History of the Catholic Church from the Renaissance to the French Revolution: Volume 1 — Causes of the Reformation, Part 3

The most eminent of the French Humanists were Budaeus (1467-1540), regarded in his own time as but slightly inferior to Erasmus, Germanus Brixius (Germain de Brie), Canon of Notre Dame and translator of portion of the works of St. John Chrysostom, Stephen Poncher, Bishop of Paris and advocate of the Humanist party at the Court of Francis I.

, the Dominican, William Petit, Robert (1503-59) and Henri (1528-98) Estienne (Stephanus) to whom we are indebted for the two monumental works, /Thesaurus Linguae Latinae/ and /Linguae Graecae/, Scaliger (1540-1609) the well-known authority on chronology and epigraphy, and the philologist and classicist Isaac Casaubon (1559-1614).

In France there was a sharp rivalry from the beginning between the Scholastics and the Humanists.

The university was divided into separate camps.

The college of St. Barbe was opposed by the Montaigue College, the rector of which was the leader of the Scholastic party.

The Humanists regarded the Theologians as antiquated, while the Theologians looked upon their opponents as supporters of the Reformation movement.

In case of a few of these, as for example Lefevre d'Etaples,[16] Gerard Roussel, and others, these suspicions were fully justified; but in case of many others their faith was sound, and however much they may have wavered in life they preferred to die at peace with the Church.

To this latter section belongs Marguerite of Valois,[17] sister of Francis I. She was a patroness of the Humanists and Reformers in Paris and was opposed undoubtedly to many Catholic practices; but it is not so clear that she wished for a religious revolution, and at any rate it is certain that she died a Catholic.

This rivalry between the Theologians and Humanists and the misunderstandings to which it gave rise are largely responsible for the rapid development of Calvinism amongst certain classes of French society.

The classical movement in England is due largely to Italian influences, though the visit of the Greek Emperor Manuel in 1400, and the subsequent visits of Greek envoys and scholars must have contributed not a little to awaken an interest among English students in Greek studies.

Individual Englishmen began to turn towards the great centres of Italian Humanism, and to return to their own country imbued with something of the literary zeal of their Italian masters.

Of these the two who, more than others, contributed to give Greek and Latin a good standing in the schools of the country were William Selling and William Hadley, both Benedictine monks of Canterbury.

They studied at Bologna, Padua and Rome, and were brought into contact with Politian and other distinguished Humanists.

Selling was recognised as an accomplished Greek scholar, and on his return he set himself to remodel the course of studies at Canterbury so as to ensure for the classics their proper place.

The influence of Canterbury and of Prior Selling helped very much to spread the classical revival in England.

Selling's most remarkable pupil was Thomas Linacre (1460-1524), who went to Oxford after having completed his early education at Canterbury, and was chosen Fellow of All Soul's College.

Later on he accompanied his old master to Italy, where he had an opportunity of mastering the intricacies of Latin style from Politian, the tutor of the children of Lorenzo de' Medici, and of Greek from Demetrius Chalcondylas.

He turned his attention to medicine and received a degree both at Padua and Oxford.

His position at the courts of Henry VII.

and Henry VIII.

gave him an opportunity of enlisting the sympathies of the leading ecclesiastical and lay scholars of his day in favour of the literary revival.

In his later years he was ordained priest and held some important ecclesiastical offices.

Other distinguished scholars and patrons of the revival in England were Grocyn, a companion of Linacre at Oxford and in Italy and afterwards lecturer on Greek at Exeter College, Oxford; John Colet (1467-1519), Dean of St. Paul's, the friend of Budaeus, Erasmus, Linacre, and Grocyn, and founder of St. Paul's School; William Lilly, appointed by Dean Colet as first master in this school; Fisher (1459-1535) Bishop of Rochester; and Sir Thomas More (1480-1535).

The Humanist movement in England, unlike the corresponding movement in Italy, was in no sense hostile to religion or to the Catholic Church.

Many of its leaders desired reform, but not a single one of the prominent scholars of the period showed any sympathy with Luther's revolt.

The very founders of the revival in England, Selling, Hadley, Linacre and Grocyn, were ecclesiastics whose faith was beyond suspicion; Colet died as he had lived, thoroughly devoted to the Church; while Fisher and Sir Thomas More sealed their loyalty to the ancient faith with their blood.

[18] The revival in Spain owes much to the patronage of Queen Isabella and the exertions of Cardinal Ximenez (1436-1517).

The leading universities, Seville, Alcala, and Salamanca, were not unfriendly, and the whole educational system was remodelled in favour of the classics.

Cardinal Ximenez devoted himself to the preparation of the Polyglot edition of the Bible, the New Testament portion of which was printed so early as 1514, and the whole work was published in 1522. The leading Humanist scholars were Lebrixa, or as he is called in Latin Lebrissensis, Nunez, and Ludovico Vives (1492-1540), the latter of whom was deemed by his contemporaries not unworthy of being compared with Erasmus and Budaeus.

The Humanist movement and the general revival of literary, scientific, philological and historical studies to which it gave birth were not in themselves anti-religious, nor did they find in the Catholic Church a determined opponent.

Such studies, on the contrary, might have contributed much to promote a more enlightened understanding of theology, and more especially of the Scriptures, a fact which was understood thoroughly by the ablest ecclesiastics of the time.

In Italy, Germany, France, and England, bishops and abbots vied with secular princes in their patronage of scholars, while the influence of the Popes, notably Nicholas V. , Sixtus IV.

, Julius II.

, and Leo X. was entirely in favour of the Humanist party.

Yet, while all this is true, the Humanist movement did much, undoubtedly, to prepare men's minds for the great religious revolt of the sixteenth century.

Springing into life as it did at a time when the faith of the Middle Ages was on the wane, and when many educated men were growing tired of the cold formalism and antiquated methods of the Schoolmen, it tended to develop a spirit of restless inquiry that could ill brook any restriction.

The return to the classics recalled memories of an earlier civilisation and culture opposed in many particulars to the genius of Christianity, and the return of nature tended to push into the background the supernatural idea upon which the Christian religion is based.

But the revival did more.

The study of the classics brought into prominence serious problems regarding the authenticity, age, and value of certain writings and manuscripts, and by so doing it created a spirit of criticism and of doubt for which the Theologians of the day were but poorly prepared.

In a word, it was a period of transition and of intellectual unrest, when new ideals in education were endeavouring to supplant the old ones, and when neither the friends of the old nor of the new had distinguished clearly between what was essential in Christianity and what was purely accidental.

In such a time it was to be expected that ardent Humanists, filled with their new-born zeal for classical studies, should advance too rapidly, and by confounding religion with the crude methods of some of its defenders should jump to the conclusion that a reconciliation between the revival and religion was impossible.

Nor should it be a matter of surprise that the Theologians, confident in the strength of their own position and naturally suspicious of intellectual novelties, were not inclined to look with favour on a movement which owed its inspiration largely to Pagan sources.

Moderate men, on the contrary, whether Humanists or Scholastics, aimed at a complete reconciliation.

They realised that the great literary and scientific revival could do much for the defence of religion, and that the Pagan classics must be appraised according to Christian standards.

But this work of reconciliation was rendered very difficult by the attitude of extremists on both sides.

Many of the Italian Humanists, as has been shown, were Christians only in name.

In their writings and in their lives they showed clearly that they were thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Paganism.

Such men merited severe condemnation, and it is to be regretted that the Popes, particularly Sixtus IV.

and Leo X.

, did not adopt a firmer attitude towards this section of the Italian school.

But before judging too harshly the friendly relations maintained by Sixtus IV.

and Leo X. with the Italian Humanists, it is well to remember that the age in which they lived was noted for its general laxity and for the decline of a proper religious spirit, that the Pagan tone and Pagan forms of expression used by these writers were regarded as exhibitions of harmless pedantry rather than as clear proofs of opposition to Christianity, that most of these writers were always ready to explain away whatever might appear objectionable in their works, and that, finally, mildness in the circumstances may have been deemed the best policy.

The attitude of the Popes at any rate prevented an open conflict between the representatives of the two schools in Italy until the outbreak of the Reformation and the invasion of Rome put an end to the danger by destroying the Humanist movement.

In Germany and France there were few traces of an anti-Christian tendency amongst the supporters of the new learning.

But in both countries, more especially in the former, the supporters of the new learning criticised severely the ignorance of the monks and Theologians, and took little pains to conceal their contempt for the Scholastic methods of education.

They blamed the Popes for their neglect of the true interests of the Church, and held them responsible in a large measure for the general decline of religion.

According to them the study of theology must be reformed so as to give a more prominent place to the Scriptures and the writings of the early Fathers; the development of the internal spirit of religion as distinct from mere external formalism was to be encouraged, and many of the existing practices might be discarded as superstitious.

Such views tended naturally to excite the opposition of the Theologians and to unsettle the religious convictions of educated men who watched the struggle with indifference.

In this way the ground was prepared for a complete religious revolt.

Luther's movement was regarded by many as merely the logical sequence of Humanism, but that the Humanists themselves were not willing to accept this view is clear from the fact that once the early misunderstandings had been removed, and once the real issues were apparent, most of the Humanists in Germany and France remained true to the Church.

Instead of regarding Luther as a friend they looked upon him as the worst enemy of their cause, and on the Reformation as the death-knell of the Renaissance.

---------- [1] Sandys, /History of Classical Scholarship/, 2nd edition, 1906. Rogers, /L'Enseignement des lettres classiques d'Ausone a Alcuin/, 1905. Gougaud, /Les Chretientes Celtiques/, 1911, chap.

viii.

(An excellent bibliography.

) Esposito, /Greek in Ireland during the Middle Ages/ (/Studies/, i. , 4, 665-683).

[2] Monnier, /La Renaissance de Dante a Luther/, 1884. [3] Guirard, /L'Eglise et la Renaissance/, chap.

iii.

[4] Nolhac, /Petrarque et l'Humanisme/, 1892. [5] Mancini, /Vita di Lorenzo Valla/, 1891. [6] Pastor, /History of the Popes/, i. , pp. 12-33. [7] Pastor, op.

cit.

, p. 24. [8] Muntz, /Les arts a la cour des Popes pendant le XVe.

et le XVIe.

siecle/, 1878-9. [9] Muntz-Fabre, /La Bibliotheque du Vatican au XVe.

siecle/, 1887. [10] Pastor, op.

cit.

, vol. vii.

Conforti, /Leone X. ed il suo secolo/, 1896. Roscoe, /Life and Pontificate of Leo X. /, 1883. [11] Delprat, /Die Bruderschaft des gemeinsamen Lebens/, 1840. [12] Strauss, /Ulrich von Hutten/, 2 auf.

, 1871 (Eng.

Trans.

, 1874).

[13] /Clarorum virorum Epistolae latinae graecae et hebraicae/, 1514. [14] Janssen, /History of the German People/, iii.

, pp. 44-79. [15] Capey, /Erasmus/, 1901. [16] /Lefevre d'Etaples son influence sur les origines de la reforme Franc.

/, 1900. [17] Lalanne, /Memoires de Me.

de Valois/, etc. , 1858. [18] On the Humanist movement in England, cf.

Gasquet, /Eve of the Reformation/, 1900, chap.

ii.

Seebohm, /Oxford Reformers/ (Colet, Erasmus, More), 1867. Einstein, /The Italian Renaissance in England/, 1902. (b) Political and Social Condition of Europe.

See the works of Pastor, Janssen and Gasquet cited in section (a).

/The Cambridge Modern History/, vol. i (gives an excellent bibliography).

Hergenrother-Kirsch, /Handbuch der Allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte/, Bd.

2 (pp. 996-1002).

Ranke, /Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation/, 1844 (Eng.

Trans.

by Austin, 1845-7).

Idem.

, /Geschichte der Romanischen und Germanischen Volker/ (1419-1514).

Kaser, /Deutsche Geschichte zur Zeit Maximilians I. / (1486-1519), 1912. Cherrier, /Histoire de Charles VIII.

/, 1868. Prescott, /Ferdinand and Isabella/, 1887. Busch-Todd, /England under the Tudors/, 1892-5. Hunt-Poole, /The Political History of England/, vol. v.

, 1910 (chap.

v.

).

The struggle between the Papacy and the Empire, ending, as it did, in the downfall of the House of Hohenstaufen, put an end to the old conception of the universal monarchy presided over by the Emperor and the Pope.

A new tendency began to make itself felt in European politics.

Hitherto the feudal system, on which society was based, had served as a barrier against the development of royal power or the formation of united states.

Under this system the king was sometimes less powerful than some of his nominal subjects, and was entirely dependent upon the good-will of the barons for the success of any action he might take outside his own hereditary dominions.

This was the real weakness of the system, and so long as it remained the growth of Nationalism was impossible.

Gradually, however, by the exertions of powerful sovereigns the power of the barons was broken, the smaller states were swallowed up in the larger ones, and the way was prepared for the rise of the nations of Modern Europe.

In France the policy of centralisation begun in the thirteenth century, was carried to a successful conclusion in the days of Louis XI.

(1461-83).

The English provinces, Aquitane, Burgundy, and Brittany, were all united to form one state, knowing only one supreme ruler.

In Spain the old divisions disappeared almost completely with the union of Castile and Aragon under Ferdinand (1479-1516) and Isabella the Catholic (1474-1504), and with the complete destruction of the Moorish power by the conquest of Granada (1492).

In England the slaughter of the nobility in the Wars of the Roses left the way ready for the establishment of the Tudor dominion.

As part of the same movement towards unification Henry VIII.

was declared to be King of Ireland instead of Feudal Lord, and serious attempts were made to include Scotland within his dominions.

Inside the Empire similar tendencies were at work, but with exactly opposite results.

The interregnum in the Empire and a succession of weak rulers left the territorial princes free to imitate the rulers of Europe by strengthening their own power at the expense of the lower nobility, the cities, and the peasantry; but, having secured themselves, they used their increased strength to arrest the progress of centralisation and to prevent the development of a strong imperial power.

As a direct result of this centralisation tendency and of the increase in royal authority that it involved, the rulers of Europe initiated a campaign against all constitutional restrictions on the exercise of their authority.

The feudal system with all its faults was in some senses wonderfully democratic.

The sovereign was dependent upon the decisions of the various representative assemblies; and though the lower classes had little voice except in purely local affairs, yet the rights and privileges of all classes were hedged round so securely by written charters or immemorial usage that any infringement of them might be attended with serious results.

In England the Parliament, in Spain the Cortes, in France the States General, and in Germany the Diet, should have proved a strong barrier against absolute rule.

But the authority of such assemblies was soon weakened or destroyed.

Under the Tudors the English Parliament became a mere machine for registering the wishes of the sovereign; the Cortes and States General were rarely consulted in Spain and France; and, though the Diet retained its position in the Empire, it was used rather to increase the influence of the princes than to afford any guarantee of liberty to the subject.

In bringing about such a complete revolution the rulers were assisted largely by the introduction of the Roman Code of Justinian.

[1] According to the principles of the Roman Code the power of the sovereign was unlimited, and against his wishes no traditional customs or privileges could prevail.

Such a system was detested especially by the Germans, who clung with great pertinacity to their own national laws and customs; but the princes, supported by the universities, carried through the reform on which they had set their heart.

They succeeded in strengthening their own power and in trampling down the rights guaranteed to their subjects by the old Germanic Code, while at the same time they were untiring in their resistance to imperial reforms, and were unwilling to do anything to increase the power of the Emperor.

As a result of the development of arbitrary rule the lower classes had great reason to complain of the increase of taxation and of the difficulties of obtaining justice in the ordinary courts of law.

They were ready to listen to the advice of interested leaders, who urged them to band together in defence of their rights against the usurpation of land owners and kings.

As a result nearly every country in Europe found itself involved in a great struggle.

The Peasants' War in Hungary (1514), the revolt against Charles V. in Spain (1520), the resistance of the Flemish Communes, led by Ghent, to the ordinances of the Dukes of Burgundy, the discontent of the lower classes in France with the excessive taxes levied by Louis XI.

, and the secret associations which prepared the way for the great uprising of the lower classes in Germany (1524), were clear indications that oppression and discontent were not confined to any particular country in Europe.

With all these political developments the interests of religion and of the Church were closely connected.

Even though it be admitted that in themselves there is no real opposition between Nationalism and Catholicism, yet in the circumstances of the time, when national rivalry was acute, the dependence of the Holy See upon any particular nation was certain to excite serious jealousy.

From that time nations began to regard the Pope as an ally or an enemy according to the side he favoured instead of looking to him as a common father, and consequently the danger of a conflict between national patriotism and loyalty to the Head of the Church was rendered less improbable.

This feeling was increased by the residence of the Popes at Avignon, when the Holy See was so completely associated with the interests of France, and by the policy pursued by Sixtus IV.

and his successors in regard to the Italian States.

Nowhere, however, was this opposition to the Papacy manifested more clearly than in Germany.

This was due partly to the growing feeling of antipathy between the Teutonic and the Latin races, partly to the tradition of the great struggle of the thirteenth century in which the Emperors were worsted by the Popes, and partly also to the discontent excited amongst all classes of the German people, lay and cleric, by the taxations of the Curia.

The attitude of the three ecclesiastical electors in 1455, the complaints of the clergy in 1479, and the list of /Gravamina/ presented to Maximilian in 1510 were harbingers of the revolution that was to come.

Besides, the growth of absolutism in Europe was likely to prove dangerous to the liberties of the Church.

Rulers, who aimed at securing for themselves unlimited authority, were not blind to the importance of being able to control the ecclesiastical organisation, and to attain this result their legal advisers quoted for them the maxims of the old Roman Code, according to which the king was the source of all spiritual as well as temporal power.

Their predecessors had usurped already a strong voice in the appointments to benefices, but now civil rulers claimed as a right what those who had gone before were glad to accept as a privilege.

Hence they demanded that the Holy See should hand over to them the nomination of bishops, that it should modify the old laws regarding exemption of ecclesiastical property from taxation, trial of clerics, and right of sanctuary, and that it should submit its pronouncements for the royal /Exequator/ before they could have the force of law in any particular state.

The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438) and the Concordat wrung from Leo X. by Francis I. of France in 1516, the Concordat of Princes in 1447, and the new demands formulated by the Diet of the Empire, the Statutes of /Provisors/ and /Praemunire/ in England (1453), and the concessions insisted upon by Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain (1482), were clear proofs that absolutism was destined to prove fatal to the liberty of the Church and the authority of the Holy See.

Finally, the universal discontent of the masses, and the great social revolutions of the first quarter of the sixteenth century were likely to prove dangerous to ecclesiastical authority.

In all revolutions the most extreme men are certain to assume control at least in the earlier stages of the movement, and their wildest onslaughts on Church and State are sure to receive the applause of the crowd.

But there was special danger that these popular outbreaks might be turned into anti- religious channels at a time when so many of the bishops were secular princes, and when the Church appeared to be so closely identified with the very interests against which the peasants took up arms.

In these circumstances it was not difficult for designing men to push forward their plans of a religious reform under guise of a campaign for liberty and equality.

[2] ---------- [1] /Cambridge Modern History/, ii.

, p. 176. Janssen, op.

cit.

, Eng.

Trans.

, ii.

, chap.

ii.

[2] Janssen, op.

cit.

Eng.

Trans.

, vols.

i.

-iii.

Pastor, op.

cit.

, Eng.

Trans.

, vols.

i.

-iii.

(c) The Religious Condition of Europe.

Pastor, op.

cit.

Janssen, op.

cit.

Creighton, /History of the Papacy from the Great Western Schism to the Sack of Rome/, 2nd edition, 1897. Ranke, /Die Romische Papste im 16 und 17 jahrhunderten/ (xxxvii-xxxix), 1900 (Eng.

Trans.

, 3 vols.

, 1866).

Haller, /Papsttum und Kirchenreform/, 1904. Mansi, /Sacrorum Conciliorum Collectio/, 1900. Hefele, /Conciliengeschichte/ 2 auf.

1873-90 (Eng.

Trans.

in part, French Trans.

).

Imbart de la Tour, /Les origines de la Reforme/, ii.

, 1909. Thomas, /Le Concordat de 1516/, 1910. Ullman, /Reformatoren vor der Reformation/, 1866 (Eng.

Trans.

by Menzies, 1855).