IV. Attempts at Reformation.§ 118. Attempted Reforms in Church Polity.The struggle between imperialism and hierarchism, which is present through the whole course of the Middle Ages, rose to a height in the times of Louis the Bavarian,A.D.1314-1347 (§110, 3,4), and is of special interest here because of the literary war waged against one another by the rival supporters of the emperor and the pope. It concerns itself first of all only with the questions in debate between the imperial and the sacerdotal parties; but soon on the imperialist side there appeared a reforming tendency, which could not be given effect to without carrying the discussion into a multitude of other departments where reformation was also needed. Of quite another kind was the “reformation of head and members” desired by the great councils of the 15th century. The contention here was based, not so much upon any superiority claimed by the emperor over the pope and by the State over the church, but rather upon the subordination of the pope to the supreme authority of the universal church represented by the œcumenical councils. Yet both agreed in this, that with like energy they attacked the corruption of the papacy, in the one case in the interest of the State, in the other in the interest of the church.
The struggle between imperialism and hierarchism, which is present through the whole course of the Middle Ages, rose to a height in the times of Louis the Bavarian,A.D.1314-1347 (§110, 3,4), and is of special interest here because of the literary war waged against one another by the rival supporters of the emperor and the pope. It concerns itself first of all only with the questions in debate between the imperial and the sacerdotal parties; but soon on the imperialist side there appeared a reforming tendency, which could not be given effect to without carrying the discussion into a multitude of other departments where reformation was also needed. Of quite another kind was the “reformation of head and members” desired by the great councils of the 15th century. The contention here was based, not so much upon any superiority claimed by the emperor over the pope and by the State over the church, but rather upon the subordination of the pope to the supreme authority of the universal church represented by the œcumenical councils. Yet both agreed in this, that with like energy they attacked the corruption of the papacy, in the one case in the interest of the State, in the other in the interest of the church.
§ 118.1.The Literary War between Imperialists and Curialists in the 14th Century.—The literary controversy over the debatable land between church and State was conducted with special vigour in the earlier part of our period, on account of the conflict between Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair of France (§110, 1). The ablest vindicators of the independence of the State were the advocatePeter Duboisand the Dominican theologianJohn of Paris. Among their scholars were the men who twenty years later sought refuge from the wrath of Pope John XXII. at the court of Louis the Bavarian at Munich. Of these the most important was the ItalianMarsilius of Padua. As teacher of theology, philosophy, and medicine at Paris, inA.D.1324, when the dispute between emperor and pope had reached its height, he composed jointly with his colleagueJohn of Jandunin Champagne aDefensor pacis, a civil and ecclesiastical memoir, which, with an insight and clearness very remarkable for that age, developed the evangelical mean of the superiority of the State over the church, and of the empire over the papacy, historically, exegetically, and dogmatically; and for this end established theories of Scripture and tradition, of the tasks and place of the church in the State, of excommunication and persecution of heretics, of liberty of faith and conscience, etc., which even transcend the principles laid down on these points by the Reformation of the 16th century. Both authors accompanied Louis to Italy inA.D.1326, and there John of Jandun died inA.D.1328. Marsilius continued with the emperor as his physician, counsellor, and literary defender, and died at Munich betweenA.D.1341-1343. InA.D.1327 John XXII. condemned theDefensor pacis, and Clement VI. pronounced its author the worst heretic of all ages. The book, often reprinted during the 16th century, was first printed at Basel inA.D.1522.§ 118.2. Alongside of Marsilius there also stood a goodly array of schismatical Franciscans, with their general, Michael of Cesena, at their head (§112, 2), who were like himself refugees at the court of Munich. They persistently contested the heresies of John XXII. in regard to the vision of God (§110, 3) and his lax theory of poverty. Their polemic also extended to the whole papal system, and the corruption of church and clergy connected therewith. The most celebrated of them in respect of scientific attainments wasWilliam Occam(§113, 3). His earlier treatises dealt with the pope’s heresies, and only after the Diet of Rhense (§110, 4) did he take up the burning questions about church and State. In the comprehensiveDialogushe rejects the infallibility of the pope as decidedly as his temporal sovereignty, and denies the Divine institution of the primacy. Also a German prelate,Leopold of Bebenburg, Canon of Würzburg, and fromA.D.1353 Bishop of Bamberg, inspired by genuinely German patriotism, made his appearance inA.D.1338 as a brave and prudent defender of imperial rights against the assumptions of the papacy.—The ablest of all Marsilius’ opponents was the Spanish FranciscanAlvarus Pelagius, who wrote inA.D.1330 the treatiseDe planctu ecclesiæ, in which, while sadly complaining of the corruption of the church and clergy, he yet ascribes to the pope as the vicar of Christ unlimited authority over all earthly principalities and powers, and regards him as the fountain of all privileges and laws. A still more thoroughgoing deification of the papacy had appeared a few years earlier in theSumma de potestate ecclesiæ ad Johannem Papamby the AugustinianAugustinus Triumphusof Ancona. But neither he nor Pelagius, in view of the manifest contradictions of the pope’s doctrines of poverty (§112, 2), dared go the length of maintaining papal infallibility. A German canon of Regensburg,Conrad of Megensburg, also took part in the controversy, seeking to vindicate and glorify the papacy.§ 118.3.Reforming Councils of the 15th Century.—The longing for reform during this period found most distinct expression in the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel (§110, 7-9). The fruitlessness of these endeavours, though they had the sympathy of the people generally, shows that there was something essentially defective in them. The movement had kept itself aloof from all sectaries and separatists, wishing to hold by and reform the presently existing church. But its fault was this, that it insisted only upon a reformation in the head and members, not in the spirit, that it aimed at lopping off the wild growths of the tree, without getting rid of the corrupt sap from which the very same growths would again proceed. Only that which was manifestly unchristian in the pretensions of the hierarchy, the covetousness and greed of the pope, the immorality of the clergy, the depravity and ignorance of the monks, etc.—in short, only abuses in hierarchical constitution and discipline—were dealt with. There was no word about doctrine. The Romish system, in spite of all its perversions, was allowed to stand. The current forms of worship, notwithstanding the introduction of many unevangelical elements and pagan superstitions, were left untouched. It was not seen that what was most important of all was the revival of the preaching of repentance and of justification through Him who is the justifier of the ungodly. And so it happened that at Constance Huss, who had pointed out and followed this way, was sent to the stake, and at Basel the doctrine of the immaculate conception (§112, 4) was admitted as a doctrine of the church. It was not merely the election of a new pope opposed to the Reformation that rendered the negotiations at Pisa and Constance utter failures, the wrong principle upon which they proceeded insured a disappointing result.§ 118.4.Friends of Reform in France during the 15th Century.Peter d’Ailly, professor and chancellor of the University of Paris, Bishop of Cambray inA.D.1397 and cardinal inA.D.1411, was one of the ablest members of the councils of Pisa and Constance. He died inA.D.1425 as cardinal-legate in Germany. His chief dogmatic treatise, theQuæstioneson the Sentences of the Lombard, occupies the standpoint of Occam. In many of his other works he falls back upon the position of the mystics of St. Victor (§102, 4), and recommends with much warmth the diligent study of the Scriptures. His ideas about church reform are centred in the affirmation of the Gallican Liberties, which he had to maintain as a French bishop, but are expressed with the moderation becoming a Roman cardinal. In opposition to Occam and the Spirituals, he founds the temporal sovereignty of the pope on theDonatio Constantini. He also holds by the primacy of the Roman bishop, as firmly established by Scripture. But the πέτρα of Matthew xvi. 18 he understands not of Peter, but of Christ. In this passage therefore no pre-eminence is given to Peter over the other apostles in thepotestas ordinis, but by the injunction of John xx., “Feed My sheep,” such pre-eminence is given in thepotestas regiminis. The œcumenical council, as representative of the whole church, stands superior to the pope as administrative head.d’Ailly’s successor as professor and chancellor was the celebratedJean Charlier, better known from the name of his birthplace near Rheims asGerson. Having denounced the Duke of Burgundy’s murder of the Duke of Orleans, and having thus incurred that prince’s hatred, he withdrew after the Council of Constance into Bavaria. Soon after the duke’s death, inA.D.1419, he returned to France, and settled at Lyons, where he died inA.D.1429. Like d’Ailly, Gerson was a decided nominalist, and sought to give new life to scholasticism by combining with it Scripture study and mysticism. He, too, was powerfully influenced by the Victorine mystics, and yet more by Bonaventura He had no appreciation of the speculative element in German mysticism. Gerson was the first French theologian who employed the language of the people, particularly in his smaller practical tracts. He was mainly instrumental in bringing about the Council of Pisa. In the Council of Constance he was one of the most conspicuous figures. Restrained by no personal or official relationship with the curia, he could by speech and writing express himself much more freely than d’Ailly. The principle and means of the reform of the church, in its head and members, was recognised by Gerson in his statement that the highest authority of the church is to be sought not in the pope, but in the œcumenical council. He held however in every point to the Romish system of doctrine. He did indeed unweariedly proclaim the Bible the one norm and source of all Christian knowledge, but he would not allow the reading of it in the vernacular, and regarded all as heretics who did not in the interpretation of it submit unconditionally to the judgment of the church.Nicholas of Clemanges was inA.D.1393 rector of the University of Paris, but afterwards retired into solitude. He had the profoundest insight into the corruption of the church, and acknowledged Holy Scripture to be the only source of saving truth. From this standpoint he demanded a thorough reform in theological study and the whole constitution of the church.Louis d’Aleman, cardinal and Archbishop of Arles, who died inA.D.1450, was the most powerful and most eloquent of the anti-papal party at Basel. He was therefore excommunicated by Eugenius IV. At last submitting to the pope, he was restored by Nicholas V. and inA.D.1527 beatified by Clement VII.§ 118.5.Friends of Reform in Germany.Even before the appearance of the Parisian friends of reform, a German,Henry of Langenstein, at Marburg had insisted upon the princes and prelates calling an œcumenical council for putting an end to schism and reforming the church. In a treatise published inA.D.1381 he gave a sad but only too true picture of the desolate condition of the church. The cloisters he designatedprostibula meretricium, cathedral churchesspeluncæ raptorum et latronum, etc. FromA.D.1363 he taught in Paris, fromA.D.1390 in Vienna, where inA.D.1397 he died as rector of the university.Theodorich or Dietrich of Niemin Westphalia accompanied Gregory XI. from France to Rome as his secretary inA.D.1377. FromA.D.1395-1399 he was Bishop of Verdun, was probably present at the Council of Pisa, and certainly at that of Constance. He died in this latter place inA.D.1417. His writings are of great value for the history of the schism and of the councils of Pisa and Constance. His language is simple, strong, and faithful.Gregory of Heimburgwas present at the Basel Council, in terms of close friendship with Æneas Sylvius, who was then also on the side of reform. He became inA.D.1433 syndicus at Nuremberg, went to the council at Mantua inA.D.1459 as envoy of Duke Sigismund of Austria, was banished inA.D.1460 by his old friend, now Pius II., afterwards led a changeful life, never free from the papal persecutions, and died at Dresden inA.D.1472. His principal writings on civil and ecclesiastical polity, powerful indictments against the Roman curia inspired by love for his German fatherland, appeared at Frankfort inA.D.1608 under the titleScripta nervosa justitiæque plena.Jacob of Jüterboyk [Jüterbock], who died inA.D.1465, was first a Cistercian monk in Poland and teacher of theology at Cracow, then Carthusian at Erfurt, and to the end of his life a zealous defender of the positions of the Council of Basel, at which he was present inA.D.1441. His writings leave untouched the doctrines of the church, but vigorously denounce the political and moral corruption of the papacy and monasticism, the greedy misuse of the sale of indulgences, and insist upon the subordinating of the pope under general councils, and their right even to depose the pontiff. Whoever contests this latter position teaches that Christ has given over the church to a sinful man, like a bridegroom who surrenders his bride to the unrestrained will of a soldier. All possession of property on the part of those in sacred offices is with him an abomination, and unhesitatingly he calls upon the civil power to put an end to this evil.TheCardinal Nicholas of Cusa(§113, 6) also for a long time was one of the most zealous friends of reform in the Basel Council.Felix Hemmerlin, canon at Zürich, was to the end of his life an ardent supporter of the reform measures of the Council of Basel, at which he had been present. As he gave effect to his views in hisofficialposition, he incurred the hatred and persecution of the inmates of his convent to such an extent, that they laid a plot to murder him inA.D.1439. His whole life was an almost unbroken series of sufferings and persecutions. These in great part he brought on himself by his zealous support of the reactionary party of the nobles that sided with Austria in opposition to the patriotic revolutionary party that struggled for freedom. Deprived of his revenues and deposed from office, he was imprisoned inA.D.1454, and died betweenA.D.1457-1464 in the prison of the monastery of the Minorites at Lucerne, martyr as much to his political conservatism as to his ecclesiastical reformatory principles. His writings were placed in theIndex prohibitorumby the Council of Trent.To this place also belongs the work written in the Swabian dialect, “The Reformation of the Emperor Sigismund,” which demands a thoroughgoing and radical reform of the clergy and the secular priests, insisting upon the renunciation of all personal property on the part of the latter, enforcing against prelates, abbots, monasteries, and monks all the reforms of the Basel Council, and making proposals for their execution in the spirit of the Taborites and Hussites. The author is styled in the MSS. Frederick of Landscron, and describes himself as a councillor of Sigismund. The tract was therefore regarded during the 15th and 16th centuries as a work composed under the direction of the emperor, setting forth the principles of reformation attempted at the Basel or Constance Council.According to Böhm its author was the Taborite Reiser (§119, 9), who, under the powerful reforming impulse of the Basel Council ofA.D.1435-1437, composed it inA.D.1438.§ 118.6.An Italian Apostate from the Basel Liberal Party.—Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, born at Siena inA.D.1405, appeared at Basel, first as secretary of a bishop, then of a cardinal, and finally of the Basel anti-pope Felix V., as a most decided opponent of Eugenius IV., and wrote inA.D.1439 from this point of view his history of the council. InA.D.1442 he entered the service of the then neutral Emperor Frederick III., was madePoeta laureatusand imperial councillor, and as such still fought for the independence of the German church. But inA.D.1445, with all the diplomatic arts which were so abundantly at his disposal, he wrought to secure the subjection of the emperor and German princes under the pope (§110, 10). Made bishop of Siena inA.D.1450, he was raised to the cardinalate by Calixtus III. inA.D.1456, and two years later ascended the papal throne as Pius II. The lasciviousness of his earlier life is mirrored in his poems, novels, dialogues, dramas, and letters. But as pope, old and weak, he maintained an honourable life, and in a bull of retractation addressed to the University of Cologne exhorted ChristendomÆneam rejicite, Pium recipite!§ 118.7.Reforms in Church Policy in Spain.—Notwithstanding the church feeling awakened by the struggle with the Moors, a vigorous opposition to papal pretensions was shown during the 14th century by the Spanish princes, and after the outbreak of the great schism the anti-pope Clement VII., inA.D.1381, purchased the obedience of the Spanish church by large concessions in regard to appointment to its bishoprics and the removal of the abuses of papal indulgences. The popes, indeed, sought not unsuccessfully to enlist Spain in their favour against the reformatory tendencies of the councils of the 15th century, untilFerdinandof Aragon [Arragon],A.D.1479-1516, andIsabellaof Castille [Castile],A.D.1474-1504, who had on account of their zeal for the Catholic cause been entitled by the pontiff himself “their Catholic majesties,” entered so vigorous a protest against papal usurpations, that toward the end of the 15th century the royal supremacy over the Spanish church had won a recognition never accorded to it before. They consistently refused to acknowledge any bishop appointed by the pope, and forced from Sixtus IV. the concession that only Spaniards nominated by the Crown should be eligible for the highest ecclesiastical offices. All papal rescripts were subject to the royal approval, ecclesiastical tribunals were carefully supervised, and appeals from them were allowed to the royal judicatures. The church had also to give ordinary and extraordinary tithes of its goods and revenues for State purposes. The Spanish inquisition (§117, 2), thoroughly recognised inA.D.1483, was more of a civil than an ecclesiastical institution. As the bishops and inquisitors were appointed by the royal edict, the orders of knights (§98, 13), by the transference of the grand-mastership to the king, were placed in complete subjection to the Crown; and whether he would or not Alexander VI. was obliged to accord to the royal commission for church and cloister visitation and reform the most absolute authority. But in everything else these rulers were worthy of the name of “Catholics,” for they tolerated in their church only the purely mediæval type of strict orthodoxy. The most distinguished promoter of their reforms in church polity was a Franciscan monk,Francis Ximenes, fromA.D.1492 confessor to Isabella, afterwards raised by her to the archbishopric of Toledo, made a Roman cardinal by Alexander VI., and grand-inquisitor of Spain inA.D.1507. He died inA.D.1517.
§ 118.1.The Literary War between Imperialists and Curialists in the 14th Century.—The literary controversy over the debatable land between church and State was conducted with special vigour in the earlier part of our period, on account of the conflict between Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair of France (§110, 1). The ablest vindicators of the independence of the State were the advocatePeter Duboisand the Dominican theologianJohn of Paris. Among their scholars were the men who twenty years later sought refuge from the wrath of Pope John XXII. at the court of Louis the Bavarian at Munich. Of these the most important was the ItalianMarsilius of Padua. As teacher of theology, philosophy, and medicine at Paris, inA.D.1324, when the dispute between emperor and pope had reached its height, he composed jointly with his colleagueJohn of Jandunin Champagne aDefensor pacis, a civil and ecclesiastical memoir, which, with an insight and clearness very remarkable for that age, developed the evangelical mean of the superiority of the State over the church, and of the empire over the papacy, historically, exegetically, and dogmatically; and for this end established theories of Scripture and tradition, of the tasks and place of the church in the State, of excommunication and persecution of heretics, of liberty of faith and conscience, etc., which even transcend the principles laid down on these points by the Reformation of the 16th century. Both authors accompanied Louis to Italy inA.D.1326, and there John of Jandun died inA.D.1328. Marsilius continued with the emperor as his physician, counsellor, and literary defender, and died at Munich betweenA.D.1341-1343. InA.D.1327 John XXII. condemned theDefensor pacis, and Clement VI. pronounced its author the worst heretic of all ages. The book, often reprinted during the 16th century, was first printed at Basel inA.D.1522.
§ 118.2. Alongside of Marsilius there also stood a goodly array of schismatical Franciscans, with their general, Michael of Cesena, at their head (§112, 2), who were like himself refugees at the court of Munich. They persistently contested the heresies of John XXII. in regard to the vision of God (§110, 3) and his lax theory of poverty. Their polemic also extended to the whole papal system, and the corruption of church and clergy connected therewith. The most celebrated of them in respect of scientific attainments wasWilliam Occam(§113, 3). His earlier treatises dealt with the pope’s heresies, and only after the Diet of Rhense (§110, 4) did he take up the burning questions about church and State. In the comprehensiveDialogushe rejects the infallibility of the pope as decidedly as his temporal sovereignty, and denies the Divine institution of the primacy. Also a German prelate,Leopold of Bebenburg, Canon of Würzburg, and fromA.D.1353 Bishop of Bamberg, inspired by genuinely German patriotism, made his appearance inA.D.1338 as a brave and prudent defender of imperial rights against the assumptions of the papacy.—The ablest of all Marsilius’ opponents was the Spanish FranciscanAlvarus Pelagius, who wrote inA.D.1330 the treatiseDe planctu ecclesiæ, in which, while sadly complaining of the corruption of the church and clergy, he yet ascribes to the pope as the vicar of Christ unlimited authority over all earthly principalities and powers, and regards him as the fountain of all privileges and laws. A still more thoroughgoing deification of the papacy had appeared a few years earlier in theSumma de potestate ecclesiæ ad Johannem Papamby the AugustinianAugustinus Triumphusof Ancona. But neither he nor Pelagius, in view of the manifest contradictions of the pope’s doctrines of poverty (§112, 2), dared go the length of maintaining papal infallibility. A German canon of Regensburg,Conrad of Megensburg, also took part in the controversy, seeking to vindicate and glorify the papacy.
§ 118.3.Reforming Councils of the 15th Century.—The longing for reform during this period found most distinct expression in the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel (§110, 7-9). The fruitlessness of these endeavours, though they had the sympathy of the people generally, shows that there was something essentially defective in them. The movement had kept itself aloof from all sectaries and separatists, wishing to hold by and reform the presently existing church. But its fault was this, that it insisted only upon a reformation in the head and members, not in the spirit, that it aimed at lopping off the wild growths of the tree, without getting rid of the corrupt sap from which the very same growths would again proceed. Only that which was manifestly unchristian in the pretensions of the hierarchy, the covetousness and greed of the pope, the immorality of the clergy, the depravity and ignorance of the monks, etc.—in short, only abuses in hierarchical constitution and discipline—were dealt with. There was no word about doctrine. The Romish system, in spite of all its perversions, was allowed to stand. The current forms of worship, notwithstanding the introduction of many unevangelical elements and pagan superstitions, were left untouched. It was not seen that what was most important of all was the revival of the preaching of repentance and of justification through Him who is the justifier of the ungodly. And so it happened that at Constance Huss, who had pointed out and followed this way, was sent to the stake, and at Basel the doctrine of the immaculate conception (§112, 4) was admitted as a doctrine of the church. It was not merely the election of a new pope opposed to the Reformation that rendered the negotiations at Pisa and Constance utter failures, the wrong principle upon which they proceeded insured a disappointing result.
§ 118.4.Friends of Reform in France during the 15th Century.
§ 118.5.Friends of Reform in Germany.
§ 118.6.An Italian Apostate from the Basel Liberal Party.—Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, born at Siena inA.D.1405, appeared at Basel, first as secretary of a bishop, then of a cardinal, and finally of the Basel anti-pope Felix V., as a most decided opponent of Eugenius IV., and wrote inA.D.1439 from this point of view his history of the council. InA.D.1442 he entered the service of the then neutral Emperor Frederick III., was madePoeta laureatusand imperial councillor, and as such still fought for the independence of the German church. But inA.D.1445, with all the diplomatic arts which were so abundantly at his disposal, he wrought to secure the subjection of the emperor and German princes under the pope (§110, 10). Made bishop of Siena inA.D.1450, he was raised to the cardinalate by Calixtus III. inA.D.1456, and two years later ascended the papal throne as Pius II. The lasciviousness of his earlier life is mirrored in his poems, novels, dialogues, dramas, and letters. But as pope, old and weak, he maintained an honourable life, and in a bull of retractation addressed to the University of Cologne exhorted ChristendomÆneam rejicite, Pium recipite!
§ 118.7.Reforms in Church Policy in Spain.—Notwithstanding the church feeling awakened by the struggle with the Moors, a vigorous opposition to papal pretensions was shown during the 14th century by the Spanish princes, and after the outbreak of the great schism the anti-pope Clement VII., inA.D.1381, purchased the obedience of the Spanish church by large concessions in regard to appointment to its bishoprics and the removal of the abuses of papal indulgences. The popes, indeed, sought not unsuccessfully to enlist Spain in their favour against the reformatory tendencies of the councils of the 15th century, untilFerdinandof Aragon [Arragon],A.D.1479-1516, andIsabellaof Castille [Castile],A.D.1474-1504, who had on account of their zeal for the Catholic cause been entitled by the pontiff himself “their Catholic majesties,” entered so vigorous a protest against papal usurpations, that toward the end of the 15th century the royal supremacy over the Spanish church had won a recognition never accorded to it before. They consistently refused to acknowledge any bishop appointed by the pope, and forced from Sixtus IV. the concession that only Spaniards nominated by the Crown should be eligible for the highest ecclesiastical offices. All papal rescripts were subject to the royal approval, ecclesiastical tribunals were carefully supervised, and appeals from them were allowed to the royal judicatures. The church had also to give ordinary and extraordinary tithes of its goods and revenues for State purposes. The Spanish inquisition (§117, 2), thoroughly recognised inA.D.1483, was more of a civil than an ecclesiastical institution. As the bishops and inquisitors were appointed by the royal edict, the orders of knights (§98, 13), by the transference of the grand-mastership to the king, were placed in complete subjection to the Crown; and whether he would or not Alexander VI. was obliged to accord to the royal commission for church and cloister visitation and reform the most absolute authority. But in everything else these rulers were worthy of the name of “Catholics,” for they tolerated in their church only the purely mediæval type of strict orthodoxy. The most distinguished promoter of their reforms in church polity was a Franciscan monk,Francis Ximenes, fromA.D.1492 confessor to Isabella, afterwards raised by her to the archbishopric of Toledo, made a Roman cardinal by Alexander VI., and grand-inquisitor of Spain inA.D.1507. He died inA.D.1517.