CHAPTER III

THE MONASTIC ORDERS AND CENSORSHIP, 1600–1800

1. The Monastic Orders 1600–1800. 2. The Jesuits 1650–1800. 3. The Dominicans 1510–1600. 4. The Casuists 1600–1610. 5. The Seculars and the Regulars 1600–1700.

=1. Writings on the Monastic Orders.=--The Index contains the titles of a long series of writings having to do with the Orders of the Church. Certain of these are controversial in character, raising contentions against the whole system of the Orders or against the work or the character of particular Orders. The larger portion of the number are, however, the work of members of the Orders who have undertaken, in an exaggerated and improper manner, to maintain unfounded claims for their own Orders or to point out the defects of their rivals, or which are devoted to petty differences and strifes that have arisen between the Orders. The _Decreta Gen._, ii, 12, contain a prohibition, dated 1568, of the printing or of the distribution in written form of any works that have not secured the approval of the Index Congregation, which have to do with the controversy concerning the actual succession of the Sons of St. Francis, or concerning the detail of the true form of the hood worn by the saint. The _Decreta Gen._, iii, 8, print the prohibition, issued in 1663, of all reproductions of the inscriptions on the pictures of St. Francis and St. Antonio of Padua, which inscriptions may undertake to specify the form of the garments worn by the saints or in which any reference may be made to the true and legitimate succession from these saints.

The Index also contains the series of works having to do with the long contests between the Franciscans and the Dominicans, the Augustine hermits and the Augustine choristers, the Augustine choristers and the Benedictines, the Benedictines and the Hieronymites (followers of St. Jerome), the Mercedarians and the Trinitarians. The list also includes certain writings presenting the traditions or records of the Carmelites. In 1698, Innocent XII issued a general prohibition in regard to the printing or the distribution of the whole group of writings concerning the controversies of the Orders.[26]

The long contest carried on between the Carmelites and the Jesuits brought about the condemnation in Spain, in 1695, the _Acta Sanctorum_ of the Bollandists, printed in fourteen volumes. This prohibition was recalled in 1715. In Rome only one volume was prohibited and this on another ground. In 1755, was prohibited a work issued under the title of _Ordres Monastiques; Histoires extraites de tous les auteurs qui ont conservé à la postérité ce qu’il y a de plus curieux dans chaque ordre_. The work, printed in 1751 in seven volumes, bears the imprint of Berlin but was supposed as a matter of fact to have been issued in Paris. It was ascribed to the Abbé Musson. The _Pragmatische Geschichte der vornehmsten Mönchsorden_, printed in Leipsic in 1774, in ten volumes, was based upon the _Histoires_ of Musson.

=2. The Jesuits, 1650–1800.=--Books written by, and books concerning, the Jesuits make a considerable group among the dogmatic and controversial works in the Index. In 1659, Alexander VII issues a decree condemning a treatise which had been issued anonymously, in Paris, under the title, _Apologie pour les Casuistes contre les calomnies des Jansénistes_. In 1689, Innocent XI condemns forty-five propositions, cited from Jesuit works; and in 1690, he issues a decree against the Jesuit doctrine of philosophical sin. Of the books written against the doctrines and the practices of the Order, the most important are those by Mariana, Scotti, Pasquelin, and other ex-Jesuits, by the Capucin, Valerianus Magni, by Arnauld (the elder), Pasquier, and Scioppius. The great mass of Protestant writings against the Order are hardly represented. Scotti, whose catalogue name is Julius Clemens Scotus, had become a Jesuit in 1616. In 1664, he abandoned the Order and later secured a chair in Padua as professor of philosophy and of ecclesiastical law. The treatise which was condemned in 1651, was issued under the title of _De potestate pontificia in societatem Jesu ... ad Innocentium X, etc._ Scioppius comes into the Index in connection with a volume entitled _Infamia Famiani_, prohibited in 1687. The following treatises which were also his work but which were published anonymously, were condemned in 1682: _Actio perduellis in Jesuitas S. Rom. Imperii juratos hostes, Anatomia Soc._ _Jesu seu probatio spiritus Jesuitarum._ A third book in the list was also attributed to Scioppius, _Mysteria Patrum Jesuitarum_. In 1725, was forbidden a treatise bearing the rather vague title _Cura Salutis, sive de statu vitae mature ac prudenter deliberandi methodus_. It had been published in Vienna in 1712, and had been utilised as a proselyting tract in behalf of the Jesuit Order. In 1646, was forbidden in Spain a volume by the Jesuit Solier, printed in Poitiers, under the title of _Trois très excellentes prédications prononcées au jour et fête de la béatification du glorieux patriarche le bien-heureux Ignace_. The volume had been denounced before the Sorbonne by the Spanish Dominican Gallardo as scandalous, blasphemous, and heretical. As an example of the blasphemy, Gallardo cites a sentence in which the author claims that Ignatius had, with a piece of paper bearing his written name, worked more miracles than Moses and as many as the Apostles. In 1752, was placed upon the Index a volume by Marcus Fridl, presenting a record of the miraculous life of Mary Ward, founder of the English Society of the _Jesuitissae_. With this, was condemned another biography of Mary Ward by Unterberg, printed in Tübingen in 1735, and an account of the Order by Khamms. The Order had been founded in England early in the 17th century on the model of the Order of the Jesuits. The counsellor of Mary Ward’s _Jesuitissae_ was the Jesuit Roger Lee. The Order never secured an authorisation or confirmation from the Pope, but houses of it were established in Belgium, Germany, and Italy. In 1636, the principal and her chief assistants were arrested and brought to Rome where, after a trial, their Order was formally condemned and they were then released. New houses were, however, shortly after instituted in England and one in Munich, and, in 1703, the rules of the Order were approved and confirmed by Clement XI at the instance of the Elector of Bavaria.

Twenty years after the condemnation of the teachings of Michael Bajus, arose in Spain the controversy between the Jesuits and the Dominicans concerning the doctrine of Grace. The leading representative of the latter was Domingo Bañez of Salamanca (†1604) and of the Jesuits, Luis Molina, professor at Evera (†1600). The issues were referred to Rome more immediately in connection with the treatise by Molina, _Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis_, which had been denounced by the Dominicans, and, between 1602 and 1606, a series of disputations were carried on under the direction of Clement VIII and of Paul V at the sessions of the Congregation _de Auxiliis_. In December, 1611, a decree of Paul V prohibits the printing thereafter, without the specific authorisation of the Inquisition, of any writing having to do with the contest. This decree was confirmed by Urban VIII in 1625 and 1641, and again by Alexander VII in 1657. The latter added a prohibition for the printing, without the approval of the Inquisition, of any writings which were concerned with the _materia auxiliorum divinorum ex professo_, or which brought this subject-matter into print in connection with commentaries on the writings of Thomas Aquinas. This general prohibition is entered in Alexander’s Index under the term _libri_ and, since the time of Benedict, finds place in the _Decreta Gen._, ii, 1. Under the terms of the _Decreta_, all writings under this heading, printed since 1657 without a specific approval, are to be held as condemned. The Index contains, however, but three specific titles and these of comparatively insignificant monographs. Reusch points out that the bitter controversial treatises of the Dominican, Hyacinth Serry, and of the Jesuit, Livinus de Meyer, failed to be recorded in the Index.[27]

Among the Jesuits whose writings secured special attention on the part of the Index authorities were J. B. Poza (†1660) and Théophile Raynaud (†1663). Poza, who was a native of Bilboa, printed in 1626 at Alcala, under the title of _Elucidarium Deiparae_, a treatise that is described as one of the very worst among the many books concerning the Virgin. This volume was prohibited by the Congregation of the Index in 1628, and as a result of Poza’s bitter protests against the

## action of the Congregation, a prohibition was issued in 1632 covering

all of his writings. In Poza’s contentions against the judgment of the Roman authorities, he had the support of the Spanish Inquisition, which refused to confirm both the individual and the general Roman prohibition. Raynaud, born in 1583 near Nizza, became a Jesuit in 1602. He was a scholar and an active writer. He first came into conflict with the Congregation in connection with a bitter satire against the Dominican theories of the doctrine of Grace. Shortly thereafter, was condemned a monograph of his written to oppose the view that those who died of pestilence were to be held as martyrs. In 1659, was prohibited a monograph of Raynaud on the ecclesiastical system of censorship. Thereupon he published, under a pseudonym, a satire treating of the control exercised by the Dominicans over the Inquisition, which was promptly placed on the Index.

Clement X, who is classed as favouring the Jesuits, found occasion to condemn a number of treatises written in defence of Berruyer’s _Historia Populi Dei_. This work was prohibited in Spain, 1759 (see also p. 42). Under Benedict XIV and during the first years of Clement XIII, were placed upon the Index a long series of publications written in opposition to the Jesuits.

Among the works antagonistic to the Jesuits which were prohibited during the decade after 1750 may be mentioned the following: Quesnel, _Histoire des Religieux de la Compagnie de Jésus_, Utrecht, 1741; _Procès contre les Jesuites, pour servir de suite aux causes Célèbres_, Brest, 1750; Mesnier (†1761), _Problême Historique, qui des Jésuites ou de Luther ou de Calvin ont le plus nui à l’Église Chrétienne_, Utrecht, 1758; de Silva, _Histoire de l’Admirable Don Inigo de Guipuscoa, Chevalier de la Vierge_, The Hague, 1738.

The author of the _History of the Jesuits_ (published in London in 1816, and ascribed to John Poynder) writes: “The doctrine of probability, our ignorance of the law of nature, and the necessity of actual reflection upon the quality of an action in order to its becoming sinful, are the foundations upon which the moral corruption of the Jesuits is built.”[28]

[Sidenote: The Jesuits in France, 1610–1625]

In 1610, the treatise of Mariana, already referred to, was burned in Paris under the command of the Parliament. The condemnation was on the ground of the doctrine maintained by Mariana that, under certain conditions, there rested with the people the right to slay a tyrant. During the succeeding fifteen years, a number of the works by leading Jesuit writers, such as Bellarmin, Suarez, Santarelli, etc., were prohibited by the Parliament or by the Sorbonne or by both. The ground for the condemnation of this group of books was the assertion of the right of the pope to depose princes and generally to control the authority of the State. In 1613, Paul V directed the Index Congregation to prohibit with a _d.c._ a treatise by Becanus, in order, as was stated, to prevent the total condemnation of this treatise by the authorities in Paris. Curiously enough, however, the volume by Becanus is not included in the Index of Paul or in any later lists. The decree itself appears to have been cancelled. In 1612, was placed in the Index a treatise entitled _Anti-Coton_ which had been written to oppose the writings of the Jesuit Coton. The latter had undertaken, after the condemnation of the work of Mariana, a fresh defence of the doctrines of his Order. In 1603, Clement VIII ordered the condemnation of a treatise by the Italian Carerius, a writer who had undertaken to oppose the teaching of Bellarmin in regard to the authority of the pope in matters of State. The same Pope caused to be removed from the Index the treatise of Bellarmin which had been condemned under Sixtus V.

In 1665, was published in Lyons a collected edition of Raynaud’s works comprising no less than nineteen folio volumes. This set does not include the prohibited writings; but, in 1669, the Jesuits issued, with a false imprint, a twentieth volume bearing the title _Apopompaeus_ (scape-goat, _see_ Levit. xvi., 10). In this volume are presented the several prohibited writings together with certain others. The book was duly prohibited in 1672.

In 1739, the Congregation prohibits the _Opera Electa_ and _Opera Varia_ of the learned Jesuit Hardouin (1646–1729), and, in 1742, his Commentary on the New Testament. The _Opera Electa_ had been published as far back as 1709, and had been promptly condemned by the authorities of the Jesuit Order. The _Opera Varia_ appeared after the death of the author; for these also the Jesuit rulers disavowed responsibility. The works of Hardouin do not appear in the Spanish Index. In 1734, the Congregation prohibited a _History of the People of God_ which was the work of Berruyer (1681–1758), a pupil of Hardouin. The first part of this history had been issued in 1728 with the approval of the French rulers of the Order, but under the decision of the general of the Order, it was recalled for revision. The second part, published in 1753, was disavowed by the Jesuit rulers as having been issued without their permission, and Berruyer was obliged, under the condemnatory decision of the Archbishop of Paris, given in 1754, and of the Parliament, given in 1756, to make recantation of certain of the statements contained in the volume and to promise to cancel the original issue and to correct the text. The third division of the history was issued in 1757, and this secured condemnation through a brief of Clement XIII.

After the middle of the 16th century, the most important influence working against the freedom of the press and the undertakings of the publishers was that of the Jesuits. Members of the Order secured positions as councillors with the imperial Government in Vienna, with the Elector of Bavaria, and in other Catholic States, and promptly brought their influence to bear to strengthen the censorship regulations. The publication of books lessened or became active almost in direct proportion to the extent of the Jesuit influence in one State or another.

Under the reign of Clement XIII (1758–1769), there came into print a long series of controversial writings directed against the Order of the Jesuits, but of these only a small number of titles were placed upon the Clementine Indexes. In a brief issued in September, 1762, the Pope says that he has caused to be condemned as invalid the edicts and orders issued by the Parliament of Paris against the Jesuits; but these orders do not find place in Index lists. Under Clement XIV (1769–1774), no single one of the writings against the Jesuits was prohibited. Under Pius VI (1775–1799), was prohibited but a single and comparatively unimportant monograph of the long series of memorials written by Jesuits concerning the suppression of their Order.

=3. The Dominicans.=--As stated in an earlier chapter, the work of the Congregation of the Index had, from the outset, been left very largely under the direction of the Dominicans. After the beginning of the 16th century, the Dominicans came into practical control of the censorship operations in Germany, excepting only in Vienna where the influence of the Jesuits prevailed. In 1510, under the direction of these Dominican censors, a strenuous attempt was made to suppress altogether the literature of the Jews. The influence of the censors was directed not merely against instruction in Hebrew in the university centres, but against the printing, for the use of the Jews themselves, of editions of the Jewish Scriptures, the Jewish commentaries, or of any works by Jewish writers. The fight led by Reuchlin in behalf of Hebrew literature was really a fight for the freedom of the press. Reuchlin, with the all-valuable aid of Erasmus, had in view more

## particularly the interests of scholarship, but the principles asserted

by him and in the end successfully maintained, were those upon which depended the intellectual freedom of the people, of the more common folk as well as scholars. The fight of Reuchlin against the Dominicans led by Pfefferkorn was a hundred and thirty years in advance of the publication of Milton’s _Areopagitica_, but the arguments shaped by Reuchlin and by Erasmus were substantially identical with those presented so eloquently by Milton. In 1512, Reuchlin’s treatise entitled _Augenspiegel_ was prohibited by the emperor and this prohibition was confirmed in 1520 by the pope (Leo X). In 1515, _Epistolae obscurorum virorum_, a work which exerted an important influence in the Protestant contest, secured the honour of prohibition both from the emperor and from the pope.

=4. The Casuists.=--In 1602, under the direction of Clement VIII, the Inquisition formally condemned the opinion that under any circumstances confession could be made other than in person, that is to say by letter or by messenger, and that a confession other than in person could secure absolution. The publication of this conclusion appears to constitute the first example of a decision by the Roman Inquisition securing general distribution and enforcement. As a result of this decree, were placed upon the Index treatises by the Jesuits Henriquez and Sa (books which contained, to be sure, other opinions that called forth disapproval) and a work by Vivaldus. The latter came under the d.c. class. Certain writings of F. Suarez, one of the most noted theologians of the Jesuits, were thoroughly discussed and, according to report, escaped the Index only by a close vote. During the following ten years, a considerable series of writings by Jesuits found their way into the Index, in part, however, with the _d.c._ addition. Among names to be noted are those of St. Bauny and Fra. Amico, who rank with the more important of the advocates of the Jesuit morality, and with these a number of treatises by the Theatins, Vidal, Verricelli, and Pasqualigo. Suarez had defended strongly the contention that there was authority for accepting confession from one absent and for giving to the same absolution. He based his argument in part upon an interpretation of Thomas Aquinas. A series of investigations were held in Spain concerning these teachings of Suarez and it was ordered by the Inquisition (which was under the control of the Dominicans) that he should be suspended from his functions and that the distribution of the books should be stopped until they had been amended. In 1604, Suarez came to Rome and presented, first before Clement VIII and later before Paul V, the defence of his opinions. The Inquisition of Rome decided that the opinions of Suarez were unsound and ordered him to have his treatise corrected. The book escaped therefore being entered in the Index. The treatise by Sa was condemned not merely on account of its teachings concerning the confession but on other grounds. The title reads _Aphorisma conf. hactenus impressa_, etc. An expurgated edition, approved by Brasichelli, was printed in Rome in 1608. The condemnation of the original work was never confirmed in the Spanish Indexes.

=5. Contests between the “Seculars” and the “Regulars,” 1600–1700.=--With the beginning of the 17th century, fierce contests arose concerning the relation of the regular Orders to the bishops. The authorities of the Orders claimed that they held their responsibilities directly from the pope and that the work of their Orders was to be carried on free from the interference of the bishops. A number of the bishops, on the other hand, took the ground that they were themselves the territorial representatives of the central authority of the Church in their own dioceses and that, without direct authorisation from the bishop, no member of an Order could be permitted to exercise in the diocese clerical functions. Dr. Richard Smith, who, under the title of Bishop of Chalcedon, had been appointed Apostolic Vicar for England, took active part in a controversy with certain Jesuit writers in maintaining the authority of the bishops. As a result of the antagonisms raised by his writings, he was obliged, in 1628, to leave England, and until his death in 1655, he remained in France. Among the French writers who took part in the controversy were François Hallier and Jean du Vergier de Hauranne, later abbé of Saint-Cyran. In 1633, the Index Congregation condemned all the controversial writings that had come into print concerning the issues between the Bishop of Chalcedon and the English Regulars. To this condemnation was added the specification that the Congregation had not undertaken to express any decision in regard to the issues involved. The continuance of the controversy was, however, considered undesirable and a general prohibition, under the penalty of the excommunication _latae sententiae_, was made of any further writing in regard to the matter. This prohibition did not succeed, however, in preventing the publication of a number of further treatises on the subject, and was itself placed in the Index, and, since Benedict XIV, remains in the _Decreta Gen._, ii, 4. In 1642, a special prohibition with a _d.c._ was issued for the volume by the Jesuit Cellot. In 1659, the Inquisition formally condemned the writings of a number of the French representatives of the Regulars, including certain treatises of Bishop Arnauld of Angers. At the same time, were condemned the replies to these writings. Shortly afterwards, were placed on the Index a treatise by Chassaing written in behalf of the Regulars and one by de Launoy maintaining the claims of the Seculars. In 1664, the Sorbonne censured a monograph that had been printed under the name of Jacques Vernant, in which large claims were made not only for the privileges of the Regulars but also for the general authority of the Papacy; in 1665, this censorship of the Sorbonne was itself separately condemned in a brief issued by Alexander VII. In 1693, was prohibited a treatise by the magistrate Karg, dedicated to the Bishop of Bamberg and Wurzburg, which took ground against the privileges of the Orders.

##