. 1894, pp. 172-209.

- K. Ullmann, Reformatoren tor der Reformation, vornehmlich in Deutsck-
land u. den Niederlanden, 2 vol. 1841-42.

•' O. Clemen, Jokann Pupper von Goch, 1896 {Leipziger Siudien a. d,
Gebiet d. Gesck. II, 3),

38 A Manual of Church History

Christiana ; Dialogns de quattuor erroribus circa legem evangeli-
cam exortis).

II. Johann (Ruchrat) of Wesel (11481)^ advocated yet
more strongly the Bible as the sole rule of faith. A Jubilee
(1475) furnished him with a pretext for declaiming against
indulgences, for which he could find no argument either in
Scripture or elsewhere, and which he described — as Petrus
Cantor (f 11 97) had done before — as a pious fraud [Dis-
fntatio adversus indnlgentias) . He also denied, in his sermons,
the binding character of the commandments of the Church,
especially of the law of fasting and of the celibacy of the
clergy ; besides this, he attacked the sacramental character
of Extreme Unction, and railed against the sacramentals and
the Church's festivals. On being brought before the Inquisi-
tion at Mainz he consented to recant (1479), and was accordingly
merely condemned to be kept in prison at the Augustinian
monastery in that city.

III. Wessel Gansfort of Groningen (f 1489),- who formerly,
by an error, was known as Johann Wessel, questioned the
infallibility of General Councils, taught that every righteous
man shared to some extent in the power of the keys, that
indulgences are merely a remission of the canonical penalties,
that no punishment is administered in purgatory for sins
which have been remitted in this world, that purgatory is
intended only to cleanse souls from their remaining sins
and evil inclinations, that prayer for the dead can have for
its object only to ask of God that He should enable them
to attain more speedily to inner perfection, &c. His admirers
styled him Lux mundi, whilst to his opponents he was the
M agister contradictionum. Luther opined that this writer
was animated by his own spirit ; however this may be, Wessel,
so far as Justification and other important doctrines are con-
cerned, never ceased to think as a Catholic.

Nicholas Russ (Rutze) of Rostock, in his Biichlein vom Reife
(ed. Nerger, 1886; Z. f. hist. Th. 1850, pp. 171-237), advocated
views resembling Wessel's. He attacked monasticism, the hierarchy,
indulgences, and the veneration of saints and relics.

^ Kath. i8g8, I, 44-57; Z.f. k. Th. 1900, pp. 644-56 ; Hist. Vterteljahrschr,
1900, pp. 521-23.

- J. Friedrich, Johann Wessel, 1862 ; Kath. 1900, II, 11 ff.

The Jews and the Inquisition 39

Relations with the Jews— The Spanish Inquisition ^

During the Middle Ages the Jews had repeatedly to suffer
at the hands of the populace. The crusaders, too, were fre-
quently misled by their zeal to commit acts of cruelty against
them, and the protests of St. Bernard and of the popes were
unavailing to prevent the injustice. The Jews also drew
down on themselves many persecutions owing to the oppressive
usury which some of them practised. In time of calamity,
more especially during the prevalence of the Black Death
in the middle of the fourteenth century, among the many
crimes with which they were charged was the sacrificing
of Christian children, desecrating the Host, and starting

Hand in hand with persecution went the attempt to
convert them, this being the case more especially in Spain,
where the Jews had always been numerous. During the
persecution in 1391 in many localities they were merely

Online LibraryF. X. von (Franz Xaver) FunkA manual of church history (Volume 2) → online text (page 4 of 34)