Close Window

Clement XI
1740-1758

Giovanni Francesco Albani born 1649

Clement XI, prior to his elevation Giovanni Francesco Albani, was born at Pesaro on the 22nd of July,1649. His father was Charles Albani, and his grandfather, Horatio Albani, had received from Urban VIII the high dignity of senator of the city of Rome.

At eleven Giovanni Francesco was taken to the Eternal City. On the very evening of that day a swarm of bees alighted with great buzzing on his window. That event, which moreover had happened on another occasion, was regarded as a happy omen.

Placed in the Roman College to pursue his studies, Giovanni Francesco translated into Latin a part of the Menology of the Greeks, composed by order of the Emperor Basilius Porphyrogenitus, and found in the monastery of the Greek monks of Grottaferrata. He also translated into Latin a eulogium on Saint Mark, by Procopius, a Greek deacon. At the same time he translated from the Greek into the Latin a homily of Saint Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, upon the holy apostles Peter and Paul.

An evident proof of the literary ability of Albani is to be found in the fact that the learned De Luca, afterwards cardinal, who had been his master, submitted his works to him for examination, and would not publish them until Albani had approved them.

Joseph Mary Suarez, Bishop of Vaison, gives great praise to Albani even telling the Romans that that young man, by his rare science, would raise himself to the highest human greatness, as he actually did.

Queen Christina insisted upon his becoming a member of her academy, into which none were admitted but the distinguished distinguished of the learned who were in Rome. There each could only be heard in his turn; but it was determined that Albani should be heard as often as possible, without regard to the general rule. Laffiteau, who wrote the history of Clement XI, says that the young academician was always unanimously applauded. He received the doctorate at Urbino, whither his compatriots had summoned him to receive their felicitations upon the happy manner in which he had commenced his career.

On returning to Rome at the age of twenty-one he was made canon of Saint Laurence in Damaso; and at twenty-eight he entered the prelacy. Innocent XI appointed him referendary of both signatures, and consulter of the consistorial congregation. Shortly afterwards he was sent as governor to Rieti, then into the Sabina, and at length to Orvieto. He returned to Rome, and on the 22nd of May, 1688, he was made vicar of the Vatican Basilica. On the 13th of February,1690, Alexander VIII created him cardinal.

The entrance of Albani into the Sacred College was a glorious one. Three days before the consistory in which Alexander had resolved to confer twelve hats, he ordered Albani to draw up the discourse which was to be pronounced, and which was to contain the names of the new cardinals. After commanding the most perfect secrecy, the pope commenced dictating the names. Having mentioned ten, and then, quite fluently, the eleventh, he walked up and down as though striving to call to mind the twelfth. Then, as though astonished that his amanuensis did not proceed, he said: "Go on and write the twelfth name!" "And what is that?" asked Albani. "What!" said Alexander, "You do not know how to write your own name?" Albani then threw himself at the pontiff's feet and begged that His Holiness would name some worthier subject, and the pope replied: "We have repeatedly made alterations in our list of those whom we intend to raise to the purple, but have never for an instant thought of erasing yours." Albani therefore had to submit; and as cardinal he resided in the palace, that Innocent XII might at any hour be able to consult him on important business.

Charles II, King of Spain, wrote to Innocent XII to ask his opinion upon the proposal of the Spanish cabinet to call the grandson of Louis XIV to the succession to the Spanish throne. Innocent consulted Albani, who agreed with the statesmen of Madrid. The advice of Albani was adopted by the rest of the cardinals, and the pope communicated it as his decision to Charles II.

After the funeral of Innocent XII, fifty-eight cardinals entered into conclave. At first the electors favored the aged Cardinal Galeas Mariscotti, but the French were prejudiced against him and opposed that nomination. Some of the cardinals put forward Cardinal Panciatici; others Colloredo; and others Spinola–the last having only ten votes. In the meantime news was received of the death of King Charles II.

Cardinal Radolvich, a man distinguished for both wisdom and goodness, spoke out in a considerable assemblage of the cardinals, and maintained the necessity of a prompt election of a common Father, on account of the multitude of pilgrims who would flock to Rome to celebrate the jubilee; and the need of electing a pontiff capable, under the existing circumstances, of preventing or remedying the evils which threatened to afflict Italy, placed in a state of uncertainty between the pretensions of France, supported by the will of the last king, and those of Austria, maintained by the right of descent.

On the very day when the news arrived from Spain, the electors in the course of four hours unanimously chose Cardinal Albani, recognizing in him, although but fifty-one, all the qualities for governing skillfully under the embarrassing circumstances. It was well known that the court abounded with relatives of Cardinal Albani, but it was also known that it was he who, under Innocent XII, drew up the bull against nepotism.

Cardinal del Giudice was appointed to impart to the general consent in his favor. The surprise was so great that it instantly threw him into a violent fever. When he had somewhat recovered, he employed his utmost eloquence to be excused. Three successive days he persisted in his refusal to accept the tiara. With the sincerest tears he implored the cardinals to choose some worthier man; and he accused them of actual cruelty in refusing to comply with his entreaty. He even went so far as to aver that at the last day they would be called before the divine tribunal for not giving Christendom a better pontiff. The Abbe de Tencin conclavist to Cardinal Camus, and subsequently a cardinal, trusting to the affection Albani had always manifested for him, went into Albani's cell with the Pastoral of Saint Gregory, and read aloud that passage in which the holy pontiff teaches that when from humility one refuses the highest of honors, one in reality ceases to be humble, especially when one is disobedient to the voice of God, manifested by the unanimity of votes. But Albani, still persisting in the small value that he set upon himself, replied: "And yet it would be well that I had the necessary qualifications for that ministry." The constancy of Albani, such a constancy as had not been witnessed since the time of Saint Gregory the Great, would have triumphed had not four celebrated theologians, distinguished as well for their virtues as for their learning, convinced him that he would commit a serious fault should he maintain his opposition any longer. The four theologians who obtained such a victory over Albani's scruples were Anthony Massoulie, a Dominican; Charles Francis Varese, a Minor Observantine and penitentiary of Saint John Lateran; Joseph Mary Tommasi, a Theatine and subsequently a cardinal, who was beatified in the reign of Pius VII; and Joseph Altaro, a Jesuit and pontifical theologian.

Those four theologians had been separately consulted by Olivieri, nephew and confidant of Albani. None of them knew that the others had been consulted, yet the answer of each was precisely the same as that of the others.

At the end of the three days that had been granted Albani for reflection, the cardinals proceeded to the ballot. Of fifty-eight cardinals, fifty-seven cast their votes for Albani. According to immemorial custom on such an occasion, when everything was anticipatively settled, Albani should have given his own vote to Cardinal de Bouillon, dean of the Sacred College, but he preferred giving it to Cardinal Panciati. Bouillon testified some surprise. Albani simply replied that conscience was superior to all customs.

Perceiving that all further resistance would be useless, Albani accepted the tiara on the 23rd of November, 1700; and in memory of Clement I, pope and martyr, he took the name Clement XI.

He was consecrated bishop by Cardinal de Bouillon the day, and on the next he announced his accession by autograph letters. On the 8th of December he was crowned at the Vatican, and four months later, on the 10th of April, 1701, he took possession of Saint John Lateran.

If ever the sacred electors had reason to felicitate themselves upon having chosen a universally acceptable pontiff, they undoubtedly could do so on the occasion of the election of Albani. He was a personage of rare integrity of morals, of lofty intellect, illustrious for his experience in public business, and distinguished for affability, courtesy, and many other of those qualities which render a man, and especially a sovereign, acceptable.

Without mentioning the Catholic princes who were attached to the chair of Saint Peter, many Mussulman princes, as the pasha of Cairo, the pasha of Egypt, and the governor of Bithynia, expressed a wish to have been born subjects of Clement, whose virtues, talents, and glory they had heard praised by so many missionaries. The Protestants of Nuremberg struck gold and silver medals with learned inscriptions complimentary to this pope; and the senate of that city sent these medals to the theologian of the emperor, that he might present them to the apostolic nuncio residing at Vienna.

The first cares of the pope were devoted to the clergy of Rome. He ordered a general visitation of all the churches, to the end that nothing should escape his notice in the administration of the chapters and the monasteries. Astonished at finding in Rome very many bishops who had long resided there, on pretext of business of their diocese, he ordered them all to quit Rome within twelve days and to repair to their several dioceses. The same order was given to all ecclesiastics who, as holders of benefices or of any local superiority, were thereby bound to residence. He next turned his attention to all that was necessary for celebrating the holy year, the care of which had been bequeathed to him by his predecessor.

The Tiber had overflowed and flooded the road leading to Saint Paul without the walls. The pope decided that, instead of visiting Saint Paul, the pilgrims should visit Saint Mary in Trastevere, as was done in the reign of Urban VIII; and he ordered that under the bridge of Sant' Angelo boats should be kept constantly ready to rescue any who might fall into the river. His forecast proved judicious, for in consequence of the vast crowds, in vehicles and on foot, many persons had the misfortune to be precipitated into the Tiber.

At his first appearance in public, Clement visited the four basilicas, Saint John Lateran, Saint Peter's, Saint Mary Major, and Saint Mary in Trastevere, temporarily substituted for Saint Paul without the walls. Afterwards he went to the hospital of the Trinity, where he washed the feet of twelve pilgrims. Accompanied by the Sacred College, he waited upon the pilgrims at table, and then he presented that pious establishment with a considerable alms. In that year that single hospital received forty-two thousand convalescents and two hundred and ninety-nine thousand six hundred and ninety-seven pilgrims. The other charitable hospitals received convalescents and pilgrims to the number of thirty-two thousand two hundred and ninety-three.

Clement renewed the abolition of ambassadorial privileges, and he warned the ambassadors that none of them should oppose his determinations.

A congregation called Del Sollievo, consisting of cardinals, prelates, and nobles, had orders to take all possible means to secure abundance in the city of Rome and throughout the Ecclesiastical States. This pope, who had been so variously employed in administration during the reigns of his predecessors, knew beforehand all the needs of the States which he was called upon to govern.

Clement appreciating the importance to youth of an early application to their studies, in order the more easily to conquer the first difficulties, publicly announced his patronage of painting, sculpture, and architecture, which just at that time were not cultivated with sufficient zeal. To that end he instituted, at the Capitol, the Academy of Fine Arts. As regarded the antiquities with which Rome was daily enriched, he forbade their export without the express permission of the government. Rome was thus saved from being despoiled, without official knowledge, of mosaics, paintings, inscriptions, and marbles, precious either for the workmanship or the material, which were continually being found making excavations.

Charles Maratta, a painter of that time, received encouragement, distinction, and reward.

Clement was no less a patron of the sciences. He ordered Bianchini, one of the most celebrated mathematicians of that time, to trace that meridian which is still to be seen in the Carthusian church of Saint Mary of the Angels. That meridian, called the Clementine from the name of this pope, is two hundred feet in length, having, at certain intervals, slabs of marble in which are graven the signs of the zodiac and the various distances from the pole. This is an excellent work, which, serving to show the movements of the sun, moon, and stars in centuries to come, will indicate every year the precise time of Easter, according to the terms of the Council of Nice. It is so beautiful, so exact, so perfect, that it surpasses, alike in grandeur and in precision, all those which have been traced at Naples, at Venice, at Florence, at Bologna, and at Sienna.

Notwithstanding his love for his relatives, the pope for a long time kept them aloof from him, and gave them neither benefice nor employment until he judged them worthy.

He ordered Anthony and Hannibal, the eldest sons of his brother, to continue their studies in the Roman College, in order that they might some day deserve fitting advancement.

He directed Horace Albani, his brother, as well as his sister-in-law, Bernardina Ondedei, a lady of Pesaro, to abstain from accepting any title of honor that had in times past been bestowed upon relatives of a pope. He also forbade them to introduce the princely coronet in their arms, or interfere in even the pettiest of governmental matters; and he exhorted them to be satisfied with the usual privileges of an ordinary noble.

Finally, he made known to all who were connected with him by the ties of either relationship or alliance that he did not intend to make any change, however slight, in the bull of Innocent XII concerning nepotism. Clement preserved that feeling of wholesome austerity during his entire pontificate.

In imitation of his predecessors, the pope ordered a jubilee in order to ask the special protection of God, and his blessing upon the regular administration of the things spiritual and temporal of the papacy. Philip V, the new King of Spain, earnestly entreated Clement to grant him the investiture of the Two Sicilies; and the Emperor Leopold made the same request, based on his claims to those fiefs of the Holy See.

The pontiff, after submitting that important affair to various congregations, appeared inclined to remain completely neutral and to grant the investiture to neither of the two monarchs. Nevertheless, he took all proper precautions to avoid war.

But the peaceful wishes of the pontiff were thwarted, and Lombardy became the first theatre of war between the two pretenders.

Notwithstanding the promise of Leopold, who had declared that his armies should respect the pontifical territory, imperial troops invaded Ferrara. Then the Spaniards, joined with the French, earnestly entreated Clement to join their league, promising to present the Albani family with fiefs, governments, the order of the Golden Fleece, and all the honors that could be heaped upon grandees of Spain by a king of Spain. But Clement made no account of all those caresses; he, as the common father of the faithful, desired only the peace of Europe, and in a case so delicate, seeing on either hand only one of his sons, he would not declare in favor of either of the belligerent parties.

However, the ministers of Spain and those of the empire on Saint Peter's eve offered the ordinary tribute for the Two Sicilies, including the palfrey. The Holy Father inflexibly refused the offering, and on Saint Peter's day declared that that refusal of the tribute of Naples, in consequence of the war between the emperor in league with England, Holland, and the Duke of Savoy, against Spain in league with France, in no wise prejudiced the supreme domain of the Roman Church over the Two Sicilies–that is to say, the island of Sicily and the whole kingdom of Naples.

At the same time Leopold, the same whom we saw restored to Vienna by the brave Sobieski, granted to the Marquis of Brandenburg the title of King of Prussia, without the intervention of the Holy See. Moreover, that elevation contravened the ancient right acquired by the Teutonic military order over that province, in virtue of documents which the new king seemed to hold in contempt.

Clement protested against that innovation, and by several briefs he desired the emperor and all the princes to withhold the title of king from the Marquis of Brandenburg. Notwithstanding that resistance, the marquis was recognized at the peace of Utrecht, concluded in 1713, by almost Europe excepting the Holy See.

The difficulties raised by the court of Turin were no less vexatious to Clement than the war, which was prosecuted with its usual ravages.

Already, under Innocent XII, disorder had arisen on the subject of ecclesiastical immunities. In Piedmont of 1697 had stipulated that the governors should not concede to any one the places to obtain the clerical habit or to be promoted to orders without a previous inquiry, made by the minister called the patrimonial-general, as to the number of priests already in the district in question, the quality of the person newly proposed, his capacity, and his place of birth.

Innocent had endeavored, by a brief to the Archbishop of Turin, to obtain the repeal of that edict, but it was renewed in 1699, and a new provision was added to it. The parish churches were to have only a fixed number of clergy, and their possessions were not to exceed the amount fixed by the Council of Trent. The archbishop deemed it his duty to Declare the nullity of such an edict. Another was published, first at Ivry and then at Piedmont, and it provided that all ecclesiastical property, persons, communities, and colleges, which previously had been left exempt, should be subject to an annual tax, to be, at need, levied upon them by way of sequestration. The bishops opposed this edict, but the patrimonial then published a third edict, in which he affected to show the nullity of the opposition of the bishops. He forbade all disturbance of the rights of the ducal patrimony, and threatened all laymen who, on this question, should unite themselves to the priests.

Innocent appointed a congregation to examine the whole affair, and confirmed its decree that the bishops should proceed according to the canon law against the ministers of the Duke of Savoy.

The Archbishop of Turin published against them a monition, but they replied by an edict against the archbishop, justifying the treasury department which taxed the churches, and requiring the archbishop to withdraw his monition.

New differences arose between the nuncio at Turin and the senate of Nice.

These and other differences subsisted during the entire reign of Clement. Happily, concord appeared to be re-established under the reign of his successor, Innocent XIII, between the Holy See and the Duke of Savoy.

Two other embarrassments disturbed the mind of Pope Clement: one concerned the rites permitted by the Jesuits in China; the other, the famous Case of Conscience invented in France.

Five hundred and fifty years before the birth of Christ there lived in China a famous philosopher, named Confucius, who was deemed the wisest man in the whole nation. Subsequently it was the custom in that country that when a Chinese desired to be received into the number of the doctors, or the learned class that corresponds in China to the doctorate, the candidates assembled in a hall where the picture of the learned Confucius was set up; and when all the honors had been paid to that picture which disciples render to their living master, the presiding officer conferred the degree upon the candidate.

In 1633 Father John Baptist Morales, a Spanish Dominican sent to China, condemned these ceremonies as idolatrous, although the Jesuits had tolerated them as being purely civil.

By order of the emperor, the Dominicans and Franciscans were banished from the empire. Morales left China in 1645, and proceeded to Rome to make his complaint to the pope, Innocent X. In the name of his mission, the Dominican proposed to the congregation of the Propaganda these two doubts: "Is it permissible to prostrate one's self before the idol Chachinchiam? Is it permissible to sacrifice to Confucius?" On the reply of the congregation, the pope issued a decree forbidding missionaries of any order or institute to do either of those things until the Holy See gave a contrary order.

Some time after, there arrived in Rome the Jesuit Martini, who presented to Alexander VII and the above-mentioned congregation an account of that affair. In 1656 there appeared a decree from the pope declaring that Chinese Christians were permitted the use of those ceremonies esteemed purely civil and not at all religious, and as such approved by the brief which the same Alexander sent to the Chinese empress Helena, wife of the Emperor Yumlie. Clement IX, in a brief of 1669, approved the decree of his predecessor, as was subsequently done by Innocent XI in various briefs, and Innocent XII in a brief of the 2nd of September, 1691.

The Dominican, Father Pace, rector of the University of Mechlin, in his replies to the doubts of the missionaries of Tonquin, and Fathers Legaud, Delapalme, and Pardo, provincials of the same order, several times recommended to their subordinates in China to adopt the custom of the Jesuits in relation to those ceremonies. Further, Father Sarpetri, another Dominican, in a certificate signed at Canton on the the 4th of August, 1688, protested that, having during eight years watched those customs with great care, he had found them not only free from sinfulness but very necessary and useful for the propagation of the Gospel in China.

Notwithstanding these facts, the vicar apostolic, CharIes Maigrot, doctor of the Sorbonne and Bishop of Conon, attentively examined those ceremonies, and on the 26th of March, 1693, forbade them by a decree.

The matter was again submitted to Rome, and Clement, who was deeply concerned to have these controversies terminated to the advantage of religion, determined to decide them with a perfect knowledge of the case, and on the 5th of December, 1701, he named as visitor apostolic and legate to China Monsignor Charles Thomas Maillard de Tournon, a Turinese noble, subsequently, in 1707, created cardinal–a man of great piety, and held in singular esteem by the Holy Father. That prelate was furnished with recommendations to the sovereigns who had possessions in the East Indies, and to many great personages and bishops in those countries; and he departed from Europe provided with ample powers, contained in a brief of the 2nd of July, 1702. He safely reached China, where he received the pontifical decree of the 20th of November, 1704, condemning both the Chinese and Malabar rites, already condemned by the legate in his decree of the 23rd of the preceding June.

The Jesuits, supported by Monsignor Alvaro Benavente, Bishop of Ascolana and vicar apostolic in China, who considered that the use of those rites was useful to the diffusion of Christianity, represented to the Holy Father that the legate De Tournon had received information only from persons who were ignorant both of the principles and the language of China. But Clement, having examined the affair in 1710 and in 1712, confirmed all the decrees that had made against the ceremonies, as well as the edicts of Cardinal de Tournon, and on the 19th of March, 1715, he more rigorously condemned those rites; and he established the form of the oath which thenceforth was to be taken by every missionary in the Indies, promising that observance in their own names and in the name of their orders.

Benedict XIII confirmed the decree of Cardinal de Tournon and the bull of Clement XI; and Clement XII also confirmed them both.

Benedict XIV terminated the controversy, both as concerned China and Malabar, by two constitutions in which he detailed the progress of those controversies from their beginning. In the constitution Ex quo there are some words which many persons believe to be applicable to the Jesuits as having transgressed pontifical decrees upon that subject.

Then the Bishop of Coimbra, Michael of the Annunciation, having complained to Benedict XIV, on the 20th of March, 1748, that pontiff addressed a brief to him on the 20th of the following June, in which he assured him that those words did not determinately apply to the Jesuits, but to all those who until then had disobeyed those decrees, whoever the disobedient might be, whether belonging to the Society of Jesus, the order of Saint Dominic or Saint Francis, or to the secular clergy.

The second controversy related to the system of disturbances followed by the innovators in France.

They proposed, on the 20th of July, 1701, a Case of Conscience. In the same year it was signed by forty doctors of the Sorbonne and printed at Liege. In that book, to evade the condemnation of Alexander VII and the following pontiffs, those doctors maintained that absolution was not to be refused to an ecclesiastic who, in signing and externally swearing to the formulary of the said Alexander, and in condemning the five propositions of Jansenius, in the sense in which the Holy See had condemned them, nevertheless mentally denied that the said propositions were contained in the same sense in the book of Jansenius.

Relatively to that fact–that is to say, that the book contained the doctrine condemned–it sufficed to have a "respectful submission, and to observe a religious and respectful silence as to what the Church decides."

Clement, by a brief of the 12th of February, 1703, condemned the decision of the Case of Conscience as contrary to the constitutions of Innocent X, received by the assembly the clergy in 1700. The pope, by two briefs to the Most Christian King and to Cardinal de Noailles, recommended them to seek out the authors of that book. In consequence of this pontifical condemnation, out of the forty doctors who had signed the Case of Conscience–who were reduced to thirty-eight by the death of two of their number–thirty-six retracted. Two alone clung to their opinion and were sent into exile.

Among those who retracted may be mentioned the famous Dominican, Natalis Alexander. He had asked the pope to permit him to dedicate to His Holiness some Commentaries upon the Gospels. The pope refused to accept the dedication unless the Dominican retracted his signature to the Case of Conscience. Natalis Alexander made that retraction in his dedicatory epistle prefixed to the Commentaries.

It was necessary that the Holy See should declare itself more explicitly upon that point, lest fatal prejudices should arise among the faithful. Then Clement, always vigilant in the interests of the Church, at the instance of the Most Christian King, published on the 16th of July, 1705, his constitution Vineam Domini Sabaoth. That bull condemned the Case of Conscience, and confirmed the constitutions of Clement IX, Innocent X, Alexander VII, and Innocent XII. In this bull, which was received by all the bishops of France, the Holy Father reprobated, as insufficient, the "respectful silence" upon the question of fact, declaring that necessary to make true, sincere, internal confession of the fact which had been clearly judged by the Church. Silence did not strongly enough express the submission due to the apostolic bulls and the authority of the pontiff. It was to call again into question that which had already been decided, and to renew the signal for division.

In 1707 the Lutheran doctors of Helmstedt gave a very curious document in favor of the Catholic religion. There was a question of the marriage of Elizabeth Christina of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and the Archduke of Austria, the competitor of Philip V for the crown of Spain, and afterwards emperor under the name of Charles VI. This princess was a Lutheran.

The assembled doctors pronounced as follows: "To the question whether a Protestant princess can conscientiously become a Catholic on account of her marriage to a Catholic prince, the answer must depend upon the decision to two previous questions: (1) Whether the Catholics are fundamentally in error in principle; (2) Whether the Catholic doctrine is such that in professing that religion one has not the true faith and cannot be saved. The reply is that the Catholics are not fundamentally in error in their doctrine, and that one may be saved in that religion. (1) Because the Catholics have the same principles of faith that we have. For the solid principle of the faith and of the Christian religion consists in believing in God the Father, who created us; in God the Son, the Messiah and Savior who was promised to us, and who has effectively saved us from sin, death, the devil and hell; and in the Holy Ghost, who has enlightened us. We learn from God's commandments how to live towards God and our neighbor; and the Lord's Prayer teaches us how to pray. We learn also that we should use Baptism and the Lord's Supper, since the Lord instituted and ordained them. It must be added that Christ gave to the apostles and their successors power to announce to penitent sinners the forgiveness of their sins, and to impenitent sinners the wrath of God and chastisement, and, consequently, to retain the sins of the latter and to remit those of the former; wherefore it is that, wishing to be absolved in the name of God, we sometimes present ourselves at the confessional to declare and confess our sins. All this is sustained in our Catechism, which is an abridgment of Christian doctrine extracted from the holy Fathers and from the apostles. That Catechism, which is common to both Catholics and Protestants, contains all the principles of the decalogue, the Lord's Prayer, and the words of our Lord Jesus Christ concerning baptism and the Lord's Supper.

"In the preface to the Confession of Augsburg we read that both Catholics and Protestants combat under the same Lord Jesus Christ. It also says, in the conclusion of the second article, that our doctrine is not contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church. We know that among the Catholics there are learned and virtuous men who do not exactly observe the human additions, and who do not approve of the hypocrisy that is practised by others."

"We reply, secondly: That the Catholic Church is a veritable church, because it is an assembly that listens to the Word of God and receives the sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ, the same as the Protestants. No one can deny that. Otherwise we should be obliged to say that all who have been or still are in the Catholic Church will be damned, which is what we have never said or written."

"On the contrary, Philip Melanchthon, in his abridgement of the examination, shows that the Catholic Church has always been the true Church, which is proved by the Word of God. The doctrine of their Church argues it, inasmuch as they admit the commandments of God, the symbol of the apostles, the Lord's Prayer, baptism, the Gospels and the Epistles, in which the faithful have learned the principles of the true faith."

"The Catholic Church also teaches, as we do, in the writings and in the sermons of her doctors, that there is no salvation but through Jesus Christ, and that God has given no other name to men by which they can be saved but only the name of Jesus Christ; that men are not justified before God only by keeping his commandments, but also by the mercy of God and by the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the Catholic Church believes, as we do, and has always taught, that from the creation of the world to the present time no one has been able to be saved excepting through Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and men. The Catholic doctors and those of the Confession of Augsburg alike teach that sin can only be remitted through the merits and the sufferings of Jesus Christ.

"With respect to penance and good works the Catholics and Protestants agree, with only the difference in expression and manner of speaking."

"Having seriously examined all these things, we declare that in the Roman Catholic Church there is the veritable principle of the faith, and that one may live and die Christianly in it; that, consequently, the Most Serene Princess of Wolfenbüttel may embrace the Roman Catholic faith and be married to the archduke–chiefly, if we consider that she has not directly or indirectly sought to bring about this marriage, but that it has been presented to her by an effect of Divine Providence; and, in the second place, because that contract of marriage may be useful to her duchy and perhaps help to procure a fortunate peace. It is proper to remember, however, that she ought not to be constrained to abjure the Protestant religion. She must not be wearied with controversies and articles of faith contrary to her own; but she must be briefly and simply instructed upon the things which are necessary to her salvation; for instance, the annihilation of self, continual penitence, humility before God, charity to the poor, and the love of God and of her neighbor. All these are good works, which are also taught by the Catholics."

Such is that famous decision, which we have thought fit to insert in full, because it is curious and but little known. It has given rise to many reflections.

The Lutherans were exceedingly ill pleased with the too great candor of these indiscreet doctors of Helmstedt; there was but one exclamation against them. Even Leibnitz, moderate as he was, showed no less vivacity than the rest. He wrote to Fabricius that the consultation must be disavowed.

The University of Helmstedt, besieged with protests and threatened in its independence, put forth, on the 7th of December, 1708, a document by which it disavowed and condemned the preceding declaration. But the blow had already been struck, and that tardy and obviously compulsory disavowal seemed not to weaken the force of the first decision. The princess, who had occasioned it, embraced the communion which she was assured was good, made her solemn abjuration, and set out for Spain. By the act of abjuration the princess recognized the belief in purgatory; she promised all obedience to the authority of the pope; and after what, in so much detail, her former teachers and doctors had advised her, the Spanish theologians asked her no more upon the subject. A host of the German princes of the family of that empress followed her example.

But the business of Jansenism was to have results more injurious to Catholicism.

Father Pasquier Quesnel, priest of the congregation of the Oratory of France, published a book entitled "The New Testament in French, with Moral Reflections upon Each Verse; or, An Abridgment of the Morals of the Gospel, of the Acts of the Apostles, of the Epistles of Saint Paul, etc." (1671). A few years later he added two other volumes. When he saw that his work was well received, he made an appendix to his reflections, and then assailed the Catholic powers, and endeavored to add new force to the maxims which for fifty years had afflicted the Church.

The Jesuit, Father Michael de Tellier, confessor to Louis XlV, found in the work of Quesnel a hundred and one propositions which he deemed deserving of condemnation. The king denounced them to the supreme pontiff, and the latter condemned in general the New Testament of Quesnel for four reasons given in the said brief. The French cabinet deemed that a simple condemnation was not sufficient, but that there needed an extended explanation, with particular qualifications. In consequence, an examination was commenced at Rome, which lasted two years. Twenty-three congregations were held, consisting of cardinals and illustrious theologians, the Holy Father being almost always present at their meetings. At length, on the 8th of September, 1713, Clement published the famous bull Unigenitus Dei Filius, in which he condemned in globo very severely, and with appropriate censures, a hundred and one propositions extracted from the work of Quesnel, as not Catholic and containing that very Jansenism that had already been reprobated and condemned.

The bull was immediately sent by the Holy Father into France, and referred to the assembly of the clergy. Forty prelates recognized it; only seven hesitated and adhered to Cardinal de Noailles, who at the outset had approved the book of Quesnel. More than a hundred bishops published the bull throughout France. Its admission encountered some difficulties in Parliament, where, however, it was registered, by order of the king, on the 14th of February, 1714, in spite of the repugnance of the president, Menard.

A small number of bishops having refused to accept it, the Bishop of Tours attacked it in a pastoral; and at that moment Cardinal de Noailles also attacked the bull.

Clement could close the mouths of the detractors of his bull. The king's government was ready to take up its defence energetically, but the pope moderated the intentions of the king; and shortly afterwards that great prince, after a reign of seventy-two years, died on the 1st of September, 1715.

The regent of the kingdom, the Duke of Orleans, did not show himself quite so favorable to the bull; and then things changed their aspects. Those who had been exiled for disobedience to the pontifical decisions were recalled as innocent. The Sorbonne, which at first had accepted the bull, began to attack it. On this the pope manifested his displeasure, suspended the privileges of that institution, and forbade its conferring of ecclesiastical degrees.

The Sorbonne persisted in its resolutions, and in 1717 joined the appellants, revoking the decree by which, in 1714, it had pronounced the exclusion from the magistracy against any of that body who verbally or by writing attacked the bull.

On the 5th of March, 1717, was published an "appeal from the bull to the pope when better informed, or even to the council"; and that appeal was signed by Cardinal de Noailles, by the bishops of Mirepoix, of Montpellier, of Bologna, of Senez, and by many ecclesiastics.

But the appeals did not increase in proportion to the number of the Quesnelists. One of the partisans of the opposition furnished a considerable sum of money with which appeals were bought from those whom need or greed had brought to the brink of the precipice. Five hundred francs were given to any one who in disputation defended one of the condemned errors, and even clergymen were put forward who consented to betray their faith. More considerable sums were remitted to the canons and religious who engaged their chapters or their communities to appeal. This cabal lasted until the moment when the regent heard of the complaints of the creditors of M. Lord, secretary to Cardinal de Noailles, and of De Servien, secretary of the Bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne. They had received as a loan the sum spoken of above, and had never repaid it to the creditors. It had been expended in purchasing the votes of two thousand appellants of all ranks and conditions, the greater number of whom were found in the dioceses of Rheims, Orleans, and Rouen.

Clement was greatly grieved at perceiving so many divisions. Observing that he could not recall to the right path the misguided French, he condemned the appeals of the Cardinal de Noailles and of the four bishops. The Duke of Orleans had thought to impose silence upon both parties. The pope reproved the edict of the regent. On the 25th of March in the following year, His Holiness wrote to Cardinal de Noailles a letter in Italian, begging him to return to the pontifical obedience; but that attempt, like the others, proved useless. Then, on the 27th of August, 1718, the pope declared that thenceforth he would not only not recognize as sons of the Church, but would even denounce all those who should refuse obedience to the bull Unigenitus, even though the disobedient should possess episcopal or cardinalate dignity. The bull Unigenitus had now been published five years.

The regent and the refractory bishops, alarmed by the unshaken firmness of Clement, proposed to the Holy Father to receive the bull if His Holiness would consent to add to it some explanations. But the pope refused that condition, as being offensive to all decisions of the Church. Some zealous French bishops endeavored to give those explanations, and did so in terms honorable to the Holy See. Nevertheless, Clement, while he praised their zeal, refused his consent to their mediation, lest it should seem that the Holy See stood in need of explanation of that which it had already and absolutely determined upon.

The czar, Peter of Russia, who was at Paris in 1717, received a memoir from some doctors of the Sorbonne when he paid a visit to that establishment. He went through the library attended by three of those doctors, who pointed out to him whatever was most interesting. They contrived to turn the conversation upon the reunion of the Russian to the Latin Church, and assured him that that reunion was not as difficult as it appeared to be. In the first place, the Greek Church would be at liberty to preserve most of its practices; and then, as to what concerns the faith, the question brought back to its proper state would easily be cleared up. Upon the invitation of the emperor, the doctors drew up a memorial which they were to deliver to him before his then approaching departure; they therefore hastened to finish it. Assuredly, they could only employ such matter as they could find in France, and those scanty materials could not replace the ample ones which are to be found in the Roman chancelleries. After establishing the points of belief held in common by both parties, the doctors proceeded to consider the particular articles which separated the two churches. There would be no obstacle, they affirmed, to the Russians retaining their discipline, which permitted the consecration of leavened bread, provided that they would recognize the validity of the consecration of unleavened bread. They established the primacy of the pope as of divine right, and endeavored to quiet the fears of the Russians that in recognizing that primacy they might lose the rights and privileges of their Church.

The memoir was signed by nineteen doctors. It was composed by Bourcier, one of the most stirring of the then members of the Sorbonne, who, involved in miserable disputes, devoted to them the talents which he might have made serviceable to the Church. The other signers were also appellants–that is to say, supporters of a doctrine which the Holy See had condemned.

The czar, having received this memoir, paid them some compliments in return. On his return into his own dominions, he submitted the document to those bishops who were then at court, and ordered them to reply to it. The bishops, three in number, did, in fact, make a reply, dated on the 15th June, 1718, old style, or 25th of June, new style. They did not in that document sound the question to its depths, but contented themselves with showing some desire to succeed, but added that they could do nothing without consulting the other Greek bishops, and especially the four Eastern patriarchs. It would seem that that reply was dictated rather by their deference to the wishes of their prince than by any desire for a reconciliation. The letter was sent to the King of France, who gave a copy to the doctors.

few years afterwards, it is supposed in 1721, another reply appeared, and signed by the bishops of Great, Little, and White Russias. They still did not enter deeply into the question, but confined themselves to saying that they could do nothing, having no patriarch. The czar, in fact, had abolished that dignity, and had substituted for it a synod intrusted with all the affairs of the Russian Church, and consisting of bishops and archimandrites. But probably that was only a pretext; it is presumed that the Russian bishops were really indisposed to a reunion. One of them, who was subsequently Archbishop of Novgorod and president of the synod, was said to be the principal opponent; and it has even been credited that he was the author of a piece published at Jena in 1719, under the name of Buddaeus, a Protestant theologian, in which it was attempted to show that the union of the two churches was an impossibility.

Be that as it might, the matter went no further. The czar, occupied with political objects, lost sight of the question; moreover, Javorsky, Archbishop of Resan, in whom Peter had great confidence on religious subjects, composed a work entitled "Petra fidei," or the Touchstone of the Faith, in which he represented the reunion as impossible, yet refuted Buddaeus as to many of his assertions. It is known that Clement XI also made some efforts to bring about that most desired reunion. He sent missionaries into Russia, in the hope that individuals at least might be brought back to the true Church; but it does not appear that that effort produced any good result.

The doctors of the Sorbonne, who had still been expecting an answer in detail to their memoir of 1717, at length imagined they perceived a favorable opportunity for renewing the endeavor. Jubé, rector of Asnières, went to Russia as almoner and preceptor of the children of the Princess Dolgorouki, a Galitzin. Twelve doctors, almost all of the number of those who had signed the memoir of 1717, signed another document, dated 24th of June, 1728, forming quasi credentials for Jubé, empowering him to negotiate that business with the Russian bishops. They gave other reasons for the reunion.

These new efforts had no more success than the former ones. In vain did Jubé renew his appeal at Pillau, in Prussia; in vain, in the account of his journey, does he say that it was necessary to render the Greeks appellants; in vain did he take care to provide himself with very extensive powers from Archbishop Barchman, which he seems to have thought better than those of the Roman court. On his arrival in Russia, he found, it is affirmed, great assistance in the influence of the Dolgorouki, and in the affection shown to him by the Spanish ambassador, probably with the consent of Philip V. Some bishops, even, showed good will; but the Archbishop of Novgorod, president of the senate, and a great favorite at court, exhibited a quite contrary disposition. Such was the state of things when a revolution took place which put an end to all those projects. Peter II being dead, Anne succeeded him as empress.

The Dolgorouki were disgraced. The protectress of Jubé, after enduring much ill treatment, returned to the religion of the country. The bishops who had been relied on were deposed or sent into exile, and Jubé himself was obliged to retreat in all haste to France. Such was the result of his attempt.

It would be a melancholy list that would detail all the penal laws that were successively levelled against the Catholics in the British dominions from the period of the Reformation. Every reign added, in that respect, new seventies to the last. Anne herself yielded on that point to what seemed be the spirit of the nation. In reality, the Catholics ought not to have been hated by her, for she could not but admire their heroic attachment to her family. Nevertheless, there were few years of her reign in which some new attacks were not made upon them. In 1702 a bill of high treason was passed against the Pretender, and a form of abjuration was prescribed at the end of the session of 1706. Stratford, Bishop of Chester, had made, in the House of Peers, great complaint of the progress of popery. That was the usual phrase when new severities were to be called for. In the twelfth year of the reign of Anne there were new complaints. An act of Parliament declared Catholics incapable of being presented with benefices, and their rights in that respect were transferred to the universities.

But it was especially in Ireland that the animosity showed itself.

In 1703 the Parliament of that country passed an act which provided that only a limited and very small number of Catholic priests should remain in the island, and they were subjected to numerous vexatious formalities, the omission of which sufficed to render the priests liable to punishment. All other priests were forbidden to set foot in the island, the people were forbidden to receive or assist them. As regarded the Catholics, all existing laws were changed; their youngest sons were admitted to share the paternal property equally with the eldest, unless these latter chose to prevent it by turning Protestants.

The child of Catholic parents, if he renounced his religion, could summon his parents to declare, on oath, the total amount of their property, and the chancellor awarded him the third of it for his support during the life of his parents. In like manner wives, by embracing Protestantism, could get rid of their husbands. Catholic parents were excluded from the guardianship of their children while minors, and compelled to give them Protestant guardians; and every Catholic was precluded from inheriting Protestant property, whatever his right to it. He could not acquire any real estate or practice at the bar. He was prohibited from wearing a sword, or carrying any kind of weapon, or having a horse above a certain very low price.

All these articles were accompanied by aggravating circumstances; both natural and social laws were reversed, and dissensions, cupidity, suspicion, and confusion were introduced into families.

In 1710 England was triumphant on all sides. The star of the Great King diffused only a feeble light; he sank overwhelmed by family misfortunes. Great Britain seized upon the opportunity to exercise new rigors upon the Catholic worship. The oath of abjuration was invented, which consisted in swearing that the descendants of James II had no legitimate right or pretension to the crown. This clause in the act was offensive even to honest Protestants, who could not disguise from themselves that those pretensions should be left to the lapse of time, and that the fact of their right was too notorious to bear denial. The oath was none the less prescribed and enforced. It was to be taken by the Catholic clergy under pain of banishment; and by the laity of the same communion under pain of heavy fines, imprisonment, and confiscation of property, after an obstinate refusal.

Catholics had already been forbidden to send their children to a foreign country to be educated. The act of 1710 deprived them at home of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses of their own religion. Informers were encouraged by ample rewards levied upon the property of the accused.

On the 26th of July, 1717, George I, having succeeded to Queen Anne, who died on the 1st of August, 1714, sanctioned an act of Parliament which obliged Catholics to give a circumstantial account of their property. A historian calls this one of the most tyrannical acts levelled against the Catholics in 1717. They were again disarmed in Ireland, and priests and members of religious orders were strictly searched after. The motive for this new measure was an armament in Spain in favor of the Pretender, brother of the late queen, and known as the Chevalier de Saint George. But the fleet that was to convey and protect that expedition was scattered by the winds, and the few troops who, in Scotland, had declared for the prince were speedily dispersed. James retired into Italy, where he married the granddaughter of John Sobieski, King of Poland and deliver of Vienna.

We now return to the course of events during the reign of Clement XI. At length the religious peace was concluded; for the regent ordered, by a decree of the 4th of August, 1718, that throughout France the bull Unigenitus should be received and faithfully executed, all appeal to a future council being forbidden, and all appeals already made being annulled.

Cardinal de Noailles would not, however, yield as yet; but it must not be forgotten that, under Benedict XIII, he did at length submit to that famous bull.

At the moment when that cardinal was braving the Holy See, it was often remarked that members of his family, who were attracted to the true doctrines, solicited him to return to his duty and still promised a prompt reconciliation.

During the war the pope had suffered much from the violence with which the belligerents carried on hostilities; there was an occasion when his grief was made more bitter still.

A great number of imperial troops were assembled in the territory of Ferrara, and the general led them to Comacchio, a pontifical fief of which the commandant of the imperial troops had taken possession in the name of the emperor. Leopold I died in 1705, and his son Joseph succeeded him. Clement tried every method of being on amicable terms with the new emperor; but this unjust invasion compelled the pope to demand justice from His Imperial Majesty. He exhorted him well to consider the penalties the canons imposed upon those who violently invaded the property and violated the rights of the Church; and he reminded the emperor that all, both high and low, are answerable for all abuse of the employments to which they have been called. The rights and property which the emperor had sworn to defend, he now, by his troops, invaded. The prince was warned that though a pontiff, knowing well the duties of his office and of his apostolic ministry, must know how to suffer injuries with patience, he yet must always be prepared to defend the rights of the Holy See. Clement reminded Joseph that it was his duty to give no scandal to the faithful, and entreated him not to sully his youth by wrong-doing, and not to commence his reign by so great an insult to the spouse of Jesus Christ.

This gentleness had no effect upon Joseph. Clement, by a bull of the 17th of July, renewed his complaints. The pope demanded of the prince if he would judge the cause of Jesus Christ and his vicar on earth. He exhorted him to desist from his evil course, and to resume the deference which he owed to the Church, and on his doing so, the pope would forgive him and embrace him as the first-born; but if the prince persisted in following the evil advice that he had received, the pope would renounce the clemency of the father, and punish the rebellious son by excommunication, and even, if necessary, by force of arms. The pontiff feared nothing, he added, because he defended the cause of Christ and his Church, and therefore the Lord would give him strength to conquer. "Moreover," added the pope, "if you are not ashamed to fight against the Church and God himself, if you deviate from the ancient Austrian piety, and especially from that of your father Leopold, who was always so reverent to the Church, and who was so magnificently helped by the Church during the Hungarian war, as the house of Austria always has been by the pontiffs, remember that the same God who giveth kingdoms can also destroy them."

Such, but in vain, were the remonstrances of Clement to the Emperor Joseph; in vain, because Cardinal Grimani, imperial minister at Rome, daily sent false information to Vienna as to the disposition of the pope. In consequence of various circumstances, it appears that the minutes of the correspondence of that cardinal are at present in the archives of the Holy See. There is no doubt that truth was outraged in those culpable despatches.

Meantime the imposts were not always adequate to the expenses. The people suffered, and their misery must at all costs be relieved. Clement never acted by any other than frank, straightforward means, obvious and known to all. He assembled those cardinals who were in Rome, and with their consent he took from the Castle of Sant' AngeIo half a million from the five million of crowns deposited there by Sixtus V. Moreover, he assigned as security for that sum, which he would consent only to borrow, the revenue of the rich abbey of Chiaravalle, in the March of Ancona.

A decree appeared at Rome, at this period, against a work by Collins, entitled "A Discourse on Freethinking," and produced a remarkable effect. Anthony Collins was one those who, in England, pushed to the greatest extreme the liberty of emitting extraordinary opinions. He commenced his literary career in 1707, by an "Essay upon the Use of Reason in Propositions of which the Evidence Depends on Human Testimony," in which essay he seemed to delight to place in opposition the certainty produced by revelation and the evidence that is furnished by reason. The same year he engaged in the controversy between Dodwell and Clarke. The Discourse on Freethinking openly announced views hostile to revelation. It was composed, as its title indicates, on account of the rise and progress of a society of freethinkers. The printer was taken before a magistrate and revealed the name of the author, who fled to Holland, where he already had corresponded with John Leclerc and other literary men and theologians of that time.

Whiston himself, though far from orthodoxy upon many points, placed himself in the ranks to defend that very revelation which he had so often endeavored to shake. In some reflections, since reprinted, he reproached Collins with tracing, in season and out of season, a hateful portrait of the clergy and of Christian priests in general, with attacking Christianity on that score with a ludicrous bad faith, with affecting contempt for the Jewish nation and the legislation of Moses, as well as for the great principle of the immortality of the soul, and with incessantly seeking to render our holy books suspected, absurd, or uncertain. Collins, thus attacked and confounded by men whom he probably hoped not to count among the number of his adversaries, determined to issue, under his own eyes at The Hague, a French translation of his Discourse on Freethinking. That edition, published in 1714, is probably the one especially had in view in the decree of Rome prohibiting the work.

Rome completed the breaking up of that instrument of detraction, whose writings, however, have not been unserviceable to modern sceptics, both French and English.

On the 28th of August, in the year 1718, the pope issued his letters Pastoralis officii. The boldness of the appellants, and their violence against the Holy See, led the pope to conclude that he must no longer be a witness to such excesses. He deemed that he should be suspected of tolerating them if he did not repress them with all the authority that he possessed. He therefore issued a bull addressed to all the faithful, and commencing with these words: "Pastoralis officii." After giving an account of his efforts and of his condescension in endeavoring to bring back the erring and the obstinate, and the opposition which his pacific views had met with, he solemnly warned those who had not submitted to the constitution as true sons of the Church, but took their stand, disobedient, contumacious, and refractory. "Since," said he, "they have departed from us and the Roman Church, if not by express words, at least certainly by deeds and by multiplied signs of hardened obstinacy, they must be held to be also separated from our charity and from that of the Roman Church, and henceforth there must be no communion between them and us." This language necessarily displeased those whom it concerned. On the 17th of September Cardinal de Noailles signed an appeal from the letters Pastoralis officii; and his appellant colleagues followed his example. Painful scenes were then renewed. The chapter of the cathedral of Paris, many rectors, whole communities, and, above all, the Sorbonne, followed the bishops in appealing. The Parliament of Paris received an appeal of the procurator-general from the bull. Many provincial parliaments did the same; and at Aix an advocate-general distinguished himself by a requisition in which he unceremoniously addressed to the pope the following language: "While you believe yourself able to cut off all the world from your communion, it is you who separate yourself from the communion of all the world."

At that time there was no diplomatic minister, either at Paris or at Rome, who could interpose words of conciliation. Aldobrandi, chargé d'affaires of His Holiness, had long since left Paris; M. Amelot, who had been charged with a mission to Rome, had returned to Paris; and Father Laffiteau, chargé d'affaires and Bishop of Sisteron, did not set out for Rome until 1720.

The debates grew sharper; fortunately they were to turn to the advantage of the Holy See.

The French bishops did not share the opinion of the advocate-general of Aix. Without citing the pastoral letters, they issued a great number of pastorals calling for submission to the bull Unigenitus, as "a dogmatic judgment of the Universal Church, every appeal from which was null, frivolous, illusory, rash, scandalous, insulting to the Holy See and to the episcopal body, contrary to the authority of the Church, schismatic, and tending to renew and foment condemned errors."

Forty-eight French bishops thus expressed their opinion, and others, without issuing pastorals, contented themselves with manifesting their dispositions by their conduct. The tribunals again took part. The edict of the 23rd of March, 1682, was, however, well and duly revoked in 1693, and we have seen that in 1713 Louis XIV again declared that he renounced the execution of the edict that he made in 1682.

The tribunals did not make their appearance in the character of peacemakers. Many of the pastorals against the appeal, salutary and obedient as they were, were suppressed by judicial sentences. In vain the regent, the Duc d'Orléans, wrote two circulars–one addressed to the bishops, the other to the parliaments. In the latter he recommended the parliaments to support the pastors, the non-appellants, against the revolts of their clergy. But in some of the superior tribunals dispositions hostile to the bishops were very apparent, together with a spirit of encroaching upon their authority, and that marked favor to their opponents of which we shall find only too many proofs. And yet there was no longer any doubt that the bishops, in the various seats of Catholicism, regarded the constitution Unigenitus as a decision of the Universal Church, and the appeal as illegitimate and null.

Quesnel had said, moreover, in his Traditions of the Roman Church, that "the silence of other churches, even were there nothing more, should be accepted for a general consent; which, added to the judgment of the Holy See, forms a decision which is not to be resisted."

Says Quesnel, in another place: "It is affirmed that the bull was everywhere received; but let us have some proofs of that fact! and, that we may spare them all trouble as to getting proof from Asia and Africa, we call upon them only to give us such from all the churches of Europe, and we will hold them quits as to the rest."

The challenge was speedily accepted. Rome requested the foreign bishops plainly to explain their sentiments as to the bull.

Immediately the bishops of the most important sees sent testimonies of their adhesion to that judgment, and of their aversion for the appeal.

In Italy the Patriarch of Venice and the archbishops of Bologna, Genoa, Milan, Ravenna, Florence, Pisa, Sienna, Naples, Benevento, Palermo, Messina, and Cagliari bore testimony that the constitution was everywhere received alike by metropolitans and suffragans. The Bishop of Mondovi, in Piedmont, made the same declaration. But then Quesnel exclaimed: "Bring forward some other consent! You exert a sovereign empire over Italy and its dependencies.

In Germany the three ecclesiastical electors, the Archbishop of Salzburg and the Archbishop of Prague, and the bishops of Hildesheim, Ratisbon, Spires, Würzburg, Paderborn, Osnabrück, and Münster, affirmed that it was recognized and observed in their dioceses.

Cardinal Saxe, Archbishop of Strigonia and Primate of Hungary, reported that in the kingdom none were refractory.

In Poland the archbishops of Gnesen and Lemberg, the bishops of Cracow, Posen, and Lucko, adhered to this judgement. The archbishops of Ragusa, Zara, and Spalatro, in Dalmatia, certified that they and their suffragans reverenced the bull.

In Spain the archbishops of Saragossa, Burgos, Granada, Toledo, and Seville, and the bishops of Avila, Siguenza, Tarragona, and Badajoz, hastened to show the conformity of their sentiments with those of so many bishops; and the multiplied efforts made with the prelates and the universities of that kingdom to induce them to appeal only served to prove how far removed the Church of Spain was from taking part in any act of insubordination, and to draw down just reproaches upon the revolted.

In Portugal the cardinal of Cunha and the Western patriarch gave an account of the sentiments of every bishop in that country.

In Switzerland the bishops of Bâle, Geneva, Sion, and Lausanne accepted the bull in their synods, and expressed themselves in the strongest terms against the appeal.

In the Low Countries, where the new doctrine had its birth, and where, also, it had its partisans, the bishops incessantly battled against error. From the year 1714 the prelates of Namur, Liège, Ghent, Ruremonde, and Antwerp, Tournay and the vicars-general of Mechlin, Bruges, and Ypres, which sees were vacant, had issued pastorals for the publication and reception of the constitution.

On the 17th of October, 1718, Monsignor d'Alsace de Bossu, who had become Archbishop of Mechlin, had published a pastoral letter in which he declared that he did not recognize the opponents as true sons of the Church, but as rebels with whom he refused all commerce. On the 23rd of the following November, five other bishops and the vicar apostolic of Bois-le-Duc wrote to the pope to assure him of their submission. The faculties of theology of Douay, Louvain, and Cologne, and the universities of Pont-à-Mousson and Coimbra, successively gave upon that point declarations the most precise.

Finally, in England, three bishops, who in the midst of the greatest dangers exercised the functions of vicars apostolic, sent their assurance of adhesion.

Vanquished by both authority and reasoning, the opponents of the pope had recourse to frivolous subtleties.

There had previously been an occasion when Clement had seemed to recognize the archduke as King of Spain. Philip complained. The pope replied that there was a power in Europe, France, which at one and the same time recognized as King of England James III, a Catholic, and William III, a heretic. After that, if a pope, obliged to sustain war with very few troops, without receiving any aid from Christendom, seemed to commit an act of weakness, he had the right to point to a formidable power constantly giving an example which a weak power followed only for a moment.

The Grand Duke and Czar of Muscovy, Peter, having written to Rome, through his minister, Kurakin, that he was determined to permit in his States the free and public exercise of the Catholic religion, the foundation of a convent for the Capuchins, and of a house with schools for the Jesuits, Clement caused thanks to be returned to that prince, whom he at the same time solicited for the official documents authorizing those foundations.

To have near him pious anchorites, Clement invited to Rome some of the solitaries of La Trappe, and established them in the ancient abbey of Casamare, giving means to make the foundation perpetual. Clement trusted much to the piety of those solitaries, and he often said that their prayers and their resignation were the most effectual means of appeasing the wrath of God.

Cardinal de Bouillon, whom we have seen assisting the election of Clement, was compromised by a letter which he had written to his king. Louis first wrote to demand an inquiry into the conduct of that cardinal, and Clement had promised to do the most exact justice. However, Clement, who always sought peace, wrote to the king in the endeavor to appease his prejudice against the cardinal. That monarch, great even in his anger and resentment, would not allow the cardinal to be brought to trial, but allowed him to remain in peace at Brabant, where he had taken shelter.

The Emperor Joseph had long been dead. Clement forgot all the insults the Holy See had received from the prince, and ordered the celebration of magnificent funeral services, at which, as customary, he was present. The pope wrote on that subject to the Empress Eleanora, mother of the deceased emperor, conjuring her to fulfill his intended restoration to the Holy See of all those rights which had so long been usurped from it. Charles VI, brother of Joseph, succeeded him in the empire. Hopes were then conceived of peace, because the competitor of Philip V, having become emperor, would naturally wish to consolidate his power at Vienna by renouncing pretensions on Spain, which that country had repulsed.

Meantime Clement intended to give the purple to his nephew Hannibal Albani, but desired first to know the opinions of the cardinals. They replied that Hannibal had been so worthy a nuncio at Vienna, and possessed so many virtues, that he would honor the purple even more than the purple would honor him, and they united their solicitations that he should be made a cardinal. Clement, accordingly, gave him the purple.

Clement had lost his brother Horace Albani, who had acquired universal esteem. There was a touching scene in the consistory when Clement communicated to the Sacred College the letter of condolence of the great Louis. The letter of the monarch was so beautiful, so touching, and filled with such noble expressions, that the pope could not refrain from exclaiming: "Here is a true hero of religion! You know how much family misfortune oppresses him; yet he who so much needs consolation for himself has in himself the admirable sensibility to console others."

After many labors and struggles in his determination to insure respect to the ecclesiastical immunities, Clement determined no longer to defer the canonization of Pope Pius V. It took place with a great concourse of people. The cause of that canonization had been introduced in 1621. Clement X had solemnly beatified Pius on the 1st of May, 1672.

The second saint canonized with Pius V was Saint Andrew Avellino, born at Castelnuovo, in the Basilicate, in 1561. He was an advocate in the city of Naples, then a religious Theatine. He died on the 10th of November, 1608, at the age of forty-seven. Urban VIII, who had not then published the law by which he forbade process of beatification to commence until fifty years after the death of the servant of God, had declared Avellino blessed on the 10th of June,1625.

The third saint canonized with Pius V was Saint Felix of Cantalice, of Sabina, in the campagna of Rieti, in the diocese of Civita Ducale. He was born in 1513, and entered as a lay brother into the order of the Capuchins, for which he begged during forty years at Rome. He died on the 18th of March, 1587, at the age of seventy-four years. Urban VIII had declared him blessed.

The fourth canonization, at the same period, was that of Saint Catharine Vigri, generally called Saint Catherine of Bologna, because she passed a great portion of her life in that city, although she was born at Verona, on the 8th of September, 1413. She was the foundress of a convent under the rule of Saint Clare, of the order of Saint Francis. She had been beatified by Clement VII.

Some bishops of Armenia had convoked a council, in which, for several offences attributed to the Patriarch of Antioch, they had deposed him. He made the case known to the congregation of the Propaganda, which sent to Mount Libanus an apostolic delegate to make inquiries. The patriarch was found to be innocent. Clement declared him so, and restored him to his dignity, enjoining the Maronites to pay him a perfect obedience, which they did with every mark of respect for the Holy See.

Clement maintained an active correspondence with the King of Persia; and every time that he sent missionaries into that country, he made them bearers of presents for that sovereign, who, on his part, neglected no opportunity to show his attachment to the pontiffs, whose briefs he read with the most lively gratification. At that time there were a great number of Catholics in Persia, where they were free from persecution. M. Desalleurs, ambassador from France to Constantinople, seconded Clement in all the business relating to the Armenian patriarch and to the state of the Christians in Persia. In that course M. Desalleurs, with great zeal, obeyed the instructions of the French government. The Turks recommenced their attacks: they boasted that ere long they would destroy Venice, and they imagined themselves sufficiently strong and fortunate in war to render themselves masters of Rome. Clement incessantly exhorted the emperor to punish that bravado. Prince Eugene of Savoy, near Peterwardein, in 1716, attacked two hundred thousand infidels with less than eighty thousand men, and gained a memorable victory. Clement, to show his gratitude to that valiant prince, sent him the stocco and berrettone, that honorable reward of victories over the enemies of the faith.

On the 20th of August, 1720, the pope permitted the assembling of a council of bishops at Zamoski, in Poland. The Greek religion had long been preserved in that country, and when, in the seventeenth century, several bishops of that communion united themselves to the Holy See, it was agreed that they should preserve their rites and customs; and they were only constrained to recognize the general councils, the procession of the Holy Ghost, the primacy of the pope, and the other points of faith which separate the Greeks from the Roman Church. But, on so great a change, there are many points of discipline to be regulated. Leo Kiszka, Archbishop of Kiow and of Halicz, desired to be specially authorized by the Holy See to convoke in council the Greek bishops who depended upon him as their metropolitan, and Clement XI could not but approve so laudable a design. He directed Jerome Grimaldi, Archbishop of Edessa and papal nuncio in Poland, to preside over the council, and he exhorted the bishops not to thwart the invitation of their metropolitan. That prelate appointed the council to meet at Lemberg, on the 20th of August of that year, 1720; but the plague having appeared in that city, he then appointed that of Zamoski, in the province called Red Russia, where the council, in fact, opened its proceedings on the appointed day in the Church of Saint Mary and Saint Nicholas, belonging to the Greeks. There were present, besides the Archbishop of Edessa, president, and the metropolitan of Kiow, seven Greek bishops, eight archimandrites or abbots, who have great authority in that Church, and more than a hundred and twenty secular and regular priests of the same communion; for the Greek religion is the most followed in the eastern part of Poland. The greatest portion of the nobility and clergy had not long been united to the Catholic Church. The fervor of those present became as exemplary as could be wished. The concourse of nobles, peasants, and even foreign merchants, was immense. The old subjects of John III everywhere repeated that the king had saved the Holy See, and that the Archbishop of Edessa was there to thank faithful Poland and to ask for new proofs of her devotion.

The first session passed with the customary ceremonies. The members all signed a very detailed profession of faith, directed against the errors of the schism. Among other particulars, they recognized the ecumenical character of he Council of Trent, and submitted to its decrees, as well as to those of the other general councils held in the Latin Church.

The second session was held on the 1st of September, when several constitutions of the popes were read, including the celebrated bull Unigenitus. The third and last session was held on the 17th of September, when the decrees were adopted which had been drawn up in the private conferences. The first of them concerns the faith. It especially condemned the errors of an individual named Philip, who appeared to have had many partisans in that country, and who taught that the sacraments should not be resorted to, and that the time of Antichrist had arrived. Eleven propositions extracted from his doctrines were quoted and condemned. In the decree upon the Mass it was ordered that the Greeks should continue to celebrate with fermented bread, and that each should exactly follow his own rite. On many other points permission was given to follow indifferently the usage of the one or the other Church. It was ordered that only monks should be raised to the episcopacy, unless by a special dispensation. The reason was that they were more generally well educated, being taken from the order of Saint Basil, which greatly prevailed in that country and had many monasteries where an ecclesiastical education could easily be given.

That metropolitan, however, had founded a seminary at Vladimir, which see he also held, and he had also a college at Lemberg.

The other decrees related to preaching, feast-days, the administration of the sacraments, etc. It was decided to unite into one body all the different congregations of the order of Saint Basil, which should have only one abbot, whose inspection would extend over all the monasteries, so that he could the more readily suppress abuses. Many points of discipline, besides, were regulated. The decrees are very numerous, and the council ordered them to be translated into the vulgar tongue, so that the regulations might be known to all, and that all might thus draw from them the necessary information and advice. The documents are signed by the nuncio Grimaldi, Archbishop of Edessa, as president; by Leo Kiszka, Archbishop of Kiow and Halicz (those bishoprics are united and always held by the same titulary); by seven other bishops, and by eight abbots of other monasteries. There are also at the end the signatures of a hundred and twenty-seven secular and regular clergy of the different dioceses that we have mentioned, and also of those of Novgorod and Minsk, whence it was evident that the council was very numerously attended. Benedict approved it and confirmed its decrees in 1724.

In 1720, at the time of the plague in Marseilles, Pope Clement XI showed the most tender interest in that city, and promised to send breadstuffs, because famine followed the plague. Monsignor Belzunce–"Marseilles' good bishop–received briefs from His Holiness, who praised the zeal of that prelate in the most flattering terms. The Jesuit Fathers, the Carmelites, and all the other religious orders seconded the bishop in his pious labors. One day the population of the city, in the midst of its continual sufferings and apprehensions, was attracted almost entirely to the harbor. A pontifical fleet had been signalled, which, aided by a favorable wind, brought from Clement a considerable quantity of wheat, harvested in Saint Peter's Patrimony. Nothing was anywhere spoken of but the generous pope and the noble and admirable Belzunce. The latter, in order to relieve the poor, one day sold his gold cross; but the pious inhabitants bought it and restored it to their bishop. A second time, after taking measures to prevent discovery, he sold it to a Greek who was about to leave the port; but the noble act of the prelate was again discovered, and the cross again restored to him. A third time the same thing occurred, and then the bishop saw that his people would not allow him to deprive himself of his cross, and he took care to wear it in full view upon his breast when he went to visit the sick.

The number of the sick daily increased. We must not omit to say that the regent's government also sent abundant succors, which were distributed without charge, to arrest the progress of the disease. Roman physicians lent their aid to their French professional brethren, at the head of whom was Chirac, first physician to the Duke of Orleans. The aldermen of the city neglected nothing in their sphere of duty. They labored unremittingly in procuring provisions, building hospitals, and in the still more painful and difficult task of burying the multitude of corpses that encumbered the squares and streets, and exhaled an odor of corruption that fearfully increased the disease. In 1792 the Revolution swept away to the guillotine or exile the clergy of France. Father Pouyard, the historian of Marseilles, a Carmelite, returned to his convent to take a last look before he departed in disguise. He found fiends in human form, ghoul-like, digging up graves to get the clothing found on the dead. He knew at a glance what those dead were. They were the victims of the plague, buried in that cemetery in all clothing. At the peril of his life, he hastened to the authorities, showed the danger, and saved the city.

A monument was erected at Marseilles signalizing the beneficence of Pope Clement XI.

Faithful to the universal duties imposed upon the pontificate, Clement, perceiving that Cardinal de Tournon had not obtained entire success in his mission to China, sent Monsignor de Mezzabarba to that country, with the title of Patriarch of Antioch, where that prelate relieved from censure several Jesuits of whom Cardinal Tournon complained, and also the Bishop of Macao, who had acted harshly towards that unfortunate legate. Mezzabarba confined himself with ordering them to take the oath prescribed by the bull Ex illa die, which he was ordered to enforce among the missionaries.

Mezzabarba obtained an audience of the Emperor Kanghi, but the matter was not treated to the satisfaction of the legate; nevertheless, when he took leave of the emperor, that prelate received presents for the pope, for the King of Portugal, and for himself.

Before he left, Mezzabarba modified, according to the power with which he had been invested at Rome, the bull Ex illa die by inserting eight permissions concerning the honors paid to Confucius and ancestors and tablets; and he returned to Europe, taking with him the body of Cardinal Tournon, that funeral honors might be paid to it at Rome.

Many embarrassments, contradictions, and even unexpected breaches of promise agitated the life of Clement. In all his letters he recommended peace. This was promised indeed, but the promises were not kept. These vexations shortened the life of Clement, who suffered from a pulmonary disease. Fever set in, and the pope asked for the last sacraments. He implored pardon of all whom he might have offended during his pontificate, and died on the 19th of March, 1721, at the age of seventy-two years, after governing the Church twenty years, three months, and twenty-five days. He was buried at the Vatican.

Clement was as pious as he was learned. He formed a congregation consisting of the ablest astronomers in Italy, and submitted the Gregorian calendar to their examination. Strictly speaking, some defects were discovered; but as they could be corrected only by very difficult means, it was deemed best to leave them just as they were. There are precisions of seconds and half-seconds, with which science must be acquainted, and of which it must take account, but in practice such exactness leads to embarrassments which should be avoided.

Clement was tall. His noble and intelligent features impressed the beholder in his favor. He was the first pope, after Clement VII, who appeared without a beard. His face was pale, his eyes dark, small, but lively, piercing, and full of fire. He had a sonorous voice. His mind was well cultivated, and his memory very faithful. He never allowed himself to be provoked to great anger, or to conceive hatred, and he was religiously careful of his own secrets and of those of other people. When he wrote, he displayed at once clearness of mind, firmness of judgment, penetration, fecundity, extensive thought, lively imagination, lucidity of ideas, energy of style, gracefulness in affection, eloquence in exhortation, and fitting loftiness when he felt obliged to threaten.

As to the Christian virtues, it might be said that if Albani the youth was a model of chastity and purity of morals, Clement XI under the tiara presented the same innocence.

The often inextricably perplexed affairs with which he was burdened never daunted him; on the contrary, they only served to display in brighter light his prudence, his magnanimity, and many other virtues which beyond other men he displayed when tempests and dangers surrounded him.

He deserved a more peaceful pontificate; but his lot was to endure stormy times, and in the chair of Saint Peter constantly to show himself superior to attacks and reverses, and to be always himself–in prosperity, adversity, sickness, suffering, labor, or rest.

When his ministers, until then but little accustomed to the inconstancy of fortune, condoled with him, at the commencement of his pontificate, on the ill success of affairs, he replied: "Do not lose courage! God sends us toil, not fortune. Learn, by the storms that already terrify you, we are only at the beginning of our days of trial." And then he smilingly added: "We warn you that henceforth men will call our palace the house of Job."

When only a prelate, he possessed the same intrepid spirit. An ambassador, astonished at the vivacity displayed by Albani on a business matter, said: "The king my master has long arms." The prelate, unmoved, replied: "God's are longer, and I always fear his justice more than man's power."

Unless absolutely prevented by illness, he celebrated Mass daily. He refused none of the functions of solemnities, and attended them with a profound feeling of piety and majesty.

He always recited the office kneeling, and twice a day he devoted himself to meditation.

His table was so frugal that it was inconceivable how a noble of his rank and fortune could be content with it. During his repast a pious book was read aloud by an attendant. He ate but once a day, after noon, and never had more than three dishes; and the daily expense of his table did not exceed fifteen bajocchi. On that point he excelled even his two predecessors, Saint Pius V and Innocent II.

When laboring under serious indisposition that occurred in Lent, he was compelled, by order of the physicians, to mitigate the Lenten fast by the use of eggs and milk on three days of the week. Then, to punish himself for that yielding, he imposed upon himself other fasts for the rest of the year, at times more convenient for his health; and he observed those new fasts with an inflexible strictness.

In the hospitals, which he frequently visited, and in the Vatican Basilica, he frequently heard confessions, especially after dinner, during Holy Week; and then he addressed to the people elegant and touching homilies, redolent with the manly eloquence of Saint Leo the Great, his especial patron and model throughout his pontificate. He often spoke with enthusiasm of Saint Damasus I, that illustrious Portuguese pontiff who governed the Church nearly eighteen years. This same pope, who was so exact in fulfilling the laborious duties of the pontificate, suffered from a painful disease, which for ten years he concealed from his physicians.

He was accustomed to say: "A prince ought not to do everything, but he ought to know everything." He was a stranger to all feeling of vengeance; and he often said: "He who avenges himself upon his enemies by doing them good avenges himself divinely." Such a man, of course, had a keen sense of the need of gratitude; and, accordingly, all Rome exclaimed: "Clement has no mastery of himself in his gratitude."

He most kindly treated James II, King of Great Britain; and after the death of that exiled king in 1701, Clement transferred his kindness to the deceased prince's son, James III.

The latter, after the peace of Rastadt, being obliged first to quit France, and then Lorraine, where he had found shelter, proceeded to the Ecclesiastical States in 1717. At first the pope advised him to reside at Urbino, and then, in 1719, received him in Rome and paid him royal honors, lodging him in the Sacchetti palace, and giving him, as is well known, a considerable revenue.

The banks of the Tiber, the squares, the streets, the Capitol, the Vatican, the hospitals, the academic halls, the pontifical chapels, the churches, and the basilicas, all attest how much Rome owes to Clement XI.

"Clement XI," says Laffiteau, "united in his own person the talents of the greatest men, and the virtues of the greatest saints."

This biographical data is from "The Lives and Times of the Popes" by The Chevalier Artaud De Montor. Published by The Catholic Publication Society of New York in ten volumes in 1911. The pictures, included in the volumes, were reproduced from " Effigies Pontificum Romanorum Dominici Basae."