Search

Hard feeling between the mendicant and secular clergy no doubt persisted throughout the later middle ages, but at certain moments passions flared up, sermons were preached, pamphlets written, and chroniclers took notice. About a hundred years after the quarrel in which archbishop FitzRalph of Armagh was involved (1356–9), Londoners again had the opportunity to enjoy or deplore a rather similar scene This time, if the Continuator of Gregory's Chronicle was right, ‘the Whyte Freers be-ganne hyt fryste.’ By public preaching of the old thesis that Christ and his Apostles were beggars who possessed nothing of their own, the Carmelites thought to enhance their own status in the eyes of the world. Their arguments were not very subtle, but then neither, it may be thought, were their aims; yet if the actors themselves now seem to strut and fret past reason, their play is full of interest, and this not only, for the historian of church affairs or theological ideas, but for anyone who cares to know more about the details of public life and the divisions of public opinion in Edward IV's London.

The Fairfaxes were a definitely Catholic family from 1636 and it is difficult to think that they had no chaplain in the 1630's and 1640's. The considerable donation by Abigail, wife of the 5th Viscount to the funds of the Northern District may indicate that the first chaplains were secular priests. It may also be significant that the first Fairfaxes to go abroad to school went to St. Omer (apparently) and Douai and none to St. Gregory's Douai, before the 1670's. The 2nd Viscount and his wife made no gifts to Benedictines. In 1690 Charles Fairfax of York was trustee of many secular clergy funds. (Leeds Dioc. MSS Hogarth MS.) The extant Yorkshire secular clergy records seem to contain, however, no evidence of a regular secular Gilling or Walton mission or fund.

O-N January 11, 1847, Valentin G6mez, Farias, vice president of Mexico, signed a law which authorized the government to appropriate ecclesiastical property and goods to the maximum value of fifteen million pesos.' One third of this sum was to be taken from the regular and secular clergy within the archbishopric. The purpose of this radical measure was to obtain the funds which General Antonio L6pez de Santa Anna had insisted were necessary if he was to continue to prosecute the war against the invading United States army. In spite of the military danger, both public and clerical reaction to the law was immediately hostile, and within four days rumors of imminent armed rebellion to force repeal of the law were reported in the press.2 Faced with this threat, G6mez Farias moved a regiment and a battalion of the National Guard, suspected of revolutionary intentions, to barracks located at some distance from the National Palace.3 Then on January 16 the clergy, who had been openly condemning this latest assault on the wealth of the Church, were forbidden by the government to make political speeches. Still the bishops and their chapters in every Mexican diocese continued to denounce the law in numerous representations hurriedly dispatched to the central government and to the Congress.4 Furthermore, the proclerical press lost no time in rousing

This handlist is compiled from the notes of the late Canon E.H. Burton, deposited after his death in the Westminster Archives. No attempt has been made to undertake the formidable task of checking Canon Burton’s references or of bringing them up to date. in some cases the sources which he used have been printed since he compiled his notes, e.g. The Valladolid Diary (C.R.S. Vol. 30), and Kirk's Biographies, 1909, One of the most valuable features of the list is that it contains references to the Archives of the English Chapter, which have generally been difficult of access. in cases where biographical notices have already been published, which appear to include all the material gathered by Canon Burton, and which are easily available, a mere reference is supplied to the published article. Instances of this procedure in the present instalment are the notices of John Abbot, and V. John Adams.

Although the Franciscan missions ultimately made less of an impact in California than either the pueblos or the presidios, it should not be forgotten that the effort to colonize was initially and predominantly the work of a religious order. Missions were essentially frontier institutions and as such, their existence was a temporary one by definition.1 In theory it was assumed that a mission community was to have completed its task of evangelization, education and civilization within a specified period of time, initially ten years, after which its spiritual affairs would be handed over to secular clergy, its lands distributed among the Indians, and its municipal government would function in the manner set forth in the Recopilacion.2 However, these assumptions were based upon experience with the Indians of Meso-America who had attained a significantly higher level of civilization than those on the frontiers where a much longer period of instruction and supervision was required.3 As a result, it was inevitable that some form of conflict over secularization would arise whose aftermath was to witness the plundering of the religious domain.4 Our concern with the California missions is in their urban organization and existence as towns in the years following their secularization. The idea of congregating Indians into towns dates back to the first decade of the sixteenth century. In a 1503 Instruccton to Nicolas de Ovando, the Catholic monarchs suggested that "it is necessary that the Indians be gathered into towns in which they shall live together . . . and that each town shall have a Church and a Priest who will indoctrinate and instruct them in Our Holy Catholic Faith."5 Said towns were to be planned "according to and like those of the people who live in Our realms."6 Charles V encouraged the development of villages for Indians in 1523 and eleven years later he made suggestions, rather oversimplified, concerning methods of congregating the dispersed Indians of Michoacan

IN the early seventeenth century the English Puritans engaged in manifold activities to bring church and state into harmony with their conception of the word of God. Their efforts to increase their representation in the House of Commons and to gain outlets in the New World, notably in New England and Old Providence Island, are well understood. The attempt of a group of influential London Puritans to mold the Church of England more to their liking has received but scant attention. Before the Reformation much ecclesiastical revenue had been detached from particular churches and bestowed upon religious houses and secular clergy other than the incumbents of the livings to which the revenue pertained. With the Reformation and the dissolution of the monasteries, a great deal of this revenue had found its way into lay hands. If these impropriations -as ecclesiastical revenue in lay hands was called-could be acquired by the Puritans, retained in their possession, and doled out to ministers and schoolmasters who had their approval, in time the Puritan faction would have great influence in the Anglican Church. The purpose of this essay is to trace this clever plan for the infiltration of the church from its inception until William Laud, bishop of London, realized the threat and checked it. The voluminous records kept by this Puritan group have disappeared, but the story can be reconstructed from the evidence presented when these Puritans were questioned in the Court of Exchequer in I632-I633.1 The failure of this Puritan enterprise, for fail it did, is part of the story of the apparent failure of the Puritans to gain Dower in Darliament and the church in Engliand. This and

Opposition to the Order was of three kinds: direct opposition by Huguenots, the burning down and sacking of religious houses; opposition by the secular clergy and opposition by the general populace.

Thirty-eight years after the first edition of his Moral Theology, Saint Alphonsus published the ninth, his last, in 1785. By that time the winds of change had begun to blow through the theological world, especially in Germany. For the moment, then, we must put aside the Moral Theology of Alphonsus, which did not yet dominate the scene as it did by the middle of the Nineteenth Century, in the manner which we shall study in chapter VIII. We turn now to consider some works illustrative of the new methods and of the younger theologians; the contemporary representatives of the old trends we have seen above in Chapter IV. One author, Stattler, who would logically belong to this chapter, has earned separate consideration by the extent of his treatment of the points which interest us. Here we deal with other moralists representative of new approaches; one minor author published at Louvain, while all the others belonged to “Germanic” lands; in the next chapter Stattler provides a representative from the suppressed Society of Jesus; here we have a Franciscan, a Carmelite, a Cistercian, a Canon Regular, a Benedictine, and several members of the secular clergy. We divide them into two groups, dealing first with those whose first editions appeared in the Seventies, and in our second section with a group who started publishing in the Eighties.

'9 AdISTORIANS of the drama are familiar with the controversy regarding the lawfulness of playgoing that was conducted in Paris in i694 between Father Francis Caffero, a priest of the Theatine order, and Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux. Father Caffero argued that plays are lawful diversions, provided that certain restrictions are observed. To refute him Bossuet wrote his Maximes et Reflexions sur la Cone'die, in which he takes the rigoristic stand that playgoing is dangerous to morals and should be prohibited. During the early years of the same century a similar controversy between Catholic clerics was waged in Jacobean London, a controversy which has come down to us in a manuscript.1 In I94i Dr. Harbage drew attention to this manuscript. The manuscript consists of three documents: the prohibition, dated March 9, i6i7/i8, and signed by William Harrison, Archpriest of England, wherein the secular priests under his jurisdiction are forbidden to attend plays acted by common players upon common stages, under penalty of losing the use of their sacerdotal faculties; the protest against the prohibition, dated April 25, i6i8, and signed by Thomas Leke, a secular priest of London; and the rejoinder to this protest, undated and unsigned, but evidently the work of John Colleton, assistant to the archpriest, who published the prohibition. The three principals to the controversy were clerics who had labored for many years in the mission field of England. William Harrison was the third and last. archpriest of England. After the death of Cardinal Allen, in I594, English Catholics were left without an ecclesiastical leader and superior. In I598 Rome appointed an archpriest over the secular clergy, with a council of twelve assistant priests. In i6I5 Father Harrison was created archpriest by Pope Paul V, an office which he held until his death in i62i. "An antient Preist" is the term most often used in the rejoinder to describe Father Thomas Leke. In 1595 he reported the trial of Father Robert Southwell, which he had witnessed on February 20. At the time of the controversy he and a number of other priests were in prison, whence they went to the theaters. This fact furnished Father Colleton with an opportunity to embellish his accusation with