261 religious encyclopedia exile of the Israelites Extreme Unction



Download 6.59 Mb.
Page46/65
Date08.11.2016
Size6.59 Mb.
1   ...   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   ...   65

BIHLaoaSAPBT: The Fiench text with Eng. tranel. is in Schaff, Creeds, iii. 358‑382. The original text is in T. de Beza6 Hint, ecci6siaatique des tplisea rtformfea, ii. 173‑190, Antwerp, 1580, and in ZHT, 1875, pp. 508‑544, with introduction by Hoppe. An early Eng. tranal. is in J. Quick, Bynodicon in Gallia retormata, i., pp. vi.‑xvi., London, 1692. Consult: Bess, Hiat., ut cup., 3 vols.; J. Quick, ut sup., 2 vols.; Calvin, Opera, Strasburg ed., ix. 57 sq4.; G. de Felice, Hist. des Protestants en France, Toulouse, 1851, Eng. tranel., London, 1851; H. Lut­teroth, La R9formation en France, Paris, 1859; F. Cha­ponnibre, La Question des confessions de foi au sein du Protestantism contemporain, Geneva, 1867; H. Dieterlen, Ls Synods glm6'al de Paris en 1869, Paris, 1873; E. Ber­sier, JA Synods t)6niral de Paris en 1872, ib. 1873; N. Weiss and O. Douen, in Bulletin de la sociN d'hist. du Protestantism franpais, pp. 37, 449, Paris, 1894; Sehaff, Creeds, i. 490‑498.
GALLICANISM.

Early Development of Nationalism (¢ 1). Formulation of the GalHcan Principles (1 2). Relation of the Pope to the Episcopate (J 3). Relation of the Pope to the State (§ 4).

Gallicanism denotes the attitude, tending toward national independence, which was more or less widely prevalent in the Roman Catholic Church of France especially during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Church in Gaul was early recognized as a separate division; in the third century a papal vicar was commissioned to oversee its affairs, and by the fourth the bishop of Arles had succeeded in gaining a definite primacy and appeared as the representative of the pope (see ARLFB, ARCBBISHOPmC OF). Under the Merovin­gian kings the organization became more firmly established and enjoyed an increasing independence, always in close connection with the monarchy. After the king it was the largest landed proprie‑




tor, and the bishops and abbots were the most in­fluential magnates of the kingdom. This connec‑

tion involved the result that scarcely i. Early a single point of church life was ex‑

Develop‑ eluded from royal regulation. The

ment of gradual development of the papal su­Nationalism. premacy from Gregory VII. to Inno‑

cent III., aiming as it did at the liber­ation. of the Church from all secular control, came into inevitable conflict with the system established in France and expressed in the Codex Dionysio‑Ha­drianus given by Adrian 1. to Charlemagne. But while in Germany the Church was in the main suc­cessful in the conflict, the struggles of the popes with the French kings, such as that of Innocent III. with Philip Augustus and of Boniface VIII. with Philip the Fair, resulted in the strengthening of the royal power. The voluntary removal of cen­sures and limitation of the bull Clericis laicos by Benedict XI. and the declaration of Clement V. in 1306 that the bull Unam sarictam did not affect the rights of the king, completed the victory of the French conception of a State Church.

In 1594, under the title of Les Ltbert& de d'eglise gallicane, Pierre Pithou, a famous lawyer and hu­manist, for a long time procurator‑general of Paris (d. 1596), put forth eighty‑three propositions ex­pressing the Gallican position on the status of the pope, the king, and the bishops, and on the inter­nal government of the Church. A protest of the bishops against Pithou's work was suppressed by the parliament, and his book, supported later by

Pierre Dupuy's anonymous collection 2. Formula‑ of documents (1639) and commen‑

tion of the tary (1652), was reprinted with the Gallican royal license and became the stand‑

Principles. and in practise. Under Louis XIV.

the questions at issue became acute

in the R6gale (q.v.) controversy, and Gallicanism

in its modern form was officially expressed by the

famous Declaratio cleri Galdicani or " Four Articles

of Gallicanism," drawn up by Bossuet, accepted by

the episcopate on Mar. 19, 1682, and imposed upon

the French clergy. The following is a transla­

tion of the " Four Articles ":
There are' many who labor to subvert the Gallican decrees and liberties which our ancestors defended with so much zeal, and their foundations which rest upon the sacred canons and the tradition of, the Fathers. Nor are there wanting those who, under the pretext of these liberties, seek to derogate from the primacy of St. Peter and of the Roman pontiffs his successors; from the obedience which all Christians owe to them, and from the majesty of the Apostolic See, in which the faith is taught and the unity of the faith is preserved. The heretics, on the other hand, omit nothing in order to represent that power by which the peace of the Church is maintained as intolerable both to kings and their subjects; and by such artifices estrange the souls of the simple from the communion of the Church, and therefore from Christ. With a view to remedy such evils, we, the archbishops and bishops assembled at Paris by the king's orders, representing together with the other deputies the Galliean Church, have judged it advisable, after mature deliberation, to determine and declare as follows:

1. St. Peter and his successors, vicars of Christ, and like­wise the Church .itself, have received from God power in things spiritual and pertaining to salvation, but not in things temporal and civil; inasmuch as the Lord says, My kingdom is not of this world; and again, Bender unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the thugs which are Gods. The Apostolic precept also holds Let every soul be subject



4135 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA CWucan Confession



Goancantam


unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God:

the powers that be are ordained of God; whosoever therefore

resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. Conse­

quently kings and princes are not by the law of God subject

to any ecclesiastical power, nor to the keys of the Church,

with respect to their temporal government. Their subjects

can not be released from the duty of obeying them, nor ab­

solved from the oath of allegiance; and this maxim, necessary

to public tranquillity, and not less advantageous to the Church

than to the State, is to be strictly maintained, as conformable

to the word of God, the tradition of the Fathers, and the

example of the Saints.

2. The plenitude of power in things spiritual, which resides

in the Apostolic See and the successors of St. Peter, is such

that at the same time the decrees of the ecumenical Council

of Constance, in its fourth and fifth sessions, approved as

they are by the Holy See and the practise of the whole

Church, remain in full force and perpetual obligation; and

the Gallican Church does not approve the opinion of those

who would depreciate the said decrees as being of doubtful

authority, insuufciently approved, or restricted in their ap­

plication to a time of schism.

3. Hence the exercise of the Apostolic authority must be

regulated by the canons enacted by the Spirit of God and con­

secrated by the reverence of the whole world. The ancient

rules, customs, and institutions received by the realm and

Church of France remain likewise inviolable; and it in for

the honor and glory of the Apostolic See that such enact­

ments, confirmed by the consent of the said see and of the

churches, should be observed without deviation.

4. The pope has the principal place in deciding questions

of faith, and his decrees extend to every church and all

churches; but nevertheless his judgment is not irreversible

until confirmed by the consent of the Church.

Under the system thus formally established, the

pope was recognized as the successor of Peter and vicar

of Christ, the divinely appointed head of

3. Relation the Church, with spiritual jurisdiction

of the Pope over the whole body and over national

to the Epis‑ Churches in particular. But the sta­

copate. tun of the bishops rested equally upon

divine ordinance, and they, with the

pope, represented the Church in general councils,

which were of higher authority than the pope,

and could alone issue an irreformable definition in

matters of faith; a definition issued by the pope

when no council was sitting required the consent

of the whole Church before it could be considered

irreformable. From the point of view of his rela­

tions to the French episcopate, the pope was sup­

posed to be bound by the canons, and in France

especially by the recognized ancient customs.

These, it is true, had been substantially altered by

the Concordat of 1516 between Francis I. and Leo

X., which had gone into effect in spite of clerical

protests (Bee CONCORDATS AND DELIMITING B17LI13,

III., 2, § 1). The king named the bishops, who were

then confirmed by the pope. Papal interference in

the affairs of individual dioceses was only to be

tolerated as far as the law of the Church allowed.

The papal nuncio had no jurisdiction in France,

and the presence of a legate to latere was permissible

only in virtue of a mutual agreement, and then only

during the king's pleasure. The greatest power

was conceded to the pope in regard to the ap­

pointment to benefices; abbots and, in practise,

abbesses were nominated by the king and confirmed

by the pope, who also claimed for his province

dispensations of all kinds, unless the king or the par­

liaments interfered in a specific case.

In theory the Church was an independent power,

but in reality the State ruled. Every papal consti‑




tution, whether relating to doctrine or discipline, required the approval of the king or a government

official before it went into effect in .y. Relation France, and the same thing applied of the Pope to the decrees of councils. A part of to the State: the decisions of the Council of Trent

was enforced through the royal or­donnance de Blois of 1579. Ecclesiastical jurisdic­tion was strictly limited. The offenses of clerics, unless purely ecclesiastical, came before secular tribunals, except in the case of bishops, who were tried before a provincial council. All mixed causes (dissolution of marriage, questions of church prop­erty, benefices, tithes, etc.) were decided by the higher secular courts. The king claimed the right to tax the clergy and church property, but this was vehemently opposed by the clergy and, never wholly conceded before the Revolution. , The in­comes of vacant sees went to the king, who also claimed the right to appoint to all benefices during a vacancy in the see.

The State took strong ground against any imme­diate interference of the curia in the government of the French Church. A French prelate consecrated in Rome was not allowed to exercise his functions. The decrees of the Roman congregations had no validity in France, nor were Frenchmen allowed to be summoned to Rome in any process of law. As 9, consequence of this conflict between the rival powers, an institution grew up which seriously crippled the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the appal comma d'abus, by which on the application of one party to a case, or simply on grounds of public in­terests, the procureur‑gWral might cite the case before the parliament of the province for investi­gation and decision. This institution, created by the Pragmatic Sanction of 1438 (see PRAGMATIC SANCrION), was abolished by the Concordat of 1516, but the parliaments still maintained it; it found a new support in the ordonnance de Millers‑Coter4s in 1539, was limited or modified on complaint of the clergy by new edicts in 1571, 1580, 1605, and 1695, and stoutly upheld by the parliaments until prac­tically there was no more question of an inde­pendent ecclesiastical jurisdiction or administration. Thus the power of the papacy was indeed broken, but at the cost of serious damage to the rights of the episcopate and the complete subjection of the Gallican Church to the State. The downfall of the old r€gime, however, allowed the pope to acquire a degree of power in France which he had never before possessed, and the nineteenth century witnessed the gradual decay of the last remnants of the old Gallican spirit. (J. F. voN ScHuLTE.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. de Marca, De ooncordia saardotii et im­peril, Paris, 1641; J. B. Boseuet, Detensio declaraiionis

. de potentate eccleeim sanxit clams Gallicanus, Luxem­burg, 1730; C. Fleury, Diseours our lea libertt!a de l'6plise pallicane, Paris, 1765; idem, Institution au droit ecrcUsi­astique, ib. 1767; L. E. Dupin, Les Libert& de 1'Jplise pai­licane, ib. 1824; idem, Manual du droit publique eccUsi­astique /rantais, ib. 1847; J, B. Bordas‑Demoulin, Las Pouyoirs conatitutifs de 1'hgliae, ib. 1855; F. Host, Le Gal­limnisme, ib. 1855; W. H. Jervis, The Gallican Church, London, 1872 (from 1516 to the Revolution); idem, The Gallican Church and the Revolution, ib. 1882; A. Le Roy, Le Gallicanieme au xviii. sipcle, Paris, 1892; L. Mention, Domino* relatila aux rapporta du clerg,' avec 14 royaulE 1888‑1705, Paris, 1893 sqq.; A. Debedour. Mist. den rap‑


GALLIO. See GREECE, I., I




possibility of crushing Christianity by persecution, Gallienus determined to leave it alone, though without changing its legal status. Nevertheless, it is clear, from the executions during his reign and the rule of his successors, that the State still claimed the right to inflict capital punishment for refusal to worship the images of the emperor or even for the avowal of a belief in Christianity.

(ADola HARNAOS.)


BmwoanAPHy: The sources are: Porphyry, Vita Plotini, xii.; Trebelliue Pollio, OaUisni duo: idem, Claudius, i. 4; Ammisnus Maraellinue, xiv. I sqq., Eng. trend. in Bohn's Classical Library, London, 1887; Eusebius, Hist. eecZ., VII.. x.1, xi. 8, xiii. 1‑2, etc.; Georglue Synoellus, Chrono­yraphia, i. 717, Bonn, 1829. Consult: L. 6. Le Nain de Tillemont, Hiet. des empereurs, pp. 288‑289, Dresden, 1754; Gibbon, Decline and Pail, chaps. x., xvi.; Brequi­8ny, in Mhnoirw de 1'acadhnie des inscriptions, xxx. 849‑850, xxxii. 286‑267; Nesnder, Christian Church, i., passim, ii. 15, 167; sad the literature under Pammca­TToxe, Cmtanurr, Dr Tam RoxAN Emm:z.


ports do 1'dglise o do 1'Ltd . . . 1789‑‑1870, ib. 1898; Seller, La Pin du gnMmnisms et M. Marl son dernier reprbentant, Alenpon, 1901; A. Gslton, Church and State in Prance, IS00‑1007, London, 1907; Cambridge Mod­em History, v 72sqq., New York, 1908 Documents Per­tinent to the subject, including the bulls Cleric4a laioot and Imam sanetam, are in Thatcher and MoNeal, Documents, pp. 811‑814; Robinson, Europsan Hisfav, pp. 848 sqq., 488 eqq.; and Reich, Documents, pp. 198‑195, 879‑886.
GALLIOrlm3, gal"i‑vnvs, PUBLIUS LICIR=:

Roman emperor 280‑268; b. 218 or 219; d. at Milan Mar. 4, 268. In 254 he was made coregent by his father, the Emperor Valerian, and ruled with him until 260, when the elder emperor was taken prisoner by the Persians. Gallienus thenceforth seems to have remained sole ruler, for it is not cer­tain that his stepbrother, the younger Valerian, ever became Augustus. On the revolt of Aureolus in Illyria, Gallienus marched against him and laid siege to Milan, but fell a victim to a conspiracy of his officers, headed by Aurelian and Heraclian. His reign was marked by inroads of the barbarians from the north and east, and by ceaseless meur­rections and attempts at usurpation. Notwith­standing that he was unequal to the tasks which confronted him, Gallienus was highly lauded by his elder contemporary Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, who, writing to Hermammon in 262 (Eusebius, Hist. seal., vii. 23), compared the em­peror to the sun which shines again after its tem­porary obscurity by a cloud (alluding to the usurper Macrianus, who had taken possession of Egypt), and even saw in him the fulfilment of the prophecy in Isa. xliii. 19.



The ground of this favorable judgement of Dio­nysius, in which Eusebius concurs, is evidently the repeal by the new emperor of the harsh edicts of Valerian against the Christians. It has even been stated (without cogent evidence) that he declared Christianity to be a tolerated religion. The edict is­sued by Gallienus in 260 is lost, and the one transla­ted from the Latin by Eusebius (Hilt. eccl., VII., xiii. 2) is a special edict for Egypt, promulgated in 261. Granting that the edict for the entire empire was analogous to this Egyptian decree, it merely pro­vided that the bishops should not be sought out by the authorities, and that the places of worship should be left unmolested. It therefore simply restored the conditions which existed before the reigns of Decius and Valerian, without giving Christianity the slightest official recognition. The fact that the decree was addressed directly to the bishops was indeed unprecedented, but this was clearly due to the importance and influence which they had attained. Eusebius himself, moreover, merely states that Gallienus alleviated the position of the Christians, but nowhere says that he tolerated them, while the mesa of Christian tradition has either ignored the edict or paid scant attention to it. The clearest evidence that the attitude of the State toward Christianity was unchanged lies in the fact that Christian soldiers could still suffer martyr­dom for their faith (cf. Eusebius, Hist. ecd., vii. 15). The most that can be said is that the repeal of the edicts of Valerian practically amounted to a declara­tion of toleration for the Church in view of the position which it then occupied. Despairing of the


~~ °a THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 498


GALLITZIlK, DEMETRIUS AUGUST=: Ro­man Catholic missionary; b. at The Hague Dec. 22, 1770; d. at Loretto, Cambria County, Pa., May 6, 1,840. His mother was a famous adherent of Pietism, Adelheid Amalie von Schmettau, wife of the Russian Prince Dmitri Alexeievitch Galitzin (see OVERBERIi, BERNHARD HExNmCH; the name is variously spelled: Gallitzin, Golitzine, Golizyn, preferably Galitzin or Galiain; that of the subject of this sketch, however, almost invariably appears in the form Gallitzin). After serving in the Aus­trian army in the first campaign against France, he sailed for America with Father Brosius, his tutor, in 1792. He joined the Roman Catholic Church in 1787, surrendered his commission in the Russian army, entered the seminary of St. Sulpice in Balti­more, and was ordained priest Mar. 18, 1795, being the second priest ordained in this country. After serving for a time in the missions of Port Tobacco, Md., and Conewago, Pa., in 1799 he became pastor of the Roman Catholics of Maguire's Settlement in the wildest part of the Allegheny Mountains, now Cambria County, Pa. Here he bought more than 20,000 acres of land and began to furnish homes to settlers on easy terms. On his own prop­erty he founded in 1803 the town of Loretto. Other settlements were made at Ebensburg, Carroll­town, St. Augustine, Wilmore, and Summitville. As " Father Smith," by which name he had been naturalized in 1802, Gallitzin became famous for his charity, self‑sacrifice, and zeal in Christian work. In 1809 he was allowed by special act of the legis­lature to resume his family name. He was held in high esteem by all sects, and high episcopal honors were frequently urged upon him. His writings are still prized by Roman Catholics, particularly his Defence of Catholic Principles (Pittsburg. 1816); Let­ters to a Protestant Friend on the Scriptures (1818); Appeal to the Protestant Public (1818); and Six Let­ters of Advice (1834).

BIHLIOa8AP87: T. Heyden, Memoir on As Life and Char­acter of P. D. A. de Gallitzin, Baltimore, 1869; 8. M. Brownson, Life of Demetrius Augustine Ga71itan, Prince and Priest, New York, 1878; Pauline Hard, A Royal Son and Mother. Notre Dams, Ind., 1908.





427 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Gallienus

Gallus


GALLOWAY, CHARLES BETTS: Methodist

Episcopal bishop; b. at Kosciusko, Miss., Sept. 1,

1849; d. at Jackson, Miss., May 12, 1909. He

studied at the University of Mississippi (B.A., 1868)

and held pastorates at Port Gibson (1871), Yazoo

City (1872‑73), Jackson (1874‑78), and Vicksburg,

Miss. (187884). From 1882 to 1886 he was editor

of the New Orleans Christian Advocate, and in 1886

was elected bishop of the Methodist Episcopal

Church, South. He was a fraternal messenger to

the Methodist Church of Canada in 1886 and to the

Wesleyan Methodist Conference in England in 1892,

while in 1901 he preached the opening sermon of

the Ecumenical Conference at London. He was

also a member of the Ecumenical Conference at

Washington in 1891, and visited the Methodist

Episcopal missions in China, Japan, Korea, and

those in Brazil and Mexico. He was president

of the board of education of the Methodist

Episcopal Church, South. In theology he was an

orthodox member of his denomination. He wrote

Methodism, Its Providential Origin and Progress

(Nashville, Tenn., 1880); Life of Bishop Linus



Parker (1886); Hand‑Book of Prohibition (1886);

A Circuit of the Globe (1895); Modern Missions,

their Evidential Value (Cole Lectures at Vanderbilt

University; 1896); Christianity and the Nation

(Quillian lectures at Emory College; 1898); The

South and the Negro (1904); Methodism's To­

morrow (1904); and Bishop John Christian Keener

(1906).


GALLUS, CAIUS VIBIUS TREBONIANUUS: Ro­

man emperor 251‑253; b. at Perusia (the modern

Perugia, 85 m. n. of Rome), probably in 207; d.

at Forum Flaminu (probably the modern San

Giovanni pro Fiammo, 2 m. n. of Foligno) or at

Interamna (the modern Terni, 59 m. s. e. of Perugia)

late in the summer of 253. He was a general of

Decius in the war against the Goths, and after the

death of this emperor was declared Augustus by the

Senate in 251, together with Hostilianus, the son of

Decius. Hostilianus died in the following year,

and Volusianus, the son of Gallus, was appointed his

successor. The reign was one of disaster, marked

by a shameful peace with the Goths and their

renewed inroads, the loss of Syria and Armenia to

the Persians, and a terrible pestilence. On the

Danube the Pannonian legions proclaimed lhnil­

ianus emperor, whereupon Gallus and his son

marched against him, only to fall at the hands of

their mutinous troops on the way. In the early

portion of the reign of Gallus the Christians had a

brief respite from the horrors of the persecution of

Decius, but before long the new emperor reenforced

measures of repression, either at his own initiative

or under the compulsion of the people, who were

maddened by pestilence and poverty. As early

as May, 252, it was feared at Carthage that

the new laws would be enforced, and in the

summer of the following year Cyprian wrote to

the Roman bishop Cornelius of an imperial edict by

which " the people were commanded to offer

sacrifices." The actual persecutions, however,

seem to have been mild, banishment being the



Download 6.59 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   ...   65




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page