Page:A history of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, volume 3.djvu/38

 22 THE SPIRITUAL FRANCISCANS. The authorship of this bold challenge to an infallible Church was long attributed to John of Parma himself, but there would seem little doubt that it was the work of Gherardo— the outcome of his studies and reveries during the four years spent in the Uni- versity of Paris, although John of Parma possibly had a hand in it. Certainly, as Tocco well points out, he at least sympathized with it, for he never punished the author, in spite of the scandal which it brought upon the Order, and Bernard Gui tells us that at the time it was commonly ascribed to him. I have already re- lated with what joy William of Saint Amour seized upon it in the quarrel between the University and the Mendicants, and the ad- vantage it momentarily gave the former. Under existing circum- stances it could have no friends or defenders. It was too reckless an onslaught on all existing institutions, temporal and spiritual. The only thing to be done with it was to suppress it as quietly as possible. Consideration for the Franciscan Order demanded this, as well as the prudence which counselled that attention should not be unduly called to it, although hundreds of victims had been burned for heresies far less dangerous. The commission which sat at Anagni in July, 1255, for its condemnation had a task over which there could be no debate, but I have already pointed out the contrast between the reserve with which it was suppressed and the vindictive clamor with which Saint Amour's book against the Mendicants was ordered to be burned.- exaggerated misconceptions of its rebellious tendencies. Father Denifle, how- ever, proceeds to state that the result of the commission of Anagni (Julv, 1255) was merely the condemnation of the views of Gherardo, and that the works of Joachim (except his tract against Peter Lombard) have never been condemned by the Church. Yet when the exaggerations of William of St. Amour are thrown aside, there is in reality little in principle to distinguish Joachim from Gherardo ; and if the former was not condemned it was not the fault of the Com- mission of Anagni, which classed both together and energetically endeavored to prove Joachim a heretic, even to showing that he never abandoned his heresy on the Trinity (ubi sup. pp. 137-41). Yet if there was little difference in the letter, there was a marked divergence in spirit between Joachim and his commentator— the former being constructive and the latter destructive as regards the existing Church. See Tocco, Archivio Storico Italiano, 1886.
 * Matt. Paris ann. 1256 (Ed. 1644, p. 032).— Salimbene, p. 102.— Bern. Guidon.