REVIEW. ART. I.-History of the Progress and Suppression of the Reformation in Italy in the Sixteenth Century; including a Sketch of the History of the Reformation in the Grisons. By Thomas M'Crie, D. D. Edinburgh, Blackwood. 1827. (Concluded from p. 34.) IN 1269, died at Ferrara, Armanno Pungilupo. His conduct had been so exemplary and christian-like, that the Bishop of Ferrara, who was and is considered a saint, endeavoured immediately to prove in an authentic manner that Pungilupo had gone straight to Paradise, had worked many miracles, and deserved to be canonized. But whilst the good bishop was administering oaths to witnesses and collecting evidence to this purpose, not more than a year after Pungilupo's death, the Court of Rome set to work to prove that Pungilupo, so far from being a saint, was a heretic, and had gone quite in the other direction and at Rome also witnesses were sworn and evidence collected to prove that such was the fact. The contest between the advocate of the saint and that of the devil (who is considered to be defendant jure officii in these cases) was a long and sharp one; but at length the latter prevailed. Although so late as the year 1295, Ricobaldo called Pungilupo a friend of God, yet, on the 22d of March, 1301, Pope Boniface VIII. (for whom Dante was mistaken in hell by Pope Nicolas III., who occupied a place which he was anxious to leave to Boniface, who he knew was to succeed him in it) condemned the memory of Pungilupo as that of a heretic; his bones, which had been buried thirty-two years, were dug up and burned, and his ashes thrown to the wind. A diligent historian of Ferrara, on whom we may rely, since Muratori has praised him, has preserved the acts of this condemnation, and from him we learn, that Armanno was declared guilty of partaking the opinions of the Albigenses, Bagnolesi, and Concorrezesi. He has further taken the trouble, on that occasion, of giving a list of propositions in which these sectarians agreed, as well as of some in which they did not. It may not be uninteresting to our readers to see some of the propositions in which they agreed. The Albigenses, Bagnolesi, and Concorrezesi, in Italy, then agreed, it appears, in the following propositions: "That Christ is not God; that there is no resurrection of the body; that baptism with water is of no service; that a material church is of no use to pray in; that the church cannot make constitutions; that the anointment with holy oil is nothing; that the sacrament of the altar is nothing; that there is no original sin; that there is no purgatory; that faith alone is not enough for our salvation; that we ought not to confess; that it is not lawful to swear, or to put any one to death, or to give any one up to justice (if a heretic), because he may be converted." The sect of the Apostolics, resembling this in many points, was flourishing at the time when Pope Boniface was condemning the memory of Pungilupo. John of Parma, General of the Franciscans, is said to have prophesied that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was to terminate in the year 1260, when * Priscianus, apud Muratori Antiq. Ital. Med. Ævi. Diss. 60. the Gospel of the Holy Spirit was to succeed it, being as much superior to the existing one as the sun is to the moon, and by this the church was to be changed. The tenets of this man being condemned, another friar of Parma, Gerard Secarelli, began to spread the opinions of the Apostolics, and being taken and condemned as a heretic, he was burnt on the 18th of July, 1300. His sect was not, however, extinguished with him, for he was succeeded in the direction of it by Fra. Dolcino, whose capture and death are made by Dante matter of prophecy to him by Mahomet, in the 28th canto of his Inferno. Dolcino was burned after the most cruel torture, which he bore with the greatest fortitude, and without renouncing his opinions, in July 1305. Secarelli and Dolcino taught that they were sent to REFORM the church, which was perishing, on account of the pride, avarice, luxury, and many other vices of the clergy. Dolcino said that Secarelli had already begun this reformation, and that he (Dolcino) was to finish it: that the church of Rome was not the church of God, but a reprobated one, and that she was that bad woman who renounced the faith of Christ, of whom John speaks in the Apocalypse: that no pope has the power of absolving from sins, if he be not "as poor, holy, and humble as St. Peter, not exciting war, not persecuting any one, and permitting every one to live in perfect liberty:" that Frederic of Aragon should be made Emperor, and should make nine or ten kings in Italy, who would destroy the pope and priests and friars, more especially the Dominicans and Franciscans," and take from them their riches and temporal dominions, and bring all the world under the law of the New Testament." These sectarians called themselves apostolics, because they professed to live according to the manner of the apostles, and their opinions on many points were very heterodox. This sect was certainly in many particulars the same as the others which appeared at different times. It is recorded at least that they agreed in their praises of celibacy, in their opinions respecting the inutility of churches, in disapproving of oaths, &c. It was said by the Albigenses, "that it was not permitted to shave;" so also the Apostolics, who affected the same ignorance and simplicity of manners as the apostles, were "intonsi et: barbati," as St. Bernard says. Long after this monk, some of the followers of Dolcino being burnt at Padua, one who saw them burn says they were rustics.* Dolcino had many followers in Dalmatia and the Alps of Trent, as well as in Tuscany and the neighbourhood. The name was well known in the twelfth century, and was even familiar in Germany, as we find from St. Bernard. Evervin, a parish priest of Steinfeld, near Cologne, wrote to St. Bernard to acquaint him that some of the Apostolics had been discovered to have arrived there, and the discovery originated in a quarrel these newcomers had with some heretics of that place. Two of them, quoting always the words of Christ and of the Apostles, had a dispute in public before the Archbishop of Cologne and many of the nobility, and then asked time to send for some of their learned elders. The people, against the will of the clergy, (if we must believe Evervin,) seeing that these heretics would not be converted, seized them, submitted them to the watery ordeal, (which St. Bernard approves of as an excellent mode of discovering truth,) and, as they were found obstinate, they were burned. They died so cheerfully, that poor Evervin could not understand how those sons of Belial appeared to have a * Foscolo's Dante, sect. lxxx. Additamenta ad Hist. Dolcini Hæres. apud Muratori.-Rer. Ital. script. Vol. IX. col. 450.-Sassi not. in Dolcini Hist; col. 429. greater strength of resolution than true Christians. St. Bernard answered this letter from Evervin, saying, that the courage they appeared to possess did not come from God, but from the devil; he called them all sorts of names, foxes, hypocrites, dogs; but after all is compelled to say that they behaved very well, did not deceive any one, had very good morals, did not commit violence, &c.: good qualities which he charitably attributes to hypocrisy. Muratori observes that none of the contemporary historians found fault with the behaviour of Dolcino and his followers in a moral point of view. Dr. M'Crie would pass over the exertions of many excellent men by telling us, that many Italians had discovered the corruptions of the Roman Church, who entertained no thought of renouncing her communion, and he quotes three or four passages from the Divina Commedia to prove his opinion. Now this, in its strict sense, would apply to almost all men who see abuses in their country's institutions. Their first thought is, not to destroy, but to reform; not being always sure that if they overthrow they shall set up something better. The Nonconformists of England laboured long to avoid what they called the sin of schism, and so did many very honest reformers, who, for one reason or another, saw no necessity to destroy in all respects the system of ecclesiastical government of those from whom they differed in some particulars. That Dante "entertained no thought of renouncing the communion of the Roman Church," if opportunity served and redress could be had no other way, is a very easy assertion, but one which has little to support it. A man who, as Dante did, cried out loudly against the mass, the indulgences, the decretals, the temporal power of the popes, and their avarice; the hypocrisy and riches and idleness and ignorance of the friars of all denominations; who scorned their interpretation of the Bible, charging them with distorting its sense, and advising his fellow-creatures to read it and follow its precepts; who boldly puts into hell Pope Celestin, though canonized as a saint; who declared the Roman see vacant, in the sight of God, when filled by an unworthy pope (Boniface VIII.)—this man certainly looks like one who would not have been very averse to renouncing the communion of the Roman Church. After what Foscolo and Rosetti have written on Dante's inclination and intentions on the subject of reform, (particularly the former in his preliminary volume,) Dr. M'Crie would perhaps alter his opinion. To understand Dante, it is necessary to have a somewhat more intimate acquaintance with him than that which Dr. M'Crie appears to possess. His quotations remind us of the inquisitors of Spain, who put the poem in the Index expurgatorius, until three passages were expunged from it. Those learned divines did not see any other part to be dangerous. The Italian divines were wiser-they wrote very learned books and notes to prove his orthodoxy; not daring to proscribe his poem, and seeing that it would be necessary to destroy it altogether to do any good to their cause, unless they could make the world put an entirely different construction upon its meaning. The poem of Dante cannot be understood without a full acquaintance with the religious history of his time, nor is that religious history intelligible without a thorough knowledge of his poem. Many of his opinions are those professed by the Italian sectarians in matters of morals, reformation of ceremonies, &c. In doctrinal speculations he placed Aristotle above Plato; but still, in his system of the heavens, in his metaphysics, and in his theological disputations, he follows in preference the school of Plato and Pythagoras. Nevertheless, many of his poetical fancies are to be traced to the opinions of the heretics of his days, and sometimes to those of some of the heathen philosophers whom he could reconcile with Christianity; in doing which he displayed great ingenuity. Dante's time, however, was not the fit season for heading any open plan of reformation in Italy. The abuses of spiritual power to obtain temporal ends and to advance the ambitious views of that "old, cursed, insatiable she-wolf," (as Dante calls the Court of Rome,) were then brought to their highest pitch, and political heresy to her interests was as dangerous as religious. The Venetians having seized Ferrara in 1309, Clement V. excommunicated them, declared them infamous to the fourth generation, ordered their merchandise to be confiscated in all the ports of the world, deprived them of the right of inheriting or of making a will, either in a foreign or in their own country, authorized any one to seize them and make them slaves, and excited all Christian nations to the lawful, nay, meritorious, act of making war upon them, and of destroying them by means even of treachery. this bull found executors amongst all the Christian powers. A year before Dante's death, in 1320, and exactly one hundred years after the first constitution of Frederic against the heretics, the Inquisition was most mercilessly and infamously exercised against the partizans of the empire, in Milan and other cities in any wise disaffected, and continued to be so for several years. And Yet, in 1369, an insult was offered in Milan to the ambassadors or legates of the pope, which perhaps would have been spared when that city was full of heretics. In that year the pope excommunicated Visconti, Duke of Milan, and sent a cardinal and an abbot to deliver to him the bull of excommunication. The legates found Visconti in his capital, delivered him the bull, and were apparently well received. When they were about to depart he offered to accompany them a little way, attended by many of his followers. On reaching the bridge of the Naviglio, the duke stopped and asked them sternly, whether they felt more inclined to eat or to drink; they answered, that they wanted neither: but being pressed, they added, that where there was so much drink to be got, they felt more inclined to eat. "Well, then," said the duke, "here is the bull of excommunication; you shall eat it before you leave this bridge." It was in vain the cardinal remonstrated and threatened him with the vengeance of God. The ambassadors were obliged to eat immediately on the spot the parchment, ribbons, leaden seals and all. When they had finished their hard repast they were allowed to depart. Petrarch and Boccaccio contributed greatly to the revival of Platonic philosophy. Neither of them was ever a profound scholar in Greek, yet from their days Aristotle began in his turn to loose ground before his rival. In the next century Platonism was every where in vogue throughout Italy, and philosophy, in various ways, became the source of discussions and opinions which agitated the minds of the Italians, and prepared them for the state in which the German reformation found them. The Aristotelians became comparatively insignificant, but they still adhered to their principles. Pomponazzo, the most famous of them all, having denied the immortality of the soul in his treatise de Immortalitate Animæ, had no better defence to offer, than that he meant it as Aristotle's opinion, not his own; a very evasive plea, as may easily be seen. Had it not been for Cardinal Bembo's protection, perhaps the inquisitors would not have so easily admitted it, coming from a man who was already obnoxious for having held up Christianity to ridicule. There was a moment when it appeared probable that the superstitions of Rome would be done away with altogether in Italy. The spirit of the times was such, that popes and cardinals laughed at the vices of friars, and denounced both them and their miracles; but these men were many of them politicians, and the greater part of those even, who were honest, shrunk from violence and from many of the opinions and proceedings of the root-andbranch reformers. Many of the Italians began to join the Court of Rome at the Council of Constance, and did so altogether at that of Trent, not from religious, but political reasons; to prevent the destruction of a power which they considered necessary to the political importance of their country. The literati, equally with the politicians, betrayed the cause of reform, or left both sides "Sadoleto, Bembo, and the to the management of the rude and violent. rest of the Italian scholars," as Mr. Roscoe observes, "kept aloof from the contest, unwilling to betray the interest of literature by defending the dogmas of religion, and left the vindication of the most important interests of the church to scholastic disputants, exasperated bigots, and illiterate monks, whose writings for the most part injured the cause they were intended to defend." This same Sadoleto, we learn from Dr. M'Crie, "in the name of his friends, set before Paleario the danger of giving way to innovations, and advised him, in consideration of the times, to confine himself to the safer task of clothing the peripatetic ideas in elegant language." Sadoleto, like Erasmus, had not the courage of a martyr. Dr. M'Crie might very well have bestowed a little more pains in analysing the causes which led (more directly than the "disturbance" of the free inquirers) to so complete a desertion and overthrow of those bodies of reformers, who (though no doubt on various principles and views) were working, it might have been supposed somewhat surely, towards much the same end in Italy. The effects of the ferment upon political and religious opinion in Italy, are equally susceptible of much interesting inquiry. Whatever was the reason why the cause, though triumphant elsewhere, so totally miscarried in Italy, the injury resulting to that country from the collision was fatal and permanent. That measure of liberty and practical toleration which had existed, perhaps, to a greater degree there than in any country of Europe, was totally destroyed. Thankful for the blessings of the Reformation, however disfigured, it is hardly for us to speculate what might have been the result if the Italians had not been so crushed. Some of their descendants are fond of thinking that those principles which had found their way into the minds of so many of all classes of society, and even of the dignitaries of the church, would have produced a less violent and dogmatic, but perhaps a more effective, reformation, commencing in the country which was best prepared for it by its civilization and by the authority which its example would have enforced. As it was, if some part of Europe gained, Italy lost irretrievably all she had both in possession and prospect. After the Council of Trent, the power of the Inquisition was amazingly increased. Even the bishops were deprived of their canonical power, the monastic orders were rendered independent of them, the pope became a despot, and the whole nation was prostrated both in a civil and religious sense. Dr. M'Crie's religious views obviously govern his plan, and furnish the reason why some of the most remarkable seceders from the Roman faith among the Italians are very briefly disposed of. Even the names of several of them are not mentioned, as is the case, for instance, with Gribaldi; of others it is only incidentally done. Alciati and Blandrata are only mentioned as "the noted Anti-trinitarians." Gentili is spoken of but once, to I 2 |