the most active measures of reform, for otherwise what remained of Catholicism in Germany would be extinguished. The bishops were ordered to make visitations throughout their dioceses, to investigate the morals of their clergy, to expel their concubines, and to punish the refractory with all the severity of the laws, depriving them of their benefices and of the functions which they polluted; moreover, that the reform might be thorough, these instructions were accompanied with faculties which placed the regular Orders under episcopal jurisdiction. As in all this they would need the support of the secular power, Maximilian and Albert were exhorted to lend to the prelates all aid and favour.1

The immediate result of this was not encouraging. When Bernard Rasfelt, Bishop of Munster, in his synod of 1566 published the papal commands, the fury of his canons was so excited that they forced him to resign his bishopric and spend the rest of his days in obscurity. He was succeeded by Johann von Hoya, Bishop of Osnabruck and President of the Imperial Chamber, a man distinguished by birth and learning, who speedily wearied of the conflict and sought peace by imitating the example of his subordinates. Three years later, in 1569, the Archbishop of Salzburg, in response to a fresh exhortation from Pius to reform his Church, replied that he and his suffragans had never ceased to attempt it, but that all their efforts had been fruitless and that he despaired of its accomplishment.3

2

Two years after this, in 1571, we have a summary of the condition of Germany in a confidential letter of November 16 to Philip II. from Fray Francisco di Cordova, the confessor to the Empress. The continued

1 Ladenchii Annales ann. 1566, n. 251-4.--Hartzheim, VII. 231.

2 De Thou, Hist. univ., Lib. XXXVIII. ann. 1566-Ladenchii Annales, ann. 1566, n. 256.

3 Dalham, Concil. Salisburgens., p. 556.

success of the Protestant movement he attributes to clerical disorders. Maximilian II., he says, "is regarded as a heretic, for he shows favour to heretics and admits all their preachers to audiences, which he denies to Catholics. He and the princes hold the Pope, the cardinals, and the bishops responsible for the failure of reform which would restore religion. Throughout all Germany the bishops neither preach nor celebrate Mass nor perform ecclesiastical functions, but seem to be laymen rather than clerics, while of the clergy at large there is scarce one without a wife or concubine. When the chapters elect bishops, they are required to swear that they will not reform the canons, and the monasteries are full of laymen and women. For all this there is no punishment, and the bishops and canons excuse themselves by saying that they merely live as the cardinals do. The one who is most scandalised by all this and who talks the most about it is the Emperor. The details are not fit to write, but it is certain that if the clergy were reformed, Germany would accept Catholicism, for the people are disgusted with the clashing of opinions, and, if the bishops would preach, the people would follow them, but as long as there is no reform the heresies increase day by day, and little by little the heretics obtain the bishoprics and benefices. I know, he concludes, that true reform would win back many heretics and their chiefs, and I think the Emperor would not be the last." 1

1 Döllinger, op. cit. I. 654.

At this period the Protestants had fair prospects of winning all Germany, but their progress was arrested, not by Catholic reform, but by the fierce doctrinal dissensions between Calvinists, Lutherans, and Philippists, who hated each other more than they did the common enemy. At the critical moment the Jesuits came, with their tireless labour and skilful policy; the Protestant line which had been steadily advancing was driven back, and finally the Thirty Years' War established the boundaries which have remained with little change.

Against the lukewarmness of Maximilian may be set the zeal of his brother, the Archduke Ferdinand, of whom de Avila writes to Philip II. 1 December, 1565, that it is said for certain that he secretly cast some heretic preachers into a well in his palace.-Döllinger, p. 645.

VOL. II.

Р

The German clergy were not without justification in shielding themselves behind the example of Rome, where Pius IV. had allowed the most public and scandalous immorality to flourish unchecked under his immediate supervision. In 1538 the Consilium de Emendanda Ecclesiæ had animadverted upon the cynical licentiousness of the Roman clergy in terms which show that not much improvement had taken place since Petrarch's description of the papal court,' and the intervening thirty years had not served to purify it. Pius V. included this among his reformatory efforts. He at first proposed to banish all the public women who would not give a pledge of reformation by immediate marriage, and, when forced to abandon this as impracticably harsh, he restricted their residence to certain houses, and forbade their plying their vocation in the streets by day or night. Although this admitted the necessity of the evil and only sought to restrain its public manifestation, such reform was deemed insufferable. The clergy were ashamed to offer open opposition, but urged the Senate to strenuous resistance. The remonstrance presented by that body not only shows the prevalent immorality, but also the conviction that immorality was inseparable from celibacy. It was represented that, if the proposed rules were enforced, the prosperity of the city would be destroyed and the rents of houses be reduced to nothing, and it was urged that, amid so vast a number of men condemned to celibacy, under such restrictions it would be impossible to preserve the virtue of the wives and daughters of the citizens. The contest was stubbornly continued until at length Pius was driven to declare that if further difficulties were interposed

1 In hac enim urbe meretrices ut matronæ incedunt per urbem, seu mula vehuntur, quas affectantur de media die nobiles familiares cardinalium clericique. Nulla in urbe vidimus hanc corruptionem præterquam in hac omnium exemplari, habitant enim insignes ædes : corrigendus etiam hic turpis abusus.-Le Plat, Monument. Concilii Trident. II. 604.

he would leave the city. The Germans, moreover, were not mistaken when they included the cardinals among those whom they imitated, for Sixtus V. in 1586 decreed that no one who had children, even if they were legitimate, should be eligible to the cardinalate, because in no other way could assurance be had of the observance of their Vows, 2

If Pius V. met with opposition in the task of purifying the Augean stable of Rome, St. Charles Borromeo, encouraged and stimulated by his example, found himself involved in a more dangerous quarrel when he attempted, in the equally demoralised city of Milan, to enforce respect for the decrees of Trent. In 1569 he undertook to reform the canons of S. Maria della Scala, whose licentious mode of life was a scandal to the faithful. So persistently did they deny their subjection to his archiepiscopal jurisdiction, that after a long discussion his only resource for vindicating his authority was excommunication. The contumacious canons were still indisposed to yield, and, assembling in their church, they maltreated his messenger. Thinking that his presence might bring them to reason, he ventured himself to expostulate with them, and found them drawn up in their cemetery, with arms in their hands, and supported by soldiers whom they had hired. On reaching the gate, he dismounted from his mule and advanced towards them with his cross, which he had snatched from his cross-bearer. Unabashed by this symbol at once of religion and authority, the mutinous canons rushed upon him with shouts of "Spagna!" "Spagna!" brandishing their weapons and discharging their fire-arms at the cross in his hands—fortunately without injuring him. Having thus driven him off, they continued for some time in open

1 De Thou, Hist. univ. Lib. xxxix.

2 Sixti PP. V. Const. Postquam verus, § 16 (Bullar. Roman. II. 611).-" Certum nequeat suæ testimonium continentiæ exhibere."

rebellion, until they were at length obliged to submit, when Pius V. and Philip II. united their power in support

of St. Charles.1

Still greater was the peril to which the saint was exposed in his quarrel with the Umiliati. They were a branch of the Benedictine Order, founded in 1180 by the Milanese who escaped the destruction of their city by Frederic Barbarossa. Sharing in the general licence of the age, the excesses of the Umiliati became so infamous that they surpassed in turpitude the worst exploits of the unbridled youth of the city. Supported by the decretals of Pius, in 1568 St. Charles undertook to reduce the Order to the observance of monastic rule. The Umiliati resisted with so much energy and success that, after two years of contest, they were still defiant. Regarding St. Charles as the cause of all their troubles, Girolamo Lignana, Provost of S. Cristoforo di Vercelli, who assumed their leadership in 1570, engaged a monk of the order named Girolamo Donati to murder him. The blackness of the deed was not relieved by the circumstances under which it was attempted. While the holy archbishop was absorbed at midnight in his devotions, Donati stole into the oratory and discharged full upon him an arquebuss loaded with slugs. Some of the missiles struck St. Charles, but rebounded to the floor, leaving him unhurt, and the miraculous nature of his escape was proved by the depth to which others penetrated the walls. At this moment the policy of Philip the Catholic supported the disaffected and rebellious monks, and for some time yet they escaped the retribution due to their many crimes, but at length those concerned in the attempted murder were caught and executed, and the order of the Umiliati was broken up.'

1 Fleury, Liv. CLXXI. chap. 104 et seq.

2

2 Muratori, Annal. ann. 1569.-Henrion, Hist. des Ordres Religieux, I. 196.— Fleury, Liv. CLXXI. chap. 26.—De Thou, Lib. L.-The calm Muratori stigmatises the Umiliati as "troppo scorretto e corrotto ordine," and Henrion, who cannot cer