Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/501

 JOHN

435

JOHN

On his way through the Tyrol lie formed an alliance with Frederick of Austria, who was on terms of enmity with Sigismund. John and his nine cardinals made their entry into Constance on 28 October, 1414, and on 5 November the council was opened. The prospects of the Pisan pope became daily more hope- less. The emperor had not bound himself by any permanent obligation towards John. He had needed this pope, as possessing the largest obedience, to bring about the council, but, from the summer of 1413, he had come to the conclusion that unity could be pro- moted only by the abdication or the deposal of all three claimants of the papacy. John at first domi- nated the council, while he endeavoured to increase his adherents by presents, and, by the aid of spies, to learn the temper of the membere. However, the hos- tility of the council towards him became ever more apparent. The chief spokesmen among his cardinals were Pierre d'Ailly and Fillastre; after Sigismund's arrival even these plainly expressed their opinion that the only way to put an end to the schism was by the abdication of all three popes.

In the second session of the council, John was per- suaded to read aloud a formal promise of voluntary abdication of the papacy ('2 March, 1415), and to re- peat this promise in a Bull of 8 March. But on 20 March he fled secretly from Constance to Schaffhausen in the territory of Duke Frederick of Austria, and thence to Freiburg im Breisgau, which belonged to the Duke of Burgundy, also his adherent. John's flight, in consequence of the great difficulties it caused the council, only increased the hostility towards him, and, while he himself tried to negotiate further concerning his abdication, his supporters were obliged to submit to Sigismund. Formally deposed in the twelfth ses- sion (29 May, 1415), John made his submission and commended himself to the mercy of the council. John was accused of the gravest offences in several inimical writings as well as in the formal charges of the coimcil. Undeniably secular and ambitious, his moral life was not above reproach, and his unscrupulous methods in no wise accorded with the requirements of his high of- fice. On t he ot her hand, the heinous crimes of which his opponents in the council accused him were certainly gravely exaggerated, .\fter his abdication he was again known as Baldassare Cossa, and was given into the custody of the Palatine Louis, who had always been his enemy. The latter kept him confined in different places (Radolfzell, Gottlieben, Heidelberg, and Mann- heim). At the forty-second session of the council, 28 Dec, 1417, after Martin V had been electetl, the re- lease of Cossa was decreed. It was not, however, till the following year that he recovered his liberty. He then set out for Florence, where Martin V was staying, and did homage to him as the Head of the Church. On 23 June, 1419, the new pope made him Cardinal-Bishop of Tusculum. But Cossa was completely crushed, and died a few months later at Florence, where he was buried in the baptistery beside the cathedral. Cosimo de' Medici erected a magnificent tomb to his memory.

Vitee Johannis XXI12 in Muratori, Rerum Ital. Scriptores, III, ii, and in Liber Pontif., ed. Duchesne, II, 512 sqq., 5.36 sqq.; Theodoricus de Niem, Historia de vita Joannis XX 111 Pont. Mai. Rom., ed. von der Hardt, Constantiense Concilium, II, pt. XV, 335 sqq. ; Hunger. ZurGesch. Papst Johanns XX III (Bonn. 1876); Schwerdfeger, Papst Johann XX 111 und die Wahl Sigismunds zum romischen Konig (Vienna, 1895) ; GoLLER, Ktinig Sigisniunds Kirchenpolitik vom Tode Bonifaz' IX bis zur Berufung des Konslanzer Konzils (Freiburg im Br., 1902); Idem, Papst Johann XXIII u. Knnig .Sigismund im Sommer mo in Rnmische Quarlalschrifl (1903), 169 sqq.; Reinke, Frankreich und Pap.s( Johann XX III (Munster, 1900) ; Valois, La France et le grand schisme d'Occident, IV (Paris, 1902) ; Pas- tor. Ge.irh. der l',ips!e, I (4th ed.), 192 sqq.; Hollerbach, Die gregori'ini < h< l\rr!, s..; nntnd und das Konstanzer Konzil in Rum. I.' ■ ■' : ,'., (...scAicWe, 129 sqq.; (1910). 3sqq.

See aK ': " —1. I !. r Constance, Cooncii, of; Pisa,

CocN ~. HI-, W, -IIKN. J. P. KlRSCH.

John, Kpistles op S.\int, three canonical books of

t he New Testament written by the Apostle St. John.

First Epistle. — I. AulhenticUy. — A. External evi-

dence. — The very brevity of this letter (105 versea divided into five chapters) and the lateness of its com- position might lead us to suspect no traces thereof in the Apostolic Fathers. Such traces there are, some unquestionable. St. Polycarp (a. d. 110-117, accord- ing to Harnack, whose chronology we shall follow in this article) wrote to the Philippians: " For whosoever confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh is Antichrist " (c. vi; Funk, "Patres Apostolici", I, 304). Here is an evident trace of I John, iv, 2-3; so evident that Harnack deems this witness of Polycarp conclusive proof that the first Epistle and, conse- quently, the Gospel of John were written toward the end of the reign of Trajan, i. e. not later tlian .\. d. 117 (cf. Chronologic der AltchristlichenLitteratur, I, 658). It is true that Polycarp does not name John nor quote word for word ; the Apostolic Fathers cite from mem- ory and are not wont to name the inspired writer whom they cite. The argument from Polycarp's use of I John is strengthened by the fact that he was, ac- cording to Irena-us, the disciple of St. John. The dis- tinctively Johannine phrase "come in the Flesh" (ec aapKl i\i\v0liTa) is also used by the Epistle of Barna- bas (v, 10; Funk, op. cit., I, 53), which was written about A. D. 130. We have it on the authority of Euse- bius (Hist, eccl., V, xx) that this First Epistle of John was cited by Papias, a disciple of John and fellow of Polycarp (a. d. 145-160). Irenasus (a. d. 181-189) not only cites I John, ii, 18, and v, 1, but attributes the citation to John the Lord's disciple ("Adv. Hsr.", 3, 16; Eusebius, "Hist, eccl.", V, viii). The Muratorian Canon (a. d. 195-205) tells the story of the writing of Jolm's Gospel consequent upon a revelation made to the Apostle Andrew, and adds: "What wonder, then, that John so often in his letters gives us details of his Gospel and s;iys of himself, etc." — here I Jolm, i, 1, is quoted. St. Clement of Alexandria (a. d. 190-203) quotes v, 3, with his usual indubitable accuracj', and expresslv assigns the words to Jolin ("Pajdag.", Ill.xi; I'urch. Comm., ed. I, p. 281). TertuUian (a. d. 194- 221, according to Sanday) tells us that John, in his Epistle, brands as Antichrist those who deny that Christ is come in the flesh (De Preescrip., 33), and clearly attributes to "John the author of the Apoc- alypse " several passages of the First Epistle (cf. "Adv. Marc", III, 8. and V, 16, in P. L., II, 359 and 543; "Adv. Gnost.", 12, in P. L., II, 169; "Adv. Prax.", 15, in P. L., II, 196).

B. Internal evidence. — So striking is the internal evidence in favour of common authorship of the Gos- pel and First Epistle of John, as to be almost univer- sally admitted. It cannot be by accident that in both documents we find the ever-recurring and most dis- tinctive words light, darkness, truth, life, and love; the strictly Johannine phrases "to walk in the light ", "to be of the truth", "to be of the devil", "to be of the world", "to overcome the world", etc. Only such erratic and sceptical critics as Holtzmann and Schmiedel deny the forcefulness of this argument from internal evidence; they conclude that the two docu- ments come from the same school, not from the same hand.

II. Canonicity. — The foregoing citations, the fact that there never was any controversy or doubt among the Fathers in the matter of the canonicity of the First Epistle of John, the existence of this document in all the ancient translations of the Xew Testament and in the great uncial MSS. (.Sinaitic, .\lexandrian, etc.) — these are arguments of overwhelming cumula- tive force to establish the acceptance of this letter by the primitive Church as canonical Scripture, and to prove that the inclusion of the First Epistle of John in the Canon of Trent was only a conciliar acceptance of an existing fact, — the fact that the letter had always been among the Horaologoumena of Holy Writ.

III. Integrity. — ^The only part of the letter concern-