Jurisdictional Struggles Between Bishop and Grand Master in Malta in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is devoted to jurisdictional disputes between the Bishop of Malta and the Grand Masters of the Order of St. John in the first half of the 17th century, specifically in the period from 1563 to 1650. It focuses on tensions relating to ecclesiastical immunities – personal, material and local – in the context of carrying out the reforms of the Council of Trent. The author uses extensive archival sources from the diocesan archive in Malta, especially the correspondence between the bishop, the Grand Master and the Holy See. The work is thematically well-anchored within the research of jurisdictional conflicts and ecclesiastical power. The text is structured logically, with an emphasis on three types of immunities, each of which is addressed separately.

The article abstract is understandable and thematically relevant; however, I recommend expanding it by several important elements that would increase its academic value and informational completeness. First of all, there is no precise time frame given for the study, although the study itself focuses on the period from 1563 to 1650. This information should be stated explicitly in the abstract, as it frames the application of the Tridentine reforms in the Maltese context.

Furthermore, there is no clearly formulated research question or issue that the author is resolving. Despite the fact that the issue of ecclesiastical immunities is emphasised, what exactly the aim of the study is and what is its main argument are not evident.

The abstract likewise only marginally mentions the use of archival sources, without specifying the method of their analysis.

It would be appropriate to add a brief mention of the existing literature and outline what original contribution of the presented work is.

I therefore suggest that the abstract be slightly expanded and structured so that it more clearly describes the time frame, aim, method, research context and conclusions of the study. An abstract thus modified would provide the reader with a more accurate picture of the content and meaning of the entire work.

The conclusion of the article nicely summaries the main themes, but it lacks an explicit summary of the main findings and interpretation. The conclusion should also reflect on the originality of the work in relation to the current state of research.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive review of my article. I greatly appreciate the time and care you took in evaluating my work and for the helpful suggestions you provided for its improvement.

In response to your suggestions, I have revised the abstract to address the concerns you raised. The updated version now includes a clear and explicit time frame (1563–1650), a more defined research question and central argument, as well as a summary of the methodology employed, including the use of archival correspondence between the bishop, the Grand Master, and the Holy See. I have also briefly referenced the relevant scholarly literature and highlighted the original contribution of the study within the broader historiography of Church–State relations in early modern Europe.

Furthermore, the conclusion has been strengthened to explicitly summarise the main findings of the study and to reflect more clearly on its originality and relevance in relation to current scholarship on jurisdictional conflicts and ecclesiastical authority.

I trust that these revisions have addressed your concerns and contributed to improving the academic value and clarity of the article. I am truly grateful for your engagement and insightful remarks.
With sincere thanks and kind regards,

Rev. Dr Nicholas J. Doublet
Department of Church History, Patrology 
and Paleo-Christian Archaeology
Faculty of Theology,
University of Malta.

Nicholas.doublet@um.edu.mt

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Jurisdictional Struggles between Bishop and Grand Master in Malta in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century

The research is good!

1 Form:

Positive aspects:

The structure is good: Introduction; The application of the Tridentine decrees in Malta; Local immunity; Real immunity; Personal immunity; Broader Implications of Jurisdictional Struggles; and conclusion.

Negative aspects:

Though the main source of articles is the documents from the archives, it is good to ensure that the quotations and the bibliography (references) are according to the MDPI style.

 

2 Contents:

It can help to understand the conflict between Church and State in the past, present and future.

 

3 There are very few minor corrections!

 

 

Suggestions for some corrections!

Line Number	Suggestion for correction
40	society against what it is often perceived
68-69	church property and persons (Boudinhon1910).
84-85	jurisdictional boundaries (Volkmar 2017, pp. 237–238).
90	legal entity that far exceeded, or it at least
96	the Curia Provicarialis in Mdina
113	public and private life (Volkmar 2017, pp. 237–238).
184	In any case, the inquisitoe being also the papal legate
200-212	Cum nihil in ecclesia dei disciplina partum laudabilius sit, quod divinum cultum augeat et fideles humiles ac devotos reddat vel ecclesiasticos, qui eadem ut aliis exemplo sint pietate, moribus ac honeState eo ordine quo instituta sit observantes, profitentur eam presertim que in reformatorum decretis, Sacro San(cti) ecumenici Concilii tridentini tradita est, et ex regione perturbatione detestabilius, nihil quod animos fidelium a dei laudibus avertat atque pessumdet, Id circo cum initio huius nostri muneris considerantes iam, tum ob divini Cultus deffectum ac ministrorum, tum etiam alias ob causas nos impellentes evangelica admonitione omnes fere clericos in domino prevenire quo maiori cum reverentia divinus cultus exhibeatur videntes haud praeter animi dolorem hanc Ipsam disciplinam nedum hactenus minime obsedrvatum iri sed etiam in contemptum haberi, statuimus per publica edicta sub penis in iisdem contentis ut saltem quod pietas et spiritus lenitatis non movent virga coerceat in vim suam (adiuvante deo) quatenus opus sit redigere […].
226	serving the pastoral needs tied to their benefices benefits or
242-244	Clericos coniugatos qui unicam et virginem duxerunt uxorem, et in habitu ac tonsura incidunt, et alieni Ecclesiae de mandato Episcopi inserviunt; deberi utique fori privilegio gaudere.
251-257	E ben vero che per rispetto delli pesi di far la guardia, e di mantener cavalli per difesa dell’Isola li chierici coniugati non possono pretendere esentione alcuna; anzi che conformo la più vera opinione de Dottori possono esser astretti dal Principe a sopportare li sudetti pesi, facendo esecutione de pegni sopra la loro beni. Sin tanto che s’inducono all’obbedienza, ma non già carcerandoli, o in altro modo toccando la loro persona, la quale per haver il Privilegio del Canoni, non possono da Giudici secolari esser ritenuto, ne punite di pena corporale. xviii
294	church Church leaders. Nonetheless,
308	to administer justice (Ciappara 1985, pp. 117–132; Ciappara 2008, pp. 227–243). This modern
316	placed prominently on in every chapel that had
323	result, the Sacra Congregazione dell’Immunità Ecclesiastica ordered Bishop Bartolomé
358-360	Si fece estrarre con quella decenza che ordina la bolla ..et ritenendoli nelle Carceri della Curia Ecclesiastica, dia avviso quà delli delitti, de quelli vengono imputati, accio se le possa rescrivere quello dovrà esse pure. xxvii
407	exert control over all the population of the
435-439	Con l’occasione di reiterate istanze del Gran Maestro della Religione Gerosolimatana, hanno ordinato questi Eminentissimi Signori sopra le Controversie giurisdizionali; che nell’ordinar clerici non lasci Vostra Signoria di osservare la precisa dispositione del Sacro Concilio di Trento nel c. Xi, ec.13, sess 23 de reform, acciò non seguono inconvenienti, che diano occasione di nuovo ricorso. xxxi
447	such as those dictated by the needs of assuring need to ensure security
470	implemented in Malta (Ciappara 2009, pp. 1–25). The Jesuit Collegium
472	study in Malta (Pecchiai 1938, pp. 321–322; Fiorini 2017). Yet the majority
491-496	Col quale si prefiggeva termine di nove giorni à ciscuno Clerico per tre monitioni canoniche di portar l’habito e servire la Chiesa sotto pena di privation del Privilegio del foro. Giovanni Amarelli cingendo soada, nè volendo portar l’habito e servire alla Chiesa, fù dal vicario cancellato dal Rolo dei Chierici ascritti, e fù ordinato non se gli dia più la Bolletta della francligia della Gabella.xxxix
521-527	Ut clerici etiam non habentes requisita c. 6 sess. 23 de reformatione, licet ipsi tanquam contravenientes ordinationi Sacri Concili non possint per se allegare privilegium fori, ni- hilominus subsint iurisdictioni episcoporum, seu ordinariorum, et illorum cognitioni, ne- dum in causis, in quibus iidem episcopi, seu ordinarii provenerunt, verum etiam in quibus non provenerunt. Sed illos e manibus iudicis laici repetunt, quando iidem clerici adhuc clerici permanent, videlicet, si neque a iure neque ab homine per declarationem servato servandis factam privilegiis clericalibus denudati, seu privati sunt.xlii
546-552	Episcopus conqueritur nullum fere esse in ea civitate qui, sub praetextu familiaritatis equitum Hierosolymitanorum, ecclesiam non subterfugiat. Unde gravissima scelera in dies atque horas impune committuntur. Adulteria, concubinatus, stupra, eiusque carnibus temporibus perpetrata, contemptus excommunicationum aliarumque censurarum, et maxima sacramentorum confusio. Hinc etiam nascitur magnum ecclesiasticis rebus detrimentum, et ecclesiasticae dignitatis, libertatis, ac immunitatis contemptus.xliii
553-556	Quando si tratta se il contratto, o patto sia usurario, e la controversia est iuris, la cognitione sempre spetta al foro Ecclesiastico, ma quando si tratta circa il fatto, o circa il castigo, come causa mixti fori, s’attende la preventione, et la cognitione e del Tribunale, che previene.xliv
578	During a time when Rome had lost a considerable
591-600	Nelle differenze giurisdizionali, che Vostra Signoria suppone esser nati con Mons. Gran Maestro, ella dovrà con l’assistenza di Mons. Inquisitore proteggere con ogni prudente intrepidezza le raggioni della sua Chiesa, servandosi anco di qui mezzi che permettono li Sacri Canoni, et le costituzione Apostoliche; benche difficilmente mi possa indurre à credere, che il detto Mons. Gran Maestro vogli, con violare le giurisdizione Ecclesiastica, incorrere in censure comminati da medesimi canoni, et constitutioni Apostoliche, et in questo modo illaqueare l’anima sua, et il governo di cotesto suo magistero, non lasciando di dire a Vostra Signoria, che sopra li casi occorrenti formi, et mandi sempre processi giustificati, acciò si possi pigliare quella deliberazione che sarà di ragione...xlvii

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Jurisdictional Struggles between Bishop and Grand Master in Malta in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century

The research is good!

1 Form:

Positive aspects:

The structure is good: Introduction; The application of the Tridentine decrees in Malta; Local immunity; Real immunity; Personal immunity; Broader Implications of Jurisdictional Struggles; and conclusion.

Negative aspects:

Though the main source of articles is the documents from the archives, it is good to ensure that the quotations and the bibliography (references) are according to the MDPI style.

 

2 Contents:

It can help to understand the conflict between Church and State in the past, present and future.

 

3 There are very few minor corrections!

 

 

Suggestions for some corrections!

Line Number	Suggestion for correction
40	society against what it is often perceived
68-69	church property and persons (Boudinhon1910).
84-85	jurisdictional boundaries (Volkmar 2017, pp. 237–238).
90	legal entity that far exceeded, or it at least
96	the Curia Provicarialis in Mdina
113	public and private life (Volkmar 2017, pp. 237–238).
184	In any case, the inquisitoe being also the papal legate
200-212	Cum nihil in ecclesia dei disciplina partum laudabilius sit, quod divinum cultum augeat et fideles humiles ac devotos reddat vel ecclesiasticos, qui eadem ut aliis exemplo sint pietate, moribus ac honeState eo ordine quo instituta sit observantes, profitentur eam presertim que in reformatorum decretis, Sacro San(cti) ecumenici Concilii tridentini tradita est, et ex regione perturbatione detestabilius, nihil quod animos fidelium a dei laudibus avertat atque pessumdet, Id circo cum initio huius nostri muneris considerantes iam, tum ob divini Cultus deffectum ac ministrorum, tum etiam alias ob causas nos impellentes evangelica admonitione omnes fere clericos in domino prevenire quo maiori cum reverentia divinus cultus exhibeatur videntes haud praeter animi dolorem hanc Ipsam disciplinam nedum hactenus minime obsedrvatum iri sed etiam in contemptum haberi, statuimus per publica edicta sub penis in iisdem contentis ut saltem quod pietas et spiritus lenitatis non movent virga coerceat in vim suam (adiuvante deo) quatenus opus sit redigere […].
226	serving the pastoral needs tied to their benefices benefits or
242-244	Clericos coniugatos qui unicam et virginem duxerunt uxorem, et in habitu ac tonsura incidunt, et alieni Ecclesiae de mandato Episcopi inserviunt; deberi utique fori privilegio gaudere.
251-257	E ben vero che per rispetto delli pesi di far la guardia, e di mantener cavalli per difesa dell’Isola li chierici coniugati non possono pretendere esentione alcuna; anzi che conformo la più vera opinione de Dottori possono esser astretti dal Principe a sopportare li sudetti pesi, facendo esecutione de pegni sopra la loro beni. Sin tanto che s’inducono all’obbedienza, ma non già carcerandoli, o in altro modo toccando la loro persona, la quale per haver il Privilegio del Canoni, non possono da Giudici secolari esser ritenuto, ne punite di pena corporale. xviii
294	church Church leaders. Nonetheless,
308	to administer justice (Ciappara 1985, pp. 117–132; Ciappara 2008, pp. 227–243). This modern
316	placed prominently on in every chapel that had
323	result, the Sacra Congregazione dell’Immunità Ecclesiastica ordered Bishop Bartolomé
358-360	Si fece estrarre con quella decenza che ordina la bolla ..et ritenendoli nelle Carceri della Curia Ecclesiastica, dia avviso quà delli delitti, de quelli vengono imputati, accio se le possa rescrivere quello dovrà esse pure. xxvii
407	exert control over all the population of the
435-439	Con l’occasione di reiterate istanze del Gran Maestro della Religione Gerosolimatana, hanno ordinato questi Eminentissimi Signori sopra le Controversie giurisdizionali; che nell’ordinar clerici non lasci Vostra Signoria di osservare la precisa dispositione del Sacro Concilio di Trento nel c. Xi, ec.13, sess 23 de reform, acciò non seguono inconvenienti, che diano occasione di nuovo ricorso. xxxi
447	such as those dictated by the needs of assuring need to ensure security
470	implemented in Malta (Ciappara 2009, pp. 1–25). The Jesuit Collegium
472	study in Malta (Pecchiai 1938, pp. 321–322; Fiorini 2017). Yet the majority
491-496	Col quale si prefiggeva termine di nove giorni à ciscuno Clerico per tre monitioni canoniche di portar l’habito e servire la Chiesa sotto pena di privation del Privilegio del foro. Giovanni Amarelli cingendo soada, nè volendo portar l’habito e servire alla Chiesa, fù dal vicario cancellato dal Rolo dei Chierici ascritti, e fù ordinato non se gli dia più la Bolletta della francligia della Gabella.xxxix
521-527	Ut clerici etiam non habentes requisita c. 6 sess. 23 de reformatione, licet ipsi tanquam contravenientes ordinationi Sacri Concili non possint per se allegare privilegium fori, ni- hilominus subsint iurisdictioni episcoporum, seu ordinariorum, et illorum cognitioni, ne- dum in causis, in quibus iidem episcopi, seu ordinarii provenerunt, verum etiam in quibus non provenerunt. Sed illos e manibus iudicis laici repetunt, quando iidem clerici adhuc clerici permanent, videlicet, si neque a iure neque ab homine per declarationem servato servandis factam privilegiis clericalibus denudati, seu privati sunt.xlii
546-552	Episcopus conqueritur nullum fere esse in ea civitate qui, sub praetextu familiaritatis equitum Hierosolymitanorum, ecclesiam non subterfugiat. Unde gravissima scelera in dies atque horas impune committuntur. Adulteria, concubinatus, stupra, eiusque carnibus temporibus perpetrata, contemptus excommunicationum aliarumque censurarum, et maxima sacramentorum confusio. Hinc etiam nascitur magnum ecclesiasticis rebus detrimentum, et ecclesiasticae dignitatis, libertatis, ac immunitatis contemptus.xliii
553-556	Quando si tratta se il contratto, o patto sia usurario, e la controversia est iuris, la cognitione sempre spetta al foro Ecclesiastico, ma quando si tratta circa il fatto, o circa il castigo, come causa mixti fori, s’attende la preventione, et la cognitione e del Tribunale, che previene.xliv
578	During a time when Rome had lost a considerable
591-600	Nelle differenze giurisdizionali, che Vostra Signoria suppone esser nati con Mons. Gran Maestro, ella dovrà con l’assistenza di Mons. Inquisitore proteggere con ogni prudente intrepidezza le raggioni della sua Chiesa, servandosi anco di qui mezzi che permettono li Sacri Canoni, et le costituzione Apostoliche; benche difficilmente mi possa indurre à credere, che il detto Mons. Gran Maestro vogli, con violare le giurisdizione Ecclesiastica, incorrere in censure comminati da medesimi canoni, et constitutioni Apostoliche, et in questo modo illaqueare l’anima sua, et il governo di cotesto suo magistero, non lasciando di dire a Vostra Signoria, che sopra li casi occorrenti formi, et mandi sempre processi giustificati, acciò si possi pigliare quella deliberazione che sarà di ragione...xlvii

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive and encouraging feedback on my article, “Jurisdictional Struggles between Bishop and Grand Master in Malta in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century.” I am grateful for your recognition of the structure and content of the study, as well as your constructive remarks.

I would like to assure you that all suggested corrections have now been carried out. In particular, all references and quotations have been carefully reviewed and formatted in full accordance with the MDPI style guide, following the journal’s requirements for both primary sources and secondary literature.

Additionally, in light of your helpful comment on the broader significance of the topic, I have revised the introduction to more clearly highlight the relevance of the historical Church–State conflicts examined in this study for understanding similar dynamics in both past and present contexts.

I appreciate your insightful observations, and I hope the revised version meets your expectations.
With sincere thanks and kind regards,

Rev. Dr Nicholas J. Doublet
Department of Church History, Patrology 
and Paleo-Christian Archaeology
Faculty of Theology,
University of Malta.
Nicholas.doublet@um.edu.mt

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article poses a very fascinating question. The author demonstrates a knowledge of canonical terminology and uses it correctly. The abstract is meticulously structured, providing a comprehensive overview of the subject matter while highlighting salient issues. However, the hypothesis of the study could have been highlighted more explicitly. While the hypothesis is mentioned in the introduction, it would be more accessible to the general reader if it was more specifically articulated. The author draws a compelling parallel between the absolutist state and the Church in a state like Malta, where the dominance of the Catholic faith does not presuppose the absolutism that characterises the continent.

 

"Key milestones in this process  included the scholarly study of canon law, the codification of the Corpus Iuris Canonici, and the establishment of a body of officials, each contributing to the system’s legal and institutional consolidation."

This (Corpus Iuris Canonici) is evidently an medieval collection of canon law. It is worthwhile to provide some context regarding its publication's circumstances and cite its primary sources in the footnote (compiled by Vitalis de Thebes and Jean Chappuis, 1500-03). Furthermore, it is not correct to use the term codification here.  It is instead a compilation but not a codification in the legal sense. (Best editions: 1747: Böhmer; 1839: Leipzig, Aemilius Lud. Richter; 1876-84: Leipzig, Aemilius Friedberg.)

 

"By the mid-fourteenth century, these foundational advancements had largely matured across the whole of Christendom. As Christoph Volkmar has shown in his seminal study of the ecclesiastical court system during the Protestant reform in Germany, by the dawn of modernity, the Church could boast of an ecclesiastical judicial framework unparalleled by any secular counterpart. It was marked 80 by the integration of Roman law principles into a codified legal system, a highly efficient procedure based on written records, and a cadre of professionally trained judges (officiales). Furthermore, its hierarchical organisation was comprehensive throughout the Latin Church, extending across spatial and jurisdictional boundaries. (Volkmar 2017, pp. 84 237–238)"

This statement is only partially accurate. The modern relationship between church and state was not exclusively a political matter; it was also a jurisdictional issue, involving the various branches of power. Secular courts have progressively asserted jurisdiction in a growing number of areas that were previously the exclusive domain of ecclesiastical courts. Ottavni's Institutiones juris publici ecclesiastici: Jus publicum externum (Ecclesia et status) is a seminal work in this area. A further point of reference is Péter Erdő's Storia delle fonti del diritto canonico (2008). The author references this fact in a subsequent section of the text, but it would be preferable to clarify it at the outset. Alternatively, the points he makes can be supported by the work of several historians of canon law.

 

"The ambassador’s assertion highlights the ambiguity surrounding such matters. Married clerics, often seen as occupying a middle ground between two states, exemplify this complexity. While canon law experts could deem them subject to secular authority in matters related to their property, their clerical status safeguarded their person as sacred. This protection rendered the use of torture or corporal punishment inadmissible."

In addressing this subject, it may also be beneficial to consider the developments occurring within the global church. At that particular time, in addition to the criminal law, the invalidity of the marriages of clerics is beginning to be declared in universal law. This has resulted in challenges at the regional level in many places. It is particularly pertinent to consider this phenomenon within the context of Malta. For instance Sticler. The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations Paperback – March 1, 1995.

 

"Rome was also very aware that the immunity of churches was susceptible to abuse. Although the bishop was to remain vigilant to ensure that ecclesiastical immunity associated with churches and consecrated places was protected, it was not the intention of the Apostolic See for any claim of immunity to extend indefinitely. It was conscious that there were cases when criminals claimed sanctuary, and then used the church as their base to leave and return as they pleased, even to commit new crimes. In 1627, Cardinal Bandini ordered Bishop Cagliares to limit the immunity of fugitives that in virtue of the bull of Gregory XIV (r.1590–91)xxvi enjoyed immunity for a period of three days, after  which the immunity was to end, and the bishop was to arrest the fugitives and keep them  in the Curia’s jail for prosecution:"

 

The author's decision to frame the discussion within the context of universal canon law is a commendable approach that offers a valuable perspective on the matter. This approach is great!

 

"Yet the majority, particularly clerics, whose duties did not include the care of souls, remained involved in daily affairs, undistinguished from the rest of the lay population…"

 

In the interest of comprehensiveness, it is perhaps worth mentioning here the processes that have taken place in the universal church. The increasing prioritisation of the priesthood in the direction of the sacred ministry. The prohibition of other activities, and the subsequent criminalization of such behavior, are also salient aspects of this transformation. (Persone e soggetti nel diritto della Chiesa: Luis Navarro)

 

Broader Implications of Jurisdictional Struggles

 

It may be beneficial to revise this section. The Maltese situation would be better contextualized within the broader developments occurring within the universal Church. In this instance, the primary concern pertains to issues that can be examined through the lenses of theology and legal dogmatics. For instance, the legal jurisdiction frequently employed has undergone a substantial transformation. A comparison with the terms used in current canon law may also be illuminating, as there is a significant divergence in this sense. Existing jurists interpret the term differently (see jurisdiction, potestas, facultas). The conclusion is weak. The argument would be strengthened by greater academic rigor. The hypothesis, its justification, and the new findings are not adequately addressed within the confines of a mere 12 lines.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your attentive and thoughtful review of my article. Your detailed engagement with both the content and methodology of the study has been greatly appreciated. I found your comments intellectually stimulating and your bibliographic recommendations—particularly your references to Ottaviani’s Institutiones iuris publici ecclesiastici, Erdő’s Storia delle fonti del diritto canonico, and Luis Navarro’s Persone e soggetti nel diritto della Chiesa—to be particularly enriching. They have enabled me to better contextualise the Maltese case within the broader canonical and ecclesiological tradition of the Latin Church.

I have taken all your suggestions seriously and incorporated them into the revised version of the article. The hypothesis has now been reformulated and more explicitly articulated in both the introduction and the expanded conclusion. I have also clarified the status of the Corpus Iuris Canonici as a compilation rather than a codification, and have provided appropriate bibliographical references to its primary editions and compilers, as you suggested.

Your insights into the jurisdictional complexity surrounding married clerics, the implications of clerical celibacy legislation, and the redefinition of priestly identity following the Council of Trent have significantly shaped the reformulation of several key sections. Moreover, your invitation to draw out the broader theological and legal developments within the universal Church has led to a substantial revision of the section on the broader implications of jurisdictional struggles. I have endeavoured to align the Maltese context with these wider transformations, including a more nuanced discussion of canonical terminology (potestas, jurisdictio, facultas) and the shifting legal dogmatics of the post-Tridentine Church.

Finally, your constructive critique regarding the original conclusion’s brevity prompted a complete revision. Hopefully, the revised conclusion now offers a more robust synthesis of the argument, more clearly outlines the study’s contribution, and reaffirms the central hypothesis in light of the findings.

Thank you once again for your generous and scholarly contribution. Your comments have undoubtedly strengthened the article and deepened its engagement with the broader field.

With sincere appreciation,

Rev. Dr Nicholas J. Doublet
Department of Church History, Patrology 
and Paleo-Christian Archaeology
Faculty of Theology,
University of Malta.
Nicholas.doublet@um.edu.mt