It must not be supposed that the religious brotherhood brought together by means of the life and teachings of the saint assumed from the very outset the character of a well organized regular order. On the contrary, the movement inaugurated by the ecstatic Umbrian exhibits at its inception the peculiar characteristic of being without form or organization, in accordance with his strong wish to do away with all stiff, mechanical discipline, all that implied distinctions among the brethren, all mediums of authority—in a word, all merely positive or arbitrary restriction of Christian liberty.

Not unlike the first spread of the Gospel was the early dissemination of the Franciscan ideas (down to the year 1209). It was a great stirring of the public mind owing its origin not to any initiative on the part of the ruling powers lay or ecclesiastical, but to the marvellous influence of a "poverello" whose dearest ambition was to be considered as the least among his brethren. The movement was by no means called forth by the need of adding another religious order to those already in existence; it sprung rather from the deeply felt necessity of bringing together in a bond of brotherhood all those who from a deeper understanding of the Gospel felt themselves called to become the promoters of peace and charity among men. Substantially the Franciscan movement began in the same way as did that of the Waldenses, of the Humiliati and others who sought to effect the purification of society through the democratic spirit of evangelical poverty—the only means which seemed available to check the lawless violence and strife which was constantly menacing the common welfare.

This is the less known aspect of the Franciscan movement, viz.: its correspondence to the social needs of the time, its political and economical causes, its relation with similar movements of the age; on these heads even the work of Sabatier is inadequate, partly on account of the over deferential attitude of the author.

But while the democratico-religious tendencies and agitation of these times generally animated by a strong hatred of Roman authority-led to schism (not heresy) in southern France and Lombardy, the Franciscan movement originating in Umbria, a province so intimately connected in history with the destinies of Rome, and besides, imbued with a strong spirit of Catholicity, showed itself free from insubordination and was always guided in such a way as to maintain towards

Cf. Mandonnet, Les origines de l'ordo de poenitentia. Comptes-rendus du quatrième congrès scientifique international des Catholiques tenu a Fribourg en Suisse, 16-20 d'Aout, 1897.

Rome and the papacy an attitude of orthodox submission. It is undeniable that Francis lccked upcn Rome as the authentic source of discipline as well as of doctrine; the center also of all collective religious life destined to be fruitful in the church. But this was in him not so much an attitude of the soul as a reasoned conviction due chiefly to his religious education, and in this respect he exhibits two opposing tendencies. In theory and cn principle he is bound by strict obedience to the Holy See, but in practice he is unable to understand its aims,. and he allows himself a gcodly amount of liberty in following its suggestions. Rome, fearing that the movement aimed at autonomy with regard to the hierarchy and its authority, endeavored to check it, to keep it under the constant supervision of the Curia, and to impose upon the brethren a systematic rule of life. But Francis nevertheless persists in allowing them full freedom to come and go as they please, to go through the fields when the reapers gather the harvest, to go through the cities where the commercial revival of Italy is in progress. In 1218, impelled by his apostolic zeal, Francis left his native Italy. During the two years of his absence the order under the able direction of Brother Elias, assumed for the first time something of a regular organization. Hearing of it, Francis returned in haste, but he found things so far advanced in the direction of systematic regularity that he gave up all hope of reverting to the primitive unorganized condition. The rule was definitely promulgated in 1221. During the last years of his life Francis was so chagrined by the later developments of the order as compared with the ideals of its humble beginnings that he wholly abdicated his authority. But by this time his great work was really accomplished; all Europe had been stirred by his appeal for peace, and everywhere was felt the stimulus of the new evangelical life.

The primitive rule contained this clause: "Arma mortalia contra quempiam non recipiant, vel secum ferant." This precept, which may appear to a later generation as more or less superfluous, was of great importance at a time when the soil of Provence was red with the blood of the Albigenses, at a time when the cities of Italy were engaged in bitter feuds, and taking sides in the great struggle between the papacy and the empire-between Innocent, Honorius, and Gregory on the cne side, and Barbarossa, Henry and Frederick on the other.

Francis preached love towards the Creator and love towards our fellow men; he preached with the eloquence of an example that has never been reproduced, the complete detachment from wealth as a source of peace, as the starting point of a more energetic life of the soul..

At the time of his birth Calabria was still agitated by the recent apocalyptic announcements of the seer of Fiora; and the towns of Lombardy—overjoyed by the victory of Legnano where Italian bravery had particularly distinguished itself-were anxiously awaiting the dawn of a new epoch in history. That dawn went forth from Assisi, the Orient of Dante; and to the desolate medieval populations, who still bore in their flesh the marks of the feudal chains, Francis revealed the consoling scheme of restoring all things through love. After all, it matters little if in the space of a few years the Franciscan tree seemed to languish: it matters little if the newly engrafted shoots of wealth and learning (two things of which the "poverello" was always afraid) seemed to dry up its very sap; for the words of peace and love spoken by the seraphic founder were still re-echoed in the souls of men, dilating them with higher hopes and inspiring them with a stronger determination to be faithful and zealous in their apostolate of peace and love.

In the great events of history it is difficult to appreciate to what extent the leaders are influenced by the multitude and vice versa, but in all such movements both factors should be taken into account. A personality like that of St. Francis is always sure to leave on mankind a deep impression of its own. Around his tomb flourished the new born arts of the Renaissance; around it gathered the "communi" of Italy, and there they received a strong inspiration in the direction of true civilization; and, what is more, there went forth from it a spirit which was gradually assimilated by the Italian consciousness, and which continues to exert its benign influence even in our own day, when the struggle of the masses for industrial amelioration, like that of the "communi" of old, causes us to sigh again for the dawn of a more Christian civilization.

E. BUONAIUTI.

STUDIES

DIVORCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

AN EXEGETICAL STUDY. (I)

Francis E. Gigot, D. D.

The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the important and vexed question of divorce is well-defined and well-known. Catholics are expressly taught that after the Christian marriage has been validly contracted and consummated, divorce cannot be allowed for any reason. Separation for sufficient cause may indeed be lawful, but re-marriage during the lifetime of either consort is positively forbidden under the pain of adultery. They are also taught that this strict doctrine is based on Our Lord's very injunction concerning such a marriage, and that consequently, no human power, whether of Church or State, can lawfully authorize the re-marriage of either husband or wife, so long as the bond of holy matrimony has not been sundered by death.

Such is the plain teaching of the Church of God, "the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim. iii, 15). Its correctness is certain even irrespective of the fact that it is embodied in the inspired records of the New Testament. Before a single line of the sacred Scriptures of the New Law had been written, the Church existed and was in possession of the oral teaching of her divine Founder on this important point. Christ's words were the law regarding the question of divorce among the Christians of St. Paul's time, and it is to this fact that the Apostle of the Gentiles bore distinct testimony when he wrote to the faithful of Corinth: "As to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband . . . and that the husband dismiss not his wife" (I Cor. vii, 10). It is true that, at an early date, this authoritative pronouncement of Jesus was embodied in the sacred records of Christianity. But, of course, such event did not invalidate the previous testimony of the Church to Our Lord's doctrine concerning divorce. It simply added to the hitherto unwritten Christian tradition, a written one to which we may even now appeal confidently to prove that the present Catholic teaching on this

point is no other than that which is ascribed to Christ in the early documents of our faith. As a matter of fact, the use of the most recent methods of literary and historical criticism simply confirms the conclusive character of this appeal. And the present exegetical study will show that the more thoroughly the passages of the New Testament bearing on the question of divorce are investigated in the light of modern criticism, the more also it becomes evident that the Catholic doctrine regarding divorce is identical with the teaching of Our Lord which is recorded in these passages of Holy writ.

The following is the order in which we shall examine these passages: (1) Mk. x, 2-12, which teaches directly the absolute indissolubility of the marriage tie; (2) Lk. xvi, 18, and I Cor. vii, 10-11, which also inculcate that indissolubility without any restrictive clause; (3) I Cor. vii, 12-16, which contains what is known as "the Pauline Privilege"; (4) Mt. xix, 3-12 and v, 31-32, in both of which is found the significant clause "except for fornication." The present paper will be devoted to the study of Mk. x, 2-12.

St. Mark's section may be rendered directly from the Greek, as follows:

Mk. x.

2. And Pharisees having approached

asked Him:

Is it lawful for a man to put away a wife?

3. But He answering, said to them:

What did Moses command you?

4. But they said:

Moses allowed to write a bill of divorce

and to put away.

5. But Jesus said to them:

For your hardness of heart

he wrote you this commandment.

6. But from the beginning of creation,

male and female he made them.

7. On account of this a man shall leave his father and mother,

and shall cleave to his wife;1

8. and the two shall become one flesh;

so that they are no longer two, but one flesh.

9. What therefore God has joined together,

let not man put asunder.

10. And in the house again the disciples asked Him

concerning this.

'This line is doubtfully genuine in St. Mark's Gospel. Fr. Jos. Knabenbauer, S. J., (in Marcum, p. 261), thinks that it was added from Mt. and lxx. Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, etc., reject it because absent from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus MS3. It is certainly genuine in Mt's parallel passage (Mt. xix, 5b).