HAPTER 1X. The Confession of aaee aa the Breer HAPTER X. League of Smalcald.—Council agreed to by Clement: ; d é; : . M@APTER XI. Paul I11.—Vergerius and Luther.—Coun-

_ cil summoned to meet at Vicenza: GAPTER XII. Council of Trent nical, prorogued, ; opened.—Objections to the Council considered

Page

ax 5 CONTENTS.

Bart ti.

SESSION I. Preparatory business transacted: : iad SESSION II. Decree on the manner of life to be observed during the Council. : ; : Ixxyi SESSION III. On the Sink of Faith. ; : : xxix SESSION IV. On the Canonical Scriptures. : . Lexxtil SESSION V. On/Original Sin.—Reformation. : xcili SESSION VI. On Justification.—Reformation ran ci SESSION VII. On the Sacraments in General, and on Baptism and Confirmation.—Reformation 5 : - cxl SESSION VIII. Translation of the Council. ¢ : cxvi SESSION IX. Prorogation of the Council. ; : CXS SESSION X. Prorogation of the Council: ; : xxi SESSION XI. Resumption of the Council. - : CXXX SESSION XII. Prorogation. : 1b. SESSION XIII. On the Sacrament of ne Holy Eucharist —Reformation: CXR SESSION XIV. Onthe Sucrament of Povaned oY portent CXXXIX SESSION XV. Prorogation. : d: ; exlin SESSION XVI. Suspension of the aes: ; 4 exlvi: SESSION XVII. Decree for celebrating the Council. eli SESSION XVIII. On the Choice of Books. ; : clyi SESSION XIX. Prorogation.. : : ; : : tb SESSION. XX. Prorogation.- 3 . clzxi SESSION XXI. On Communion in one Saad “aha the Communion of Infants.—Reformation, 5 : elxx

SESSION XXII. Onthe Sacrifice of the Mass. é Rotrimnation clxxx SESSION XXIII. On the Sacrament of Order.—Reformation cxc’ SESSION XXIV. On the Sacrament of Matrimony.—Re- | formation: ecx! SESSION XXV. ieee nN ace of care be &e,—Reformation.—Bull of Confirmation: . GCCXxx

HISTORY

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. Mart first.

CHAPTER IL

Introduction, object of —Fra Paolo’s and Pallavicino’s stories of the Council of Trent.—Luther.—State of the vurch.—Julius II. ; Pisa and Lateran; the Pontiff’s urs and expenses.—Resolves tu rebuild the Vatican Basia.—Proclaims an Indulgence.

In the following pages, it is not merely intended to etch an outline of those events which preceded and led the convocation of the Council of Trent; to trace its itward progress and the obstacles which it encountered ven summoned; but the object of the writer will also be, furnish such observations and facts as may serve to astrate many of the canons and decrees which form the esent volume. This Introduction, therefore, will be as ach oecupied with the internal, as with the external story of the Council; as much with phrases and their story, as with facts; though the limits of such an essay il require that both be touched briefly and rapidly. A detailed history of the Council would, indeed, be a lluable addition to our English literature. Yet, though 2 English version of Fra Paolo’s skilful, but unfair, re- ‘esentation of that important event, is of easy access to 2 English reader, and though his statements have been pied by a host of servile followers; the laborious and ithentic history by Pallavicino has neither been made B

accessible by translation, nor has the substance of it been presented in the more pleasing form of an original narrative, based on his minute investigation of the records and. acts of the Council, and of the writings and letters of the eye-witnesses of this last, but, perhaps, most important, of the General Councils of the Church. This is the more to be wondered at and lamented, when we reflect, that the defection of Luther, and the rapid diffusion of his opinions or principles,—gathering in their course not individuals only, but whole cities and states, and threatening in turn almost every nation of Christendom,—are events, not only of great interest and importance in themselves, as fillmg one of the most curious pages in the history of religion, at a time when causes of unexperienced and vast power and magnitude gave an almost unexampled impulse to the human mind; but are, in their consequences, events so deeply felt and active, even in our days, that we see them influencing, more or less, and in various forms, the opinions, the practice, and the destiny of whole nations. even after the expiration of more than three hundred years.

But we must proceed, at once, from these wider views. to the more limited sketch before us; and, as the early history of Luther may be found, in sufficiently correc’ detail, in any of the numerous records of his chequerec life, we will begin at that part of his career which ha: direct reference to the events which it is our immediat: _object to depict.

Tt was not till the year 1517, that is, when Luther wa thirty-four years of age, and eleven years after his profes sion as an Augustinian monk, that any proposition actuall. opposed to the faith, or practice, of the Church emanate: from his pen. There was, at that time, a profound peac throughout the Western Church. Hardly a remnant o any of the ancient heresies disturbed the general tranquil lity: a few obscure and uneducated followers of the error or impieties of the Vaudois, and here and there an ad herent of Wickliff, were the only dissenters from th

Yhurch. The schism, that had convulsed the Church mder Julius U., had been happily terminated by the leath of that Pontiff; his successor, Leo X., had supessed the Synod of Pisa; concluded and secured the cceptation of the Council of Lateran; and received the ubmission of the schismatic Cardinals, and that of their upporter, the French King, Louis X. But, in the midst f this tranquillity, the Church still felt the trembling gitation produced by those events; some of the demands nd professed objects of the Synod of Pisa,—which was, fter all, but a faint type of the Councils of Constance nd Basil,—were rather suppressed and smothered under ne schismatical character of that assembly, than settled nd satisfied; so that, though the ecclesiastical reformaon which it demanded, by being sought for in an im- ‘roper manner, was not only not accomplished, but was endered suspicious even, in the eyes of many; yet was it wident, that the evils complained of must be encountered, md a searching remedy applied, at no distant period, to he abuses that had crept into ecclesiastical government; the rank vices engendered by ages of civil and unsparing vars; and to that license and confusion which a convulsed tate. of society uniformly creates in the discipline and wutward character of the Church.

Moreover, the continued vars of Julius had not only xhausted the Papal treasury, but had forced him to have ecourse to extraordinary methods of raising money from he various Christian nations; and when, in his declining ‘ears, he resolved to rebuild the Basilica of St. Peter, in style of magnificence, suited to his own character, and to he dignity of that Apostle, he had not only himself, in der to raise the necessary and enormous supplies, to mploy agents and means but little suited to the spirit of he times; but he left a similar legacy to his successor; vyho soon saw that there was no other resource left him, han to have recourse to a similar agency.(#) The gorgeous designs of Bramante were in exact accordance with the spirit of Leo; whose ideas of splendour, and whose recklessness of expense exceeded, if possible, those of his predecessor; and the newly elected Pontiff soon found himself, like that predecessor, compelled to apply for the alms of the faithful, in order to carry out the splendid project; to complete, that is, such an edifice, as seemed to him alone worthy of the centre of Christianity and the ancient mistress of the world. Surrounded as he was with the brightest ornaments of his age, as far as secular learning is concerned, he had not, as yet, promoted, in an equal degree, the more solid parts of learning which were needed by his position; so that there were few around him, either to warn him of the danger of the step which he was about to take, or when it was taken, to defend his interests, and those of the Church, against the opposition which it created, and the perverted use which was soon made of the abuses, caused by the cupidity and mismanagement of the Questors.(”)

CHAPTER II.

Leo X. proclaims an Indulgence.—Agents; and object. —Iyuther’s opposition—His letter to the Archbishop of Mainz.—His theses —Tetzel’s reply burnt at Wittemberg. —Eck.— Prierio.—Mazimilian's reference to Rome.— The Elector of Saxony.

We have said that Leo but followed. the example of Julius, in offering certain spiritual privileges, under the name of an Indulgence, to those who should lend their aid towards building the Vatican Basilica. This fact deserves attention, as it removes a popular prejudice on this subject, that Luther’s opposition originated in Leo’s deviation

() Ib. Lic.

rom the custom of consigning such Indulgences solely to he Augustinians. Julius, in fact, had commissioned xirolamo Torniello, a Vicar General of the Minor Obserants, and through him the Franciscans of his vicariate, 0 preach and recommend this indulgence to the faithful; onfining it, however, to the twenty-five provinces comsrised within the jurisdiction of that Prelate. Upon, the eath of his first agent, which took place in 1508, the *ontiff delegated in his stead, in 1510, Francesco Zeno, tho had succeeded Torniello in his authority as a Reli- ‘ious.(°) The term of this indulgence was originally mited to a year, but was afterwards enlarged, and made evocable at pleasure; and it had the same object in view s that promulgated by Leo,—the obtaining of alms owards rebuilding the Vatican Church.

It has been often asserted, that the opposition of Luther wose from the farming out of this grant; and especially ecause this commission was given, in Saxony, contrary ) the usual custom, to the Dominicans. Both these supositions seem devoid of truth. For Luther nowhere ssigns this farming out of the Indulgence by Leo,—in onformity with previous usage, and a not unfrequent aethod of levying taxes in certain states,—as a cause of is opposition, nor does Sleidan make any such represenation for him; and we have already seen that Julius had mployed the Franciscans to disseminate his Indulgences; vhereas the Teutonic Knights had, about the same time, nade use of the services of the Dominicans.

It is also to be remarked, that the Indulgences were not, s is commonly said, promulgated by Leo, for the Chrisvan world, but for various specified districts only ; that aose Indulgences were of various kinds and of different enor; and further, that the letters Apostolie granting nem were expedited, if not wholly, at least for the most

(©) Upon the death of Zeno, various other Franciscans were employed. For seir names, and other particulars, and the extension of the Indulgence to the Wiss cantons, see Pallav. L. c.

part, in the year 1514, and the early part of 1515, and promulgated in 1516; whereas Luther’s opposition did not openly begin, until the year 1517. Neither is it to be omitted, that the appointment of any Religious Order as his agents, in Germany, was not the work of Leo. That Pontiff selected, as his delegate, Albert of Brandenburg, archbishop-elector of Mainz, and bishop of Magdeburg; who consigned the promulgation to John Tetzel, a Dominican, who had been successfully employed by the Teutonic Knights, for a similar purpose.

There seems, however, no doubt, that the Augustinians, though not deprived of a privilege which they had a prescriptive right to expect, were disappointed, and otherwise disposed, from some unknown cause, to cavil, and look with a watchful eye, at the proceedings of the Dominicans; and to condemn any excesses, into which their zeal, or covetousness, might drive them.(4)

Having thus corrected the usual misstatements as regards the Indulgences promulgated by Leo, we have tc return to Luther, who had, in his character as professor o! Philosophy at Wittemberg, already begun to show a disposition to change and to dogmatize. He had conceivec a disrelish for the prevailing philosophy of Aristotle, anc the scholastic system of St. Thomas; and burning already it is said, though for what cause does not seem clear, witl a fierce hatred against the court of Rome, he was eage: and able to seize on the reputed exaggerations of Tetze and his compeers, in the matter of Indulgences, to ven his bile against a rival order, and through them agains the Roman court; to obtain notoriety for himself; to in dulge his humour for novelty; and to appear in th attractive character of a zealot and a reformer. Luther’ character is Impressed on almost every page of his writings and on the great events of his life. To considerabl learning, acquired by patient study under able masters, h united great intrepidity, fertility of resource, singular readi

(4) For the above details, see Pallav. L. 1. e. ili.

aess of plain but nervous language and metaphor; fondaess of applause, coupled with an unbounded love of self and of authority, which burst forth almost into frenzy against those of his party who dared oppose him; and above all a truculent ferocity of abuse, which, throughout his whole career, he heaped, without consideration of eminence of rank, or person, or character, upon every foe, or former friend.

Luther began his opposition to Indulgences, in private discourses and public sermons; instigated to this, it is said, by certain superiors of his Order;(¢) professing his abhorrence of the avarice of Rome; and magnifying his own love of truth,—though, in his letters,(‘) he himself, years afterwards, acknowledges, that he was not actuated ain the least by those motives, but solely by hatred of the Roman court.

He next proceeded to more open remonstrance; and addressed a letter to the archbishop-elector of Mainz; representing to him, that the Questors were reported, for of himself he knew nothing, to be falsely proclaiming to the people, in order to increase the value of their Indulgences, that, let them but give their alms abundantly, they were sure of heaven, as being freed at once from all guilt and from all necessity of further satisfactions for their sins. He then proceeds to instruct the archbishop; informing him, that such statements were directly contrary to the Scriptures, especially to the language of St. Peter, who teaches that hardly is the just man. saved, and reminds him of the warning words of Amos and Zacharias, who compare the elect to brands plucked from the burning. Next he assures him, that Indulgences are nothing more than the remission of the canonical penances, which, as the Church had imposed them, so had she relaxed them, and could fix her own conditions for a participation in that relaxation. He warns the Elector, that a tract was circu-

(e) Pall. L. l.c. iv. (f) Pall. Ib, referring to his letter to the people of Strasburgh,

lated in his name, in which the false position was maintained, that, by contributing their alms, and profiting by the Indulgence, the faithful were not only able to receive absolution from any confessor, but to receive that absolution and the pardon of their sins, without repentance on their parts. The love of truth would not suffer him to remain | silent, or to refrain from imploring the Elector to apply a remedy to these evil opinions and practices. He added to} this letter a list of propositions on the matter of Indul-| gences, and the kindred subjects, which he begged the| Elector to read. ' If Luther, by this letter, meant to affect the appearance | of submitting the matter complained of to the constituted ecclesiastical superiors, his rashness, or hypocrisy, _was made manifest in a very plain manner: for, without waiting for an answer, or giving those authorities time to examine into the alleged abuses, he, on the very day, the last of} October, on which his letter to the Elector is dated, pub- | lished those very propositions,—amounting, according to one calculation, to 95, and according to another, to 97,— some of which were manifest truths, whilst others aimed at. subverting all faith in Indulgences, and, as a consequence, all confidence in those adversaries of his own Order, who preached up their efficacy. Those propositions, or ques-| tions, are so well known that there is no need of giving} them in full; but it may be remarked, that, so far from confining himself to denunciations of the abuses of the Questors, he at once in reality denied the value and effi-} cacy of Indulgences, and advanced numerous errors on the; subject of Purgatory and Penance, in so far as those doctrines are connected with that of Indulgences; and interlarded his objections with numerous pieces of irony and pleasantry, which, however sophistical and palpably ridicu-| lous to the eye of the scholar, were calculated to raise a laugh, or a doubt in the mind of the poor and uneducated. | Thus, amongst other similar things, he reminds the people of the riches of the Sovereign Pontiff, though in fact his| poverty was well known; and assures them, that such is|

the virtue of the Pope, that he ought not, and, he was sure, was not willing, to raise the Basilica of St. Peter’s ‘out of the flesh and bones of his flock;(¢) knowing well, notwithstanding, that the alms were perfectly voluntary, and that the mite of the poor was as acceptable to Almighty God, as the more abounding contributions of the rich. He asks, why, if the Pope have the power, he does ‘not at once free all souls from Purgatory; a question which would equally apply to the Prince who has the ‘power of emptying his prisons of repentant and minor ‘criminals. However, such was his usual method, through life, of appealing to the passions and prejudices of the vulgar, and of wounding his adversaries by the envenomed darts of insult and irony; of which the above specimen ewill suffice, and is given as a test of the nature of the ‘spirit that moved him, and of the character of his -apostleship.

Luther proposed, and preached on, those same propo- ‘sitions, on that same evening, the Vigil of All Saints, in ‘the magnificent church lately dedicated to their honour, ‘by Frederick, Elector of Saxony; and, at the same time, seaused them to be printed and circulated throughout ‘Germany. All this he did, at first, with some degree of ‘moderation and hesitation; professing at every turn his ‘readiness to submit to the judgment of the Catholic ‘Church. Whether that modesty and submissiveness were ‘real, or affected, matters to our purpose but little; it is ‘enough to remark that, at a much later period, he declared “that he had no intention of proceeding further than that first step, and that the revolution which he effected had its ‘origin in chance.(") The reader will decide for himself how far this is compatible with a divine message, and “tallies with the language of Christ and the conduct and ' preaching of the apostles.

“~ We have now seen the first step taken by Luther in

($) Propos. 50. - (h) Pail. i. c. v., referring to the Preface to vol. 1 of Luther’s works.

the dim region of change and doubt; his professions, notwithstanding, of submission to Church authority; we: will now briefly observe the progress made in the same’ direction, until he arrived at the complete denial of all infallible authority; and thus, overthrowing all certainty of religious faith, became the parent of a hundred sects: living even to see his own system repudiated and ridiculed; his own authority and guidance despised by men as bold as himself, who but acted on his principles; until faith shrunk into opinion, and the short wand of weak and erring reason became the ever-varying measure of the stupendous, unchanging, and ineffable revelations of the Divine mind.

Tetzel, being the one most directly aimed at and ridiculed by Luther, replied, from Frankfort, to the propositions of Luther, with sufficient show of theologica learning; but, eight hundred copies of his answer whicl reached Wittemberg, were publicly burnt in the ope market-place, in the presence of the students of tha university; and yet Luther declares, that neither he, th Duke, nor the magistrates, were cognizant of that act.() But a more formidable opponent soon appeared in th: person of Eck, vice-chancellor of Ingolstadt; a man pos sessed of many of the peculiar qualities of Luther; ready resolute, eloquent, and deeply skilled in all the niceties o' the Scholastics; and hitherto the fast friend of the inno' vator. He denounced him now, however, as a heretic and galled him to the quick with his pungent satire, anc weight of argument. Luther affected indeed to despis: him; replied with tenfold bitterness and virulence; bu his private letters show(*) that such were not his real sen timents, and that, whilst he respected, he feared his nev antagonist. Time showed that his opinion of Eck wa: well founded; for, of all his opponents, none clung to hin with greater tenacity, or cost the reformer greater efforts! even to cope with, in his vain endeavours to crush him!

Other adversaries also, as was to be expected, appeared; but, though some were eminent for learning, as Silvestro ‘da Prierio, the master of the sacred palace, they seem to have despised the almost unknown Friar; and to have ‘considered it enough to expose his inconsistencies and sophisms, without entering into any laboured proofs of the ‘truths and practices which he assailed. But, if the being ‘denounced as a heretic by Eck ruffled Luther’s pride, and drove him on to greater rashness, the production of Prierio, if it did not convince, at least showed Luther, if before ‘doubtful or ignorant, what reception his opinions were likely to meet with at Rome, and the fate which must eventually await him. Accordingly, in anticipation, it would seem, of the sentence of excommunication, he ‘began to assail the use of that spiritual weapon; to deny its validity; and, at the same time, to prepare the minds of the people, by tongue and pen, for an assault on the authority of the Pope;—an authority which he could not help foreseeing he would soon be driven to yield to, or resist, when brought to bear against him. For this purpose, whilst he still professed to venerate that authority, he continually mingled, with the most. servile and exaggerated declarations of submission, raillery and irony on the Papal power; wondered why the Pope, with a word, did not empty Purgatory of souls; and with such like sar- — casms, suited to the populace, endeavoured to prepare for the coming struggle. In the Diet of Augsburgh, the Emperor Maximilian drew the attention of that assembly to the novelties of Luther, as threatening danger to the state; and, at the same time, addressed a letter to Leo; directing his attention to the same subject; asking him to deliver his judgment on the opinions of: Luther; and _ promising that he, on his part, would provide that whatever that decision might be, it should be observed in the _ Empire, notwithstanding the secret support which Luther was receiving from certain persons in authority. But, as the event showed, the Emperor had overrated his power; for the Elector of Saxony was nothing daunted by the

Pontifical judgment and command which soon followed,- egged on, perhaps, to this opposition, by the neglect Leo and of the Emperor to secure beforehand his coi currence.

CHAPTER III.

Luther summoned to Rome.—His fears.—Appeals | the Elector—Letter from the University of Wittembe in his favour.—His duplicity Fresh errors and gener: system.

Nine months after Luther’s first outbreak, there w: issued, in August, 1518, a monitory, by the Auditor del. Camera, requiring the obnoxious Friar to appear at Ron’ in person, within the term of sixty days; there to give ¢ account of his opinions, and to clear himself, if possibl: from the charges urged against his orthodoxy. Th: same officer was, according to custom, appointed the judg in the cause, and there was also deputed as his theologia) the master of the sacred palace; with the power of 1 jecting him as an interested party, should Luther feel 4 disposed.

This citation was a source of much perplexity to Luthe He saw clearly that to be judged was to be condemned and though, when at a distance, the Pontifical denut ciation of heresy may have seemed to him of little momei it now filled him with alarm; he hesitated on the brink the precipice, and feared to take the final leap. TI Elector had, indeed, promised him, that he should not | removed by force from Germany; but he knew th: politics enter largely into the actions of princes; and h earnest appeals to that prince, and to his adviser an friend, George Spalatin, whilst they exhibit a wish | persevere, show also the fears, and doubts, and waverin: of a mind ill at ease, and fearful of the coming storm. H

was especially anxious to secure, by means of that prince, that his trial might take place within Germany, which would enable him, if condemned, to appeal to the Pope; “and thus, by gaining time, feel his way more surely, and “surround himself, if possible, with more powerful and tive friends. _ From the university of Wittemberg, he obtained a petition to the Pope, and a testimony, strangely enough, in favour of his orthodoxy, and adherence to every doctrine taught by the Roman Church; to which that university ‘professed the profoundest veneration and obedience; with the further statement, that the propositions advanced by Luther, and which had moved the hostility of some, were merely opinions advanced by way of doubt and argument, and not decisions or dogmas propounded as matters of faith. But, fearing lest this application might be rejected by Leo, Luther besought the Elector to pretend, that he had been applied to for a safe-conduct through his states; that he had refused the request; and, as the time had now ‘elapsed within which such application should have been Made, in, order to deceive, and yet show his willingness but Mnability to obey, Luther proposed that the letters of refusal should be ante-dated, and thus make it appear that he had made the request in time, and only been prevented from appearing to the citation, by the refusal of his passports.(!) There is no evidence to show that the Elector was ever disposed to act this palpable deceit and falsehood. ‘He seems to have contented himself with requesting Cardinal Cajetan, who was then the Legate from the Roman court to Cesar,(™) to interpose his influence with Leo to prevent the cause from being tried out of Germany. Meanwhile, Luther had increased the hostility of the oman court, by advancing, in the university of Heidelerg, other and more monstrous errors; such as, that all

- (}) Pallav. L. 1. c. vii. ; _ (™) He was one of the four Legates sent to the chief powers of Europe, to or-

‘ganise an opposition to the inroads of the Turk.

human actions are mortal sins; that faith alone suffices for salvation; that, since Adam’s fall, man’s free will is utterly | lost; that the human will is a merely passive instrument |/ in all good works, and does not in any way concur towards! their performance;—opinions so extravagant and ludicrous, |) that, as Luther himself confesses, they made his hearers | laugh outright as he promulgated them. And no wonder: } though their accordance with human negligence and lukewarmness soon obtained for them a ready reception in} theory, as they have ever been the rules of conduct of too} many in practice. Strange, however, as these opinions are, it is easy to show, as many have done,(*) their necessary, or intimate, connexion with his first principles of error, in regard of indulgences and penance. And though it may be true, that certain Scholastics had maintained those principles, they had few followers at any time in the Church, and had ceased to be supported, since the definitions of various councils, especially of Lateran, in regard of the sacraments; and the doctrine of numerous Papal constitutions, especially the celebrated one of Clement VI. It is not my intention, however, to trace the gradual development of his opinions; suffice it to say that, having at length adopted the opinion that nothing was to be believed but what, according to his fancy, the Scriptures clearly teach—though, by a strange inconsistency, he admitte

the inspiration of each apostle, and apostolic writing, nay of writings not by apostles, and framed for himself a canon of Scripture which the Scripture does not teach; and forced, by his own position and acts, to deny the existence, by divine institution, of any infallible interpreter, or authority divinely appointed to perpetuate the knowledge of the truths of revelation—he at once took up all the ancient landmarks, and lifted the sole barrier against any species of folly, or novelty, which the human mind could imagine to be based on the sacred volume. Nay, he reduced the conscientious examiner to the necessity of continually in-

(®) See the matter ably handled by Pallay. L. 1. c. viii.

ed to adopt, or reject, opinions as traced in the inspired vritings. He indeed sowed the wind, and had, long nefore his death, to reap the whirlwind: “the same thing vas lawful for the Valentinians as for Valentinus, the same ‘or the Marcionites as for Marcion—to change the faith uccording to their own pleasure.” (°

The supremacy of the Pope, it may be remarked, hough not at once repudiated, was soon, when exercised vgainst him, discovered, or declared, to be unscriptural; 1 discovery which as it, at once, threw into the hands of his supporters the revenues of numerous benefices to be scrambled for, they naturally enough were not slow in reearding as exhibiting the reformation in a peculiarly attractive and golden light. Not that the poor were thereby benefited; nay they became poorer still; as the history, probably, of every country, where this principle has been received, shows; but, the rich were made richer; and the accumulation of enormous masses of lands and revenues, and of equal masses of destitution, may safely be dated as receiving a vast impulse at that period. Thus, with faith alone as the means of salvation; ecclesiastical laws abrovated; private judgment, even in the most ignorant, ex~- alted into the sole guide and criterion of faith; free will denied, to the quieting of many a troubled conscience, as a bait for the masses; and, added to these inducements, the prospect of riches for the powerful and wealthy; the system of Luther was well adapted indeed for those nominal, lukewarm, and worldly-minded Christians, who, in all ages and countries, form the vast bulk of the community; was a ready-made foundation whereon to build a battery against all the mysteries of faith; the requirements of morality; all subordination in religion; andeventuated, but too often, in the disorganisation of all constituted authority.

1ovating ; according as his varying judgment might be

(°) Tertull. de Prascrip.

XV1 HISTORY OF THE

CHAPTER IV.

The Pope’s Breve.—Luther’s cause to be tried by Caje- | tan.—The three interviews between Luther and Cajetan.— | Conduct of Staupiz.—Luther offers a compromise.—Stau- | piz flies from Augsburgh.—Is followed by Luther.—His | letter and protest.—Cajetan’s letter to Frederick.— Who | communicates it to Luther—His answer.—Is supported | by the University of Wittemberg.—State of parties.

Leo was not sorry to be able to yield to Frederick’s | request to have the cause of Luther tried in Germany; as he was enabled thereby not only to gratify a prince whom he wished to conciliate, but also to employ the most | eminent theologian of his day, Cardinal De Vio, or, as he is commonly called, Cajetan. The proceedings between Luther and Cajetan have been so often reported, that it | will be enough to give a rapid account of that transaction. The Emperor granted Luther a safe-conduct to proceed to Augsburgh where the Legate was stationed;(?) having, however, previously ascertained, that, to this act of his, the Legate would make no open objection. That prelate had already received, from Rome, a Breve in which the notoriety of the heresies of Luther is stated; he is commissioned to receive him again into the unity of the church, if penitent; but, if unchanged and obdurate, to call in the aid of the secular power, and to imprison him; or, if that should not be feasible or advisable, to excommunicate him and all his adherents, of whatsoever rank and condition, save and except the Emperor.

In the very first interview, the Cardinal perceived that he had to deal with one who had already really repudiated |

(P) Pallay. L. 1, c. ix., citing Cajetan’s letter to Frederick. Some accounts make the safe-conduct reach Luther at Angsburgh.

the authority of the Church; and who came, therefore, as a disputant to argue against her doctrine, and not asa believer prepared to submit to her decisions, when plainly set forth and manifested. He, therefore, declared to Luther, that he was not there to argue with him, as if the faith of the Church were doubtful or debatable, but to receive his adhesion to that faith, if he were disposed to accede to her authority; or, if he chose to repudiate it, on him was to be the blame, and his the usual punishment of excommunication from her communion.(‘) Luther returned, on the following day, to the Cardinal, but in a manner utterly unexpected by that prelate; for he came accompanied by a notary, and four councillors, and shortly afterwards there appeared John Staupiz, the Vicar General of the Augustinians in Germany. The notary read a document, wherein Luther protested that, so far was it from being his intention to oppose any one doctrine of the Church, he even submitted whatever he had said, or written, or should write for the time to come, to the judgment of the Church. He was sure, however, that his doctrines had been hitherto orthodox, and conformable to the sacred Scripture; was ready to defend them in public disputation, or to submit them to the decision of the three chief universities of the empire, Basel, Fribourg, and Louvain, and would not refuse to abide by the judgment of the university of Paris: though he could hardly be ignorant, that the Pope would never submit to have the case referred to any other tribunal than his own. The event seems to show, that all this was but to gain time: for when the universities of Cologne and Louvain, and later the university of Paris, formally condemned his opinions, he took not the slightest heed of their decisions, further than to assail them with his usual ferocious invective and pungent ridicule. To Luther’s proposal the Cardinal made a reply similar to that given on the previous day,—that he required

_ (9) See the account given by the Cardinal’s secretary, Giambattista Flavio, in dhis funeral oration on Cajetan; and Luther’s statements in his letters.

him to submit to the Church, and to condemn and revoke his past errors.

On withdrawing, Luther applied himself to the Constitution, Unigenitus, so often cited against him, and fancying to have discovered that the expressions of that Constitution | were not unfavourable to his opinions, he returned on the following day to the Cardinal, armed with a lengthened | written argument, in which he endeavoured to prove, that | he had not in any way opposed the declarations of Clement | VI. This but the more convinced the Cardinal, that mere | disputation was useless with the character that he had to | deal with; and, accordingly, having, in a few words, | noticed the futility of the argument of Luther on the Papal Constitution, he declined having any further inter- | view with him, except to receive his submission to the judgment and doctrine of the Church, and the recantation | of his past errors.

These three interviews are noticed, both by Cajetan and | Luther, in their letters to the Elector of Saxony; and the | amenity of the Cardinal, and his real earnestness to be of | service to Luther, are borne witness to by that heretic, in | the account published by him of that event; his sole come | plaint being, that Cajetan refused to argue with him, but | required of him to retract his errors, as opposed to the | authority of the Church, and the declarations of her sovereign Pontiffs,—authorities, be it remembered, which he still atfected to respect and submit to.

But, to such a quiet submission, Luther was not only | constitutionally opposed, but there is reason to believe, | that the Vicar General of his Order, Staupiz, im his hos-| tility to the rival order of the Dominicans, whilst he in|

ublic exhorted him to relent, in private and im reality | confirmed him in his obstinacy; little imagining, at the| time, to what a precipice this duplicity was leading; but,| too soon to be fearfully convinced of the danger of idulg-} ing in such animosities and double dealing. (*)

Before departing from Augsburgh, Luther, being now lenied access to the Cardinal, addressed a letter to him a") n which, having stated his inability to retract opinions vhich to him did not seem erroneous, he offered, as a species of compromise, to express his regret, openly from he pulpit, for having spoken disrespectfully of the Soveeign Pontifls; and promising to abstain, for the future, rom all attacks on Indulgences, provided his adversaries vould, on their parts, observe a similar silence in his reyard, and in defence of that subject;—a condition which )bviously could not be acceded to, as it not only involved he suppression of a truth admitted amongst all Christians, ind would leave Luther to hold, if though but in private, 1eterodox opinions; but also, because, not on that point mly, but on many others, had he put forth statements lirectly opposed to doctrines and practices of the Catholic Jhurch.

- To this offer, therefore,—which is a significant fact in he history of this innovator,—the Cardinal gave no reply: 1 silence which so alarmed Staupiz, that, unprotected as 1e was by 2, safe-conduct, he hastily withdrew from Augsmurgh, and was soon afterwards imitated by Luther, who, nowever, before departing, left a letter of excuse for his udden departure, and entered his protest. against the reection of his overtures,—which protest was, on the day ifter his departure, fixed up in the market-place of Augssurgh. In it he endeavoured to justify his refusal, or unvillingness, to appear in person at Rome ; complained that ao attempt had been made to refute his opinions by texts of Scripture ; and declared that, under such circumstances, ‘0 recant would be to act against his conscience, and disdleasing to the Elector, who would prefer this his appeal sefore any such repudiation of his tenets. His departure, ae represented, was absolutely necessary on account of his ‘xtreme poverty; but that this step of his was not to be sonsidered as indicating any unwillingness to submit to the

Pope and to the Church,—authorities to which he would ever, and in every place, be obedient; that he appealed from the Legate, as a judge who was by him suspected, as being a Dominican, an admirer of the Scholastic Theology, and especially of that of St. Thomas; and finally | that he appealed from the Pope ill informed, to the Pope under better guidance and light.

Thus terminated this singular exhibition of conflicting feelings on the part of Luther; of obedience professed and disobedience practised; of acknowledged veneration for | Catholic doetrine and practice, and palpable opposition to | the belief and usage of the whole Christian world. A sin- | gular exhibition indeed for a supposed messenger from | God: if such was his character, he betrayed it by hypocrisy | and time serving; if not God’s messenger, he was a mes- | senger of Satan; if not an apostle of the Gentiles, he was | a Saul; if he believed the authority of the Church, why resist it; if he disbelieved the supremacy of the Pope, why not reject it; if he believed it, and recognised the see of Peter as the centre of unity, why did he practically then, | and openly later, separate himself from it?

Cajetan continued, even after the departure, or flight, | of Luther, to exercise the same moderation towards him;} and contented himself with informing the Elector ofl Saxony, by letter, of the result of his interviews with Luther; representing him as undoubtedly holding heretical! opinions; as using the poorest shifts to evade the clearest declarations of the Church, or of the Sovereign Pontifls | and advising the Elector to withdraw his protection froni] one tainted with heresy, and thus keep his own conscienc¢ and territories clear from the infection of heterodoxy. Bu! this advice was rendered fruitless, by the instances of Stau| piz and Spalatin, both of whom having egged on Luther} and induced the Elector to support him, seem to hav4 been,—though, in the main, orthodox enough, at least thi former,—unwilling to be considered as injudicious anq short-sighted in their judgment and counsels.

Acting on their recommendation, he communicated th| Cardinal’s letter to Luther, who addressed a flattering an\

artful reply to the Elector; submitting himself to him as his judge; expressing his readiness to yield on the question of the treasure of Indulgences; but declaring himself incapable of denying that, for the reception of the grace of God communicated in the sacraments, it is absolutely necessary for the receiver to have an undoubting faith and certainty that such grace is received by him,—a doctrine which, in his judgment, was so clearly scriptural, that he could not in conscience teach otherwise. He acknowledges, that the Cardinal had treated him with kindness and urbanity; but complains bitterly, as usual, of the attempt to obtain his retractation without first convincing him, by Scripture, of the fallacy of his opinions:—a comlaint to which few judges would attach much weight or unportance, in their dealings with those brought before their tribunals; and which, so long as Luther affected to submit to the Church, and above all to the Pope, was as inconsistent as it was hypocritical.

The university of Wittemberg again supported Luther in this emergency, by an address to the Elector; but in a more subdued and hesitating tone than previously; for the recommendation was limited by the condition, that Luther was deserving of support, provided he did not withdraw himself from obedience to the Church of Rome, and did not refuse to satisfy the demands of the Sovereign Pontiff. This, in fact, seems to have been a time, when all parties were in a state of hesitation, wavering, and doubt; md it has been thought that, if the Bull, which Leo subsequently published, detailing the numerous and enormous arrors of Luther, had been then fulminated, the heresy of hat innovator would have been effectually crushed. In act Luther had, at that time, many observers, and waiters mn events, influenced by numerous motives whether good yr evil, but he had but few friends, or real followers and idmirers; and the contest had not as yet enlisted the yassions of the combatants, nor become a political, as well is a religious, movement; nor had it as yet begun to help he temporal, as it professed to promote the eternal, inerests of greedy and discontented or deluded men.

CHAPTER V.

Lather appeals to a General Council.—Bull on Indulgences.—Lather condemned by the universities of Louvain and Cologne.—Death of Maaimilian.—Leo’s letter and present to Frederick.—Miltitz appointed Legate-—His intervien with Luther.—Luther’s promises.— Arbitration agreed to.

Cajetan’s letter had made it plain to Luther, that his condemnation at Rome was not only certain, of which he could have had no real doubt throughout, but also that it would speedily follow, as the necessary result of the inter- | views at Augsburgh. It was, therefore, his obvious policy, —so long as it seemed his interest, or his duty, to profess submission to the Church, and adhesion to the Sovereign | Pontiff,—to anticipate that sentence, and thereby escape | the appearance of resisting the decision of the Pontiff, only after his own condemnation had appeared; and thus| seeming to deny that authority, because exercised against| himself. He, accordingly, changed at once his tone and| ground. Hitherto, he had, in language the most em-} phatic, if not subservient and exaggerated, placed himselt| and his opinions at the feet of the Pontiff, to be by him| approved, or condemned; he now had a document prepare by a public notary, and published at Wittemberg, on the} twenty-eighth of November, 1518, wherein, whilst he pro-| fessed obedience to the Church, and submission to. the} Roman Pontiff, when well informed, as Christ’s vicar on! earth; he observed that, even as Peter had erred, so might his successors; and that, should the Pope, as was likely from the tenor of Cajetan’s letter, condemn him, he} appealed from the Pontiff misinformed by his judges, and! misinterpreting the Scriptures, to a General Council of -the Church, which was above the Pope.

Leo no longer delayed the long expected condemnation; but addressed a Bull,(t) on the subject of indulgences, to his Legate, who was then at Linz. Cajetan published that document on the thirteenth of December,(*) and caused numerous copies to be circulated throughout Germany. ‘The Bull of Leo was speedily followed by similar condemnations of the opinions of Luther, from the universities of Cologne and Louvain, both of which approved of the decisions promulgated by Leo. But, the effect of these condemnations was rendered less, or even useless, as regards the innovators, by the death of Maximilian, which took place, about a month after the publication of the Bull, that is, on January the twelfth, 1519. This event placed the Elector of.Saxony at the head of the Germanic Confederation; and, whilst it deprived the Catholic party of their mainstay in those countries, gave fresh courage and boldness to the supporters of the new ideas.

But Leo resolved to make a last attempt to gain over Frederick; and, for this end, taking advantage of his previous zeal for religion, which had led him to build and endow the magnificent church of the Apostles, in his fortress of Wittemberg; and to establish a university, in the same city;(") he resolved to send him the golden rose, which it is usual for the Sovereign Pontiff to bless on the fourth Sunday of Lent, and to present to some one of the Christian princes who has deserved well of Christendom. Miltitz, a German by birth, of a noble family, and the one to whom the university of Wittemberg had entrusted the protection of Luther’s interests at the Roman court, was chosen as the most suitable person to convey the present to Frederick. He was also provided with the most affectionate Breves, addressed to the Elector, to Spalatin,

_ (*) It was signed on Noy. 8, 1518. Pallav. Lib. 1.c. xii.

(*) Carlostadt was archdeacon of the Church; Luther professor of theology in the university ; and Melancthon of belles lettres.

and to other chief ministers of that prince, to withdraw them, if. possible, from supporting Luther.

But Leo was doomed to find his condescension too late, and worse than useless. The Elector declined to receive the present publicly from the Papal Nuncio, who was accordingly compelled to have it conveyed to him by the hands of others. Frederick, however, professed, not to support the novelties of Luther; but neither would he condemn him, nor withdraw his countenance from him. In this emergency, Miltitz endeavoured to gain over Luther, by other methods than those used by Cajetan. Atthe command of the Elector, Luther had an interview with the Legate, who sought,—by praises of his learning and ability, by severe reproof of his adversary Tetzel, not sparing even the Elector of Mainz,—to induce Luther to cease from his attacks on the Catholic religion, and to retract his errors on the question of Indulgences.

But Luther, feeling his advantage, assumed the tone of | a conqueror; declared a reconciliation to be now impos- | sible; that the fault lay with the Elector of Mainz, whose violence had driven things to the extremity in which they then were; and that the Pope was responsible for the conduct of that bishop, whom he ought to have reproved; but that the cupidity of his Questors and Florentine ministers had deceived him; with other accusations of a like kind, which Miltitz thought proper to receive in writing, and to bear with patiently.

As the fruit of this spirit of forbearance, or temporising, he obtained from Luther a promise, to maintain silence on the question of Indulgences, provided his opponents would, on their parts, observe a similar restraint, and thus “allow | the affair to die out of itself;” to acknowledge the excessive severity of his language towards his opponents ; to |

ublish a writing wherein he would exhort the people to adhere to the pure worship of the Church of Rome; and, | finally, to write such a letter to the Roman Pontiff as | would prove his desire of reconciliation.

In fulfilment of this promise, a piece soon appeared in |

hich he proclaims the Church of Rome as honoured of od above all others; in her two apostles, forty-six Popes, nd hundreds of thousands of martyrs had shed their lood, and made her an especial object of God’s regard; yat whatsoever of evil there might be in her could never istify separation from her, for God must not be abandoned n account of the Devil, neither is there any sin nor evil hich should destroy charity, or break unity. He conemns his own unmeasured language, mingling, however, yen with his expressions of sorrow for the past, new itterness and insults.

On the third of March, he also addressed a letter to eo, in which, though written in a tone of respect, he stified his past conduct as forced on him by necessity; 1d concluded, by again declaring his unbounded devotedess to the Roman Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff, | these words; “And now, most blessed Father, I protest fore God, and all his creatures, that I have never innded, nor do I now intend, to touch or prejudice, by any aft, the power of the Roman Church, or of your blessedess. Yea, I most fully confess, that the power of that hurch is above all things; and that nothing, in earth or eaven, ought to be ranked above it, but Jesus Christ one, the Lord of all.”

Miltitz, furthermore, induced Luther to refer the whole lair to some unbiassed judge; and for this purpose the rchbishop Elector of Treves was fixed upon;(*) but, hen the time had arrived for fulfilling this promise, he <cused himself from its performance, in a long letter Idressed to the Legate, pleading his fears of treachery id of murder on the road; his poverty; the presence of ajetan whom he now denounced as not being even a hristian; and, adding further, that the consent of Rome ) this step had not as yet arrived; with similar manifest yasions.

(*) See Luther's account of this, Epp. i. p. 209.

CHAPTER VI.

Disputation with Eck.—Supremacy of the Pope, as oft divine right, denied.—Further negotiations between Miltitz | and Luther.—Lather offers to be reconciled.—Spread of heresy.—Zuingle—Luther’s fresh errors.—Caricatures of}! the Pope.—Leo’s Breves to the university of Wittemberg\ and the Elector Frederick—Luther’s letter to the Emperor Charles. —Burns the Decretals and Papal Bull.—Aleander

appointed Legate—Erasmus.

approaching disputation with Eck, which was to take place! shortly at Leipsic; of which, after various delays, the} universities of Erfurt and Paris had been agreed upon as} judges and arbitrators. It is, however, foreign from the purpose of these pages to enter into the details of thai} discussion, which began un the 27th of June, 1519, between Eck and Carlostadt, and was then continued by} Luther; but the reader, who wishes for a well digestec} abstract of the arguments on both sides, will find it 1} Pallavicino’s history.(?) It may, however, be remarked | that it was here, that Luther first publicly denied. the supremacy of the Pope to be of divine right. (7) | Still Miltitz persevered in his endeavours to gain ove}l Luther; and, during two entire years, spared nothing tq bring about that result; but he was unfortunately betrayed _ into conduct. but little suited to his character and dignity

Amongst the more reasonable of his excuses was his

(¥) L. 1. c. xv.—xvii. Som | (*) His thirteenth proposition, opposed by Eck, was as follows: “That thi Roman Church is superior to all others is proved from the frigid decrees of Roma Pontiffs who have lived within the last 400 years ; against which are the authentij records of eleven hundred years; the words of Scripture ; and the decrees of th Council of Nice, the most sacred of all the Councils.”

nd thus, as the event proved, all his efforts were worse han useless. He, however, obtained, by the interference f a chapter of the Order to which Luther still nominally velonged, another letter from Luther to the Pope,(*) in vhich, his tone becoming more imperious, he treats with 4e0 on the conditions of peace, rather as a dictator than sa subject. He now throws all the blame on Eck; dislaims having had any intention of assailing the authority ff the Sovereign Pontiff, but asserts that such a course iad been forced upon him(”) at the discussion at Leipsic; ours forth a torrent of abuse on that adversary and on Jajetan; and concludes with offering to be reconciled, on wo conditions which he knew it was impossible to grant;— hat he should not be forced to recant; and that he should iot be restrained in his private interpretation of the sacred scriptures.

Meanwhile, the seeds of heresy which Luther had sown egan to grow up into a harvest; not only in Germany, jut also in other countries, especially in Switzerland; where Zuingle, if not taught to innovate by Luther, had learned yoldness from his example, and, advancing more resolutely o the work of destruction, not only adopted: or preached he errors of Luther, but acquired notoriety by denying and idiculing many doctrines which his prototype still firmly naintained. Similar innovators began to infect other porions of Europe; some led, by the hope of gain, to repair heir ruined fortunes; others, by hatred of all things acred, or of existing political institutions; others, by ther motives, more or less virtuous, wicked, or selfish, oined in the general confusion which, both religious and olitical, agitated the age. When the centre stone of wuthority and of prescription was removed, it was not to be yondered at, that the arch of truth tottered, and that the vhole edifice was endangered.

(8) Dated April 6, 1520. : om (>) That this was manifestly false, is plain from the 13th proposition already riven.

Tt was now plain that nothing was to be expected from Luther, by the use of forbearance and kindness; nay his errors naturally went on increasing, as the poisonous germ began gradually to unfold itself, He now denied that the } sacraments were divinely instituted to bestow grace; that | baptism cancels original sin; allowed the power and right of absolution to women; demanded the use of the chalice as necessary for the laity; asserted that the souls im purgatory are capable of fresh sins; assailed the mendicant } Orders; and published the grossest and most indecent lampoons and caricatures, both by pen and pencil, on the } Pope, the Cardinals, and the court of Rome generally.

Leo was, at length, really aroused from his past careless- } ness or hopes; and by the advice of his Legate, and that | of Eck especially, resolved to fulminate a Bull,(*) con-} demning the numerous errors of Luther.(*) Considering the character of that heretic, it was perhaps unfortunate | that Eck had so large a share in the preparation of that} document, and that to him the execution of it was consigned. Be this as it may, Eck carried the Bull into Germany as a trophy of his own victories; and, acting as | Legate apostolic to many of his German princes, caused | it to be published, and, as far as he could, to be executed, } throughout their dominions. Luther took occasion from this to represent the Bull as the production of his personal enemies;(°) whilst the universities, which had already denounced the errors of the Friar, in almost the very terms} used by the Pontiff, received it with joy and triumph. To the university of Wittemberg, the Pope addressed a | special Breve, in which he exhorted that body to abide in| the ancient faith; and commanded them, under grievous penalties, to see to the execution of the Bull in all its parts. |

(¢) Dated June 15, 1620. (4) Forty-one propositions, extracted out of Luther’s works, were condemned. (e) The preparation of the Bull was the subject of frequent debate and consul-| tation amongst the most eminent theologians and canonists of Rome. It was ieee especially to the care of Pietro Accolti, bishop of Ancona, afterwards Sardinal. :

‘rederick being then absent from his capital, the members f that university addressed him by letter to ascertain his ‘ishes and intentions. - That Elector had already received most affectionate letter from the Pontiff, representing to im, that it was on his account that he had so long rerained from publicly condemning Luther; and after hintag pretty plainly that it was on his support alone that the opes and cause of Luther rested; he conjured him, ither to induce Luther to recant and so obtain his pardon, r to proceed against him by the Bull just published. The nswer of the Elector to the university was couched in mbiguous terms, betraying the uncertainty of that prince, nd that he still wavered between the religion of his fathers nd of his youth, and the novelties of Luther. In this mergency, Luther, besides appealing again to a General Jouncil, strove to gain over the mind of the newly elected imperor, Charles V.; depicting to him the tyranny of he Roman Pontiffs over Germany, and the glory which ould accrue to him by casting off that yoke, and exerising, not only in temporals, but in spirituals, an indepenlent authority. But his expectations were soon frustrated; or the Emperor, on his return from England, ordered the vorks of Luther to be burnt in Brabant, in the university f Louvain, and in other places under his. sway.

Luther seems to have been driven to desperation by this nsult; and with the connivance at the least of the Elector “rederick, and with the approval of the university of Witemberg, he in revenge caused, on the tenth of December, . huge pile to be raised outside the walls of the city; and, 1aving publicly invited the Academicians to witness the pectacle, proceeded with a large escort to the spot fixed ipon, and cast into the flames a copy of the various folumes which form the Canon law, adding the Bulls of Leo, the writings of Eck, and those of Emser; exclaimng; “Because you have troubled the holy one of the Lord, may everlasting fire overwhelm you.” This exunple was imitated by his partisans in two or three of the sities of Germany, and even in Leipsic, under the very

_ XXX HISTORY OF THE

eyes of Duke George. Whether from remorse, or policy, however, Luther soon afterwards endeavoured to palliate this conduct, and to represent it as not done in hostility to the Roman Pontiff, who, he was sure, neither approved | of the errors contained in that code, nor of the burning of his (Luther's) works. But the wonder is that, after this ublic exhibition by the university, the Canon law still continued to be taught in that very university which had thus | appeared to approve of its destruction and of the reproaches thrown on its contents by Luther, and that this office was: } filled by the fast friend of Luther, Justus Jonas. The secret is, that the professors of Canon law derived abundant remuneration from teaching it; the law students from practising it; and the city itself from the numerous students who crowded thither to learn it. But Leo was not to be deceived by the idle protestations of Luther; he accordingly selected one of the most able | and active of his court as Nuncio to Charles; and if virtue, ability, and zeal could have stayed the evil, Aleander would have succeeded. He immediately repaired to Charles, and the first result of his interview has been seen in the burning of Luther’s works in the patrimonial states of the Emperor; in spite of the open and secret opposition of Erasmus, who, at that time, was closely leagued with Luther, he caused the same to be done at Cologne; and obtained from the Emperor that an edict should be published, prohibiting the works of Luther throughout the whole extent of that Monarch’s dominions. Though foiled in this opposition, Erasmus confirmed the wavering mind of the Elector; who, upon the representation of Aleander, that he could not remain united to the Church of Christ, and continue his support of Luther, referred to Erasmus for advice; who replied, that he knew of nothing to be condemned so far in Luther’s doctrine; and thus settled the mind, or furnished an excuse to the conscience, of that prince. Meanwhile, this same Hrasinus was writing letters of the most flattering and submissive character to the Pontiff, who replied to him in a kindly tone;

COUNCIL OF TRENT. XXX1

forming, however, his Legate, who expressed his wonr at this conduct, that he was not unacquainted th the real disposition and tendency of Erasmus; t that it was thought prudent not to irritate him by uncessary hostility. The works of Luther were also conmed to the flames, not only at Cologne, but also at ainz, ‘Treves, Alberstadt, Misna, Marsburgh, and in her cities of Germany. If this served no other purpose, was thought useful as a practical demonstration, to the asses, of the character of Luther’s writings.

CHAPTER VII.

The Legate’s purpose.—Bull excommunicating Luther.— iet of Worms.—Aleander’s speech.—Luther summoned. is conduct.—Refuses to abide by the General Councils. Ordered to leave Germany.—Concealed at Wertburgh.— laced under the Ban of the Empire.

Aleander was not content with this mere demonstration, it directed all his efforts to cause Luther and his writings be placed under the Ban of the Empire. To attain this ject, after having encountered and surmounted numerous ficulties and varied opposition, he obtained from Rome Bull, published on the third of January, 1521, in which tt only was Luther’s doctrine condemned as heretical, it Luther himself proclaimed a heretic, without any of e limitations and conditions hitherto introduced; as the rm fixed for his recantation was long since elapsed, and had proved himself obstinate. He also caused it to be clearly understood, that the errors Luther were not confined to a denial of Pontifical authoand jurisdiction, but extended to the sacraments, and ir articles of faith, and renewed the abhorred heresies of Tickliff and of Huss. In this, he derived especial aid, om the condemnation of Luther which had been issued, short time previously, from the university of Paris.

Meanwhile the Lutherans, on their part, were not idle. The most flagitious calumnies were circulated against the Pope and Aleander; verses, songs, pictures, and caricatures were scattered throughout Germany to ridicule the authority of the Pontiff; and threats of revolution were’ held out if any such step were taken against Luther.

But a more powerful aid than all this was to be found in the Elector of Saxony, whose authority, for a while, deterred the Diet, then assembled at Worms, from proceeding to its final sentence. But Aleander appeared in person in that assembly; and, in a discourse which occupied several hours in the delivery, proved, from the letter and writings of Luther which he produced and read fron in that assembly, that he had not only violated every promise which he had given to recant his errors if condemnec by the Pontiff, and his pledge to abide by the decisions 0} the universities, but had gone on step by step increasing in audacity and violence and error, till nothing was toc vile for his pen and tongue where the authority and persor; of the Sovereign Pontiff were concerned, or the ancien doctrines of the Church to be impugned. He warned th¢ Diet of the danger to the tranquillity of the state, as wel as to the unity of religion, which any further terms kep with Luther and his party must necessarily entail; and, by these facts, and his eloquence, produced so profound a: impression on the minds and fears of the assembly, tha Luther was summoned to appear in person at the Diet.

Aleander was indeed averse to this summons; bu upon the representation of the Elector of Saxony, that thi works cited, though bearing Luther’s name, could not, hi was persuaded, be from that individual’s pen, it was re solved to hear from his own lips his real sentiments Luther, on the other hand, seems to have been delighte: at the opportunity of professing his faith, or of obtainin; further notoriety; and, having obtained a safe-conduc' from the Emperor, he proceeded to Worms, accompanie' by a hundred horsemen, though he entered the city wit only eight mounted attendants. On alighting at Worms

m the sixteenth of April, he cried out, that “God would ye with him;” and, having taken up his abode near the Ulector, prepared to appear before the Diet on the followng day, the seventeenth of April, 1521. The judgments f men naturally enough varied on his habits, manners, ind appearance; but there is no doubt that his violence, wrogance, and ungovernable temper produced an impresjon any thing but favourable, on the minds of those who vere not already embarked in his cause. Before he had veen an hour before the Diet, the Emperor, having careully watched and studied his demeanour, remarked to hose near him; “This man at least would never make me a heretic.” Instead of being suffered to launch into a lengthened liscourse, as Aleander had originally feared, he was asked, whether the books that had been cited were his; and whether he still maintained the opinions therein contained. fo the first question he answered readily, that they were rom his pen; but to the second he demurred, as it was me, he said, of difficulty, in which the word of God,and ihe salvation of souls were concerned, and asked for time to -onsider his answer. Upon this, a brief consultation was aeld between the princes there present, who, through their public officer, gave it as their decision, that it seemed trange that he had not come prepared to give an answer io so plain a question, and that he had not made up even ais own mind as to what he believed or disbelieved; that ais request should, nevertheless, be granted, but that he must, on the following day, give a specific answer to the question. _ Luther withdrew embarrassed at the prospect before aim. Either he must recant, and thus compromise his eharacter and reputation, or be prepared to meet the anger of the Emperor. For this latter alternative, his partisans were not as yet prepared, and they accordingly urgently advised him to recant all his opinions, except such as aimed at the Sovereign Pontiff and his authority; as thereby he would completely defeat the Legate, add to his D

own power and that of his party, and escape condemnation.

But Luther cared more for himself, his reputation, or his opinions, than for the views and safety of his party; and feeling that, to recant, would be to proclaim that he had hitherto been a deliberate deceiver, who only now retracted through fear or policy; on his second appearance in the Diet, he professed that he still adhered to the doctrines advanced in his works, as being taught by the word of God, but that, as to the opprobrious language used against his adversaries, he had been provoked to it by their violence; that the blame was theirs not his, who did not profess to. lead a holy life, but to teach a holy doctrine. He then proceeded to assail the Holy See with his usual ribaldry, but was stopped by the command of the Emperor. He was then asked, whether, if those opinions of his were shown to have been condemned by the Councils of the Church, and especially by the Council of Constance, he would submit to that authority, and revoke those errors. He answered, that he would not; for that Councils had erred, and were at variance with each other. Charles, on hearing this, broke up the assembly, and Luther returned to his dwelling, accompanied by many individuals attached to the Elector Frederick, and followed by avast crowd of the populace, some animated by curiosity, others by respect, others by hatred.

After various vain attempts, on the part of Luther’s friends, and of others anxious for peace and unity, to induce him to agree to the decisions of the General Councils, the Emperor commanded him to leave his dominions within the space of twenty days;(‘) and to observe strictly the conditions of his safe-conduct, by abstaining, on his journey, from any act of aggression on the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. Luther left Worms on the twenty-sixth of April; armed with a safe-conduct and

(f) Pallay. L. 1. ¢. xxviii. Sleidan says 21 days.

accompanied by an officer, of the Emperor. In three days he reached Friedberg, where he dismissed that officer, and placed in his hands the safe-conduct; in order that, in the seizure of his person which had been planned by his friends, there might be no direct outrage offered to the Imperial authority. Having, on the third of May, set out for Wittemberg, and dismissed most of his attendants, his carriage was suddenly stopped by a number of horsemen in masks, who, having beaten his drivers, and made a show of violence to Luther, carried him away into the fortress of Wartburg belonging to the Elector of Saxony; it being understood, that Frederick was not to be informed as to which of his castles Luther had been carried to, that he might deny any knowledge of his place of refuge.(*) On the eighth of May, Luther was publicly placed ander the Ban of the Empire, with the consent of the Germanic Diet; his writings were ordered to be seized und burnt; his supporters to be banished; and, to prevent the diffusion of the poison of heresy, all works treating of faith were, before publication, to be approved of by the JIrdinary, or his deputy, and by the nearest university. _ Having thus traced, at some length, the steps by which Luther proceeded to refuse submission first to one autho- ‘ity and then to another, until his final refusal to abide by he decisions of General Councils, we must hurry rapidly ver the subsequent events of his career, until the final ‘onvocation of the Council of Trent.

(8) Pallay. L. 1. c. xxviii.

CHAPTER VIIL.

Death of Leo.—Adrian VI —Resolves to reform the Roman Court.—Cherigato appointed Legate to the Eimperor.—The Centum Gravamina.—Council recommended. — Death of Adrian.—Clement VII.—Campeggio appointed Legate.—Diet of Nuremberg.—Council promised.—Meet- | ing at Ratisbonne.—Articles of Reformation published.— |} Progress of error.—Henry VILI.—Diet of Spires—The | Recess. |

The departure of Charles, and the exercise of authority, | in his absence, by the Elector of Saxony, and other friends of Luther, rendered the Ban ineffectual. A short time after the above decision of the Diet, Leo X. died; and

_ was succeeded, on the ninth of January, 1522, by Adrian VI., whose country, virtues, and character for learning gave hopes, soon however to be disappointed, that he would succeed better than his predecessor in allaying the storm now raging in Germany. His first endeavour was to bring about a reformation in the Court and tribunals of Rome, and especially in the administration of Indulgences; in which efforts he seems to have been sincerely seconded by the college of Cardinals. He appointed Cherigato his Nuncio to the Emperor, with earnest instructions to bring back, if possible, the dissenters of Germany; and to complain to the Emperor, that the Ban of the Empire was| inoperative, through the influence of Luther’s friends, who, not content with denying the doctrines of the Church, were possessing themselves, in all directions, of her goods and property, which, after all, seemed to be the main cause of their apostacy. He, furthermore, directed him to acknowledge to the Emperor, that the present troubles were a just punishment from God upon the sins of the clergy and people; that it was no wonder that the evil had

spread from the head to the members; but that, with i0d’s help, he would apply such remedies as should restore he purity of discipline and manners.

These instructions, when communicated by the Legate o the Diet at Nuremberg,(") but served to aggravate the vil. The very concession, that the evils of Germany nad one of their sources at least in the clergy and Court of Rome, and in the misconduct of her various ecclesiasical tribunals, whilst it seemed to excuse the invectives that had been directed by the Lutherans against the adninistrators of the Church, gave not only fresh audacity (0 those assailants, but also seemed to justify the comdlaints of false, or injudicious friends, against Rome and the clergy; as, on the departure of the Legate, was soon nade visible, by the publication of the Centwm Gravamina; 4 piece said to be the production of the secular members of the Diet, but so replete with contempt and depreciation of the ecclesiastical body and tribunals, that it has been sven doubted whether it did not emanate from the minds and pens of professed enemies.

In reply to the Breve and instructions of the Pontiff, ‘he Diet, amongst other proposals, especially recommended che convocation of a General Council, as the most effectual *emedy for the disorders of the times; and named certain jowns as suitable for the place of meeting. The Legate fleclared, that such a Council would not be unwelcome to she Sovereign Pontiff, provided his rights and authority were not fettered by interference as to the time and place of its celebration. ©

But these negotiations were speedily terminated by the fleath of Adrian, on the fourteenth of September, 1523, after occupying the Pontifical throne little more than a vear. He was succeeded by Julius De’ Medici, who took she-name of Clement VII.

There is good reason for believing that this Pontiff was indisposed to the calling of a Council; which he felt per-

(h) The Diet opened in December, 1522.

| suaded could neither satisfy the minds of the Lutherans, | envenomed as they were against the authority which alone could convoke and preside at it; and in which it was to be feared, that questions relative to the superiority of the Pope and Council might be mooted; and thus the attempt to heal one disorder, might only create a greater. Besides this, Luther’s refusal to submit to past ¢ feneral Councils, seemed proof enough that he would not be more willing to yield to any other that might be summoned.

Clement despatched, as his legate to Germany, Campeggio, a prelate well versed in the duties imposed by that office, and already distinguished for great skill, learning and prudence. ‘The Diet,(‘) in a decree published on | the eighteenth of April, 1524, again urged on the Pontiff the desirableness of a Council, and thus brought the matter directly before the Legate. That prelate represented, that the wars then raging were unfavourable to such an assembly; but that, though he did not look upon such a meeting as likely to produce the present advantages which the princes of Germany setiied to anticipate, he would take upon himself to promise, to induce the Pontiff to summon a Council, as soon as a favourable opportunity should present itself.(*)

Anxious to correct the grosser abuses existing in the Church in Germany, and to repress the Lutherans, the Legate caused a meeting of Electors and bishops to be held at Ratisbonne,(') where, after much deliberation, it was agreed, that those present should enforce, as far as possible, the decrees of the Diet of Worms, and thirty-five | articles of reformation were fixed upon, regulating and) limiting the payments to the clergy, correcting the abuses. introduced by the Questors, and making salutary arrangements in regard of the collation of benefices.

(i) Opened at Nuremberg, in January, 1524,

(1) There were present, the Archduke Ferdinand, the Dukes of Bavaria, the Archbishop of Saltzburg, the bishops of ‘Trent and Ratisbonne; and the be

of the bishops of Spires, Bamberg, Augsburg, Strasburg, Basel, Constance, Freisingen, Passau, and Brixon, f

Meanwhile, the innovations and principles of Luther, ho had returned to Wittemberg,(™) were producing their vatural fruits; not only in the unsettled state of politics, nd confusion in the state, but especially in the numerous eretics and fanatics, who emulated his boldness. Carystadt, Zuingle and the Sacramentarians, the Zwickau rophets, Munzer and his hordes of Anabaptists, and ther sectarians of less note, who were mutually opposing, illifying, and anathematizing each other, Se the sad nectacle of the discords of other days, and presented a “range contrast to that unity of faith, sobriety of jadgment, ud uniformity of sentiment, which had for ages distinuished those lands.

It does not come directly within the purpose of this wief notice, to do more than allude to the divisions which gan to prevail, at the same time, in England; mainly a consequence of the unbridled passions of Henry VILL. ; ho, being wearied of the wife to whom he had been now mited during more than seventeen years, and enamoured Anne Boleyn, threw off the supremacy of the Pope, ind ceabished, in his own person, an authority far more atingent and unlimited; because that Pontiff refused to ander to his base lusts. I have, in another work, entered ly into the history of that event, and content myself ere with just noticing the fact, as we shall soon see fenry, who had written in defence of the authority of the ‘hurch, and been designated, by the Pope, the defender f the faith, issuing his protest against that same authoity, and the right of the ontift to convoke, and preside, General Councils.

To add to these troubles, the coldness which had for ome time, from political motives, been increasing between Mlement and Charles, ended in an open rupture between nem, and in those misfortunes which soon after overhelmed the city of Rome, and placed the Pontiff himself

as a prisoner in the hands of his enemies. It was in the midst of these untoward circumstances, that the Diet of Spires was opened in June, 1526. The Emperor, eager to conciliate the Lutherans, in order to secure their aid against the powerful league formed against him, changed his intention of enforcing the Edict of Worms; and contented himself with requiring that the affairs of religion should remain as they were, until the meeting of a General Council. The Recess was drawn up in accordance with this purpose; and thus the political interests of Charles caused him to abandon that system of policy and that support of religion, in which he had believed both his duty and interest involved, and which had hitherto formed the guiding principles and practice of his career.

He imagined that such a step would coerce Clement into another line of policy, and that his own change of | system need only be temporary. The misfortunes, indeed, of Clement soon forced him to have recourse to the assistance of the Emperor, but the increased political and religious confusion which soon ensued, proved to Charles, that late events had combined and given greater confidence and expectations to a party within the state, which all his energy and power would not, henceforth, be able to control,

CHAPTER IX.

Second Diet of Spires.—Alttempt to reconcile the Lutherns and Zuinglians.—The Emperor abrogates the late Edict if Spires.—Struggle of parties—The Recess —The Proest.—Luther and Zuingle at Marburg.— Diet of Augsburg. —Arrival of the Emperor and of the Legate.—Melancthon wnd the Augsburg Confession —The Zuinglian Confession. —Opening of the Diet—The Confession read.—Appeals o a Council_—Dissents from no Roman doctrine.—The Tonfession answered.—Fresh proposals and concessions of he Protestants —Rejected.—F'urther negotiations.—The Letrapolitan Confession —Zuingle’s—Proposed Edict.— Lhe Recess.

In March, 1529, another diet was held at Spires, to ar- ‘ange measures to oppose the inroads of the Turks, but the religious discords also came under consideration. ‘The various sects of Anabaptists had no representatives at that assembly, but the rival parties of Zuinglians and Lutherans ‘appeared there to watch over their mutual interests. The ‘Landgrave of Hesse endeavoured, but in vain, to produce a kind of armed neutrality between these hostile religionists, by persuading them that their differences were, after all, but of minor importance; though they in reality affected some of the most essential doctrines, and extended also to the sacraments. The Emperor, now that his political position was more favourable, was desirous to revert to his previous religious policy, and to enforce resolutely the mow almost obsolete Edict of Worms. In his instructions he complained, that the late Edict of Spires had been taken advantage of to increase religious change and discord, and that, by virtue of his absolute power, he at once abrogated that edict. But, the Elector of Saxony and his party were as urgent for its continuance, and it became obvious that, unless some compromise could be come to, the whole of ‘Germany would be involved in the horrors of a civil war.

In this emergency, a commission was appointed to consider and report on the measures best suited to the present state of parties; and their proposals, of some importance in themselves, but of more in their results, having been laid before the Diet, on the 4th of April, were adopted by a majority. It was resolved that, where the Edict of Worms had been received, it should continue in force until the holding of a General Council; where the ancient religion prevailed it was not to be disturbed, but, where the modern had obtained such possession that it could not be interfered with without danger of disturbance, it was to remain unmolested and unchanged until the meeting of a council; all doctrines opposed to the real presence in the Eucharist were condemned and forbidden to be promulgated; whilst against the Anabaptists the severest measures were ordered and their utter banishment from the states enjomed. The use of the sacrifice of the mass was to be retained; and not prevented, even where the dissentient party prevailed; and the Scriptures were to be interpreted in accordance with the expositions and sentiments of the Fathers approved of by the Church. ;

But the Lutherans continuing their opposition, other trials of strength took place in the Diet; at the second of which, on the 12th of April, the same majority required submission to the resolution of the assembly. Of the free cities, twenty-one expressed their assent, but fourteen resolutely refused to submit. On the 18th it was resolved that the dissentients should not be heard again, and on the 19th they were required to give in their adhesion unconditionally. Upon this, six princes and the deputies of | fourteen cities of the Empire protested against the decision _ of the Diet; and their opposition being disregarded, they, on the following day, presented to the Diet their protest in writing;(") declared the resolution of the Diet opposed

(8) The princes were, the Electors of Saxony and of Brandenburgk, the Dukes of Lunenberg, the Landgrave of Hesse, and the Prince of Anhalt; the cities were Strasburg, Nuremberg, Ulm, Constance, Lindau, Memmingen, Kempten, Nordlingen, Heilbrun, Reutlingen, Isne, Weissemburg, Winsheim, and St. Gal.

o Evangelic truth, appealed to a future Council, and to a udge not obnoxious to suspicion. This protest was the wrigin of the name Protestant, which has ever since desigaated the sects of that age and their offspring; and it,is a aame, which, according to the principles of the Fathers of he Church, especially of those who settled the Arian and imilar controversies, is of itself decisive of the heretical, or ichismatical, character of the sects which bear it. The ‘dict which was the subject of this protest finally passed lhe Diet on the 23rd of April,(°) but was not published ill the 6th of May.

A fierce and personal controversy now raged between uuther and Zuingle. At the request of the Landgrave of desse, they met, with their chief adherents, at Marburg, ‘0 effect a reconciliation, if possible; but they separated, fter much violent discussion, as irreconcileable enemies us ever. The object of the Landgrave was, however, parjially attained. If he could not induce them to agree in lloctrine, he, in part, succeeded in convincing them that their common safety demanded union, at least, in politics; and thus prepared the way for that Protestant league which had, for some time,(’) occupied the minds of the orinces of that party. But, for the present, the attention of all parties was fixed on the approaching Diet, which was appointed to be held at Augsburg, and at which, it was understood, that the Emperor intended to be present n person. His recent interview with the Sovereign Poniff, at Bologna, where he had received the Imperial crown at his hands, prepared the minds of all for bold and desisive measures. In fact Charles had, in that interview, jot only secured a promise from that Pontiff that he would

(°) Various methods have been suggested to reconcile the date of this protest, fand of the passing of the edict. The details given in the text will readily offer a solution of the difficulty.

(P) An attempt to form a league is named, as early as 1526, by Sleidan, Lib. vi. “sub. an. 1526. In 1529 five meetings were held for the purpose. It was even proosed, when Charles was returning from Bologna to Germany, “‘ to march on the Trvrol and to close the passage of the Alps against the Emperor.’’—Seckend. ii. sp. 150, quoted by D’Aub.

aid him in his opposition to the Turk, but that he would not oppose the convocation of a council, if such an assembly should be deemed advisable;(“) whilst the Emperor, on his part, declared his resolution to enforce, if possible, | the Edict of Worms, and to use all his efforts to reduce } the Lutherans to the unity of the Church.

The Emperor, accompanied by the Papal Legate, Campeggio, arrived, with a large retinue of princes, ambassadors, and electors, at Augsburg, on the fifteenth of June, 1530. He had been preceded by the Protestant | princes, who had come prepared with a confession of faith | to be presented to the assembled Diet. Having abandoned, — for the present, all intention to have recourse to arms, the Elector of Saxony, early in March, had requested Luther, Jonas, Melancthon, and Pomeranus, to draw up their articles of faith in time for the approaching Diet. This request was complied with, and, the four divines having laboured at the document for a few days, it was consigned to Melancthon to be perfected. That timid and wavering theologian, after days and nights of anxious toil, at length completed his task, on the 11th of May; and the con- | fession was despatched, by the Elector, to Luther, who | declared himself satisfied. But the councillors and theologians of the Elector were not so easily contented; for, as Melancthon tells us, there was not a day passed without numerous alterations being made in this their confession of faith.(") On the last day of May, this apology, for so it was also designated, was communicated to the various Protestant states; was adopted by the Lutherans, but peremptorily refused by the Zuinglians. The latter, in. their turn, prepared also their confession of faith; and _ thus the Diet was soon doomed to behold a practical illustration of the all-sufficiency and simplicity of Scripture; of the wisdom of refusing to hear the Church, as Christ

(4) Pallay. L. III. c. ii. Guiccard, L. 20. quoted by Courayer in his Ed. of Fra Paolo, L. 1. sub an. 1529, note 87, p. 93. (*) In Apologia quotidie multa mutamus. Corp. Ref, p. 60.

!

ad commanded; and the galling exhibition to the autherans of a schism within the schism. The Diet was pened on June 20th, 1530, by aspeech from the Emperor, 1 which he treated of the war with the Turks, and the eligious dissensions. He complained that the Edict of Norms had not been enforced; adverted to the inefficacy f the subsequent edicts; declared his resolution to bring bout a union, and that, for this purpose, he was prepared 9 attend to the complaints and statements of all parties, ‘rovided they were delivered in writing. On the twentycond of June, the Protestants were required to present heir Confession at the next Session of the Diet, which vas fixed for the twenty-fourth. On that day, the Elector f Saxony requested that the Confession might be-read eublicly before the Diet; but, as this was objected to, der the plea of the lateness of the hour, it was agreed ‘hat it should be read on the following day, in the presence f the Emperor, and of the actual members of the Diet, in

chamber of the Palatinate palace. This was accordingly cone, and, as the document was drawn up with great aoderation, in order to conciliate, as far as possible, the avour of the Diet; the Emperor, to prevent any further ittempt at innovation, or future plea of abuse, caused the srinces, whose signatures were attached to it, to be asked, whether they dissented in any other particulars from the ‘octrines of the Catholic Church, or had any other abuses 9 complain of. After some deliberation, they at length nswered, that the document presented contained all that they dissented from or complained of.(*)

This confession of faith, called, from the Diet to which it was presented, the Augsburg Confession, is so well ‘nown and is published in so many works, that it is unnecessary to furnish even an abstract of the twenty-one “ticles of faith, and seven objected abuses, of which it is

(*®) Pallay. L. IIT. c. tit.

composed.(') In the preamble, however, there is an appeal | to a General Council which requires especial notice here.

The Emperor is in substance reminded, as follows; that, on several occasions, and especially at the Diet of Spires, in 1526, “ whilst he declined to come to any determination on the controverted doctrines, he had promised to use his influence with the Roman Pontiff for the summoning of a General Council; that at the second Diet of Spires a similar promise had been given, and a declaration made, that the Sovereign Pontiff could be induced to hold such coun-_ cil, and further, that the said Pontiff should accordingly | be applied to, to give his consent to convoke that assembly, with the codperation of the Emperor, as early as possible. | If, therefore, the religious dissensions should not be ami-| cably settled in the present Diet, they offer to appear and to plead their cause before such a general, free, and Christian council, as had, in the various preceding diets, been treated of and promised; that to such council they had often appealed, and now again solemnly entered their appeal in this their apology.” Yet, notwithstanding this) voluntary promise, and solemn appeal, registered in their own Confession, we shall soon see this very party, assigning | as their principal reason for refusing to repair, and to submit, to the Council of Trent, that it was convoked by the Sovereign Pontiff. The fact seems to be, that, with few exceptions, the Lutherans were insincere in their demand of a council. “It is true, they made their appeals to it perpetually, and were the loudest in their clamours for its convocation; because thus they gave a show of equity to! their provisional claims—a show of subordination and loy- | alty to all their proceedings. Besides, they gained time, | which was essential to their success.”(")

There is also another portion of this Augsburg confession which deserves a passing notice. At the close of

(t) The abuses are ranged under the following heads: on communion under both kinds; the marriage of priests; the mass ; confession ; difference of meats; monastic vows; the power of the church. |

(Y) Wadcdington’s Reformation on the Continent, Vol. III. c. xxxviil. p. 121.

he articles, the Protestants declare, that, in the whole of heir faith, “there is nothing which is at variance with Scripture, with the doctrine of the Catholic, or even of the Roman, Church, in so far as that doctrine is known to hem from the writers of that Church;” and they accordngly complain “ of being stigmatized as heretics, whereas heir faith is that of the Roman Church, and the disagreement is only about certain abuses which had crept into he Church, without any clear or certain authority in their ‘avour.”(") It would seem, that a more bitter and severe ‘ondemnation of their schism there could not be than lhis their own confession. But we must proceed to the acts before us.

The day after the reading of the Confession, it was rewolved, in a meeting of the Catholic members of the Diet, ‘t which the Legate and many theologians were present, ‘at a refutation should be drawn up in writing of such varts of that document as objected to any practice or rite f the Catholic Church; and the task was assigned to a ody of theologians, amongst whom the most distinsuished were Faber, Eck, and Cochleus. But scarcely ad this resolution been come to, than the confession was gain examined by its subscribers and authors, to see what,ortion of it might be abandoned; and Melancthon deiired the Elector to consent, that the demands of their jarty should be reduced to two points,—the administration if the Eucharist in both kinds, and the permission of the narriage of the clergy,(*) ‘For two such purely ecclesiasti-

(v) In qua (summa doctrine) cerni potest nihil quod discrepet a Scripturis, ‘lab Ecclesia Catholica, vel ab Ecclesia Romana, quatenus ex Scriptoribus nota ‘t...Sed dissensio est de quibusdam abusibus qui sine certa auctoritate in “eclesias irrepserunt.

(*) Before this, immediately upon the arrival of Charles, and before the Con- ‘ssion was read, Melancthon had made a somewhat similar proposal, or statement, the private secretary of Charles, Valdez, whom the Emperor had commissioned ‘ treat with that reformer. ‘‘ The Lutheran question,”’ said Melancthon, “is not

‘complicated and unseemly as his majesty fancies. We do not attack the ‘atholic Church as much as is commonly believed; and the whole controversy is ‘ducible to three points. The two kinds in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, se marriage of pastors, and the abolition of private masses. If we could agree on sese articles, it would be easy to come to an understanding on the others.”—Ex ‘elat. Spalatiin Seckend., as quoted by D’Aub. Vol. III. p. 208-9.

cal regulations,” writes Melancthon to the Elector of Saxony, | “it never surely can be their resolution to refuse to receive us, and thus risk a civil war.”(*) To this proposal the Protestant princes assented, and Melancthon was deputed to make the offer to the Legate.(*) Accordingly, on the 6th of July, he addressed a letter to Campeggio, in which | he makes the above-named offer, and remarks: “ We hold not any dogma different from the Roman Church. We have even repressed many persons who were striving | to sow pernicious doctrines; of which there are notorious | and public proofs. We are prepared to obey the Roman | Church, if, with that clemency which it has always prac- | tised towards all men, it will only dissemble, or relax, in regard of some few things, which, even if we wished it, we could not nowalter. . . . Let not your Eminence give | credit to our slanderers, who wickedly corrupt our writings, and impute to us whatever seems best calculated to inflame the public hatred against. us. Besides this, the authority of the Roman Pontiff is by us respectfully reverenced, as | ss also the whole ecclesiastical polity. Now, seeing that concord can so effectually be established, if your equity | will but close your eyes in regard of some few matters | and, rendering, as we do, obedience, with sincere faith, why pursue your suppliants with fire and sword? Many are sure, that your Eminence would not: approve of these violent counsels, if you did but perfectly know our cause and wishes. On*no other ground do we endure so mueb odiam in Germany, as for our firm defence of the doctrines of the Roman Church. This fidelity, by God's will, will we preserve to Christ, and to the Roman Church, |

)

(¥) Melane. ad. Due. Sax. Corp. Ref. ii. p. 162. Luther-be it observed, hac married the nun Catharine of Bora. Besides Luther, the other leaders of the Re-+ formation, Melancthon, Zuingle, Spalatin, Capito, and GEcolampadius, were married. The practice in fact was becoming general amongst the renegade friars 4 monks. The remarks of Erasmus to his friend Adrianus ate well known: “Sco: lampadius has lately taken a wife, rather an elegant girl. Doubtless he intends tc mortify the flesh. Some call this Lutheran business a tragedy; but for my par{ I think it partakes much more of the character of a comedy, for I observe that al! its plots and counterplots end in one invariable catastrophe—a wedding.”

ur last breath. ..... A slight dissimilitude of rites beveen us and you is that which seems to be the obstacle to oneord. But the very canons themselves affirm, that the nity of the Church may be preserved notwithstanding ay such dissimilitude.”(*) There is reason to believe aat Luther, whatever expressions to the contrary may pear in his letters to some of his friends, was neither inacquainted with, nor opposed to, these concessions. (”)

But even these two points,—communion in both kinds, od the marriage of priests,—the Legate informed Me- ‘ncthon could not be yielded without the concurrence of ue German princes. (°)

But Charles, in the hope of procuring that unanimity necessary for the intended war against the Turks, used a commission to be appointed, consisting, at first, “seven, but which was afterwards reduced to three, of ach party; yet, for some reason not clearly recorded, the ticipated agreement was not come to. On the 13th of aly, the reply of the Catholic Theologians was completed, “at, on examination, it was required to be made shorter ad less violent. On the 3rd of August, the amended py was read in public Diet, and accepted by the Emeror as his own.

_ Of the various negotiations which ensued, it is needless ® give any account, as they furnish no new fact, and as aey ended in no practical result; though they furnish a ‘ear and most curious proof of the fickleness of the selfjyled Reformers, and of the little importance which they aemselves attached to what they had so long proclaimed, ad what are still propounded, as the fundamental prin-

(@) The following are some of the expressions of the original. “Dogma nu!lum Ybemus diversum a Romana Ecclesia. ...Parati sumus obedire Romane Eccle- ‘®, modo ut illa pro sua clementia, qua semper erga omnes homines usa est, pauca sedam yel dissimulet, vel relaxet, que jam ne quidem si velimus mutare queaus....Adhee Romani pontificis authoritatem et universam politiam ecclesiasticam werenter colimus....Hanc fidem Christo et Romane Ecclesie ad extremum ‘iritum, Deo volente, prestabimus.”’ Ceelestin. T. IIL. fol. 18.

(¢) Nisi de yoluntate principum Germanie. Corp. Ref. ii. p. 174.

£

ciples and doctrines of the Reformation. Give them their | wives; secure to them the Church property which they _ had plundered; content the people with a show of some | necessity for the past changes, by giving them the communion in both kinds, and by enforcing or allowing some slight change in the canon of the mass, and, for the rest, | they were perfectly satisfied.(*)

Meanwhile Bucer and Capito had presented to the Km- | peror their Tetrapolitan confession, or the confession of | the four cities of Strasburg, Constance, Memmingen, and. | Lindau; and Zuingle, not content with this representation | of his opinions, took upon himself to draw up and forward, | to Charles, another confession, in which he visited with | his abuse, not the Catholics only, but his rivals the Lu- | therans.(°)

On the 22nd of September, the Dict assembled to hear, and to take into consideration, the proposed edict on the | state of religion. It stated, that the confession of the Protestants having been considered and replied to; some | of their errors having been retracted, but others being still adhered to; time was now allowed them till the 15th of the ensuing April, to consider whether they would return to the faith and practice of the Catholic Church, at least until the meeting of a General Council. That

See Melancthon’sletter to the Legate’s secretary, dated Ang. 5; his letter dated | Aug. 22; his letter to Luther, dated September 1, 1530; and the final proposal of the | Protestant party, made on the 22nd of September, just before the reading of the edict of the Diet. Gcelest.1.c. In his second letter to the Legate, after again declaring, that, in faith, they differed in nothing from the Roman Church, he says, “If a few things were conceded, or dissembled, concord might be restored; to wit, if both kinds were allowed to ours, and the marriages of priests and monks were tolerated. If it should not seem expedient for these things to be openly granted, they might still be dissembled under some kind of pretext, as, for example, that these things | may drag on till the assembling of a Council. As regards the mass also, some method might be found by good and learned men, to prevent that from being any longer a source of dissension, We on our parts will agree to restore obedience and jurisdiction to the bishops.’’ Ap. Colestin, iii. fol. 137. (¢) Melancthon’s judgment on the author of that confession is brief, but clear: “The man, to speak plainly, is mad:’’ Dicas simpliciter mente captum esse. Corp. | Ref, ii. p. 193; but Luther was of a different opinion: Zuinglius mihi sane placet, et Bucerus. L. Epp. iv. p. 110.

council, the Emperor had agreed with the Sovereign Poniff, should be convoked within the term of six months, and ye assembled, at the latest, within a year. In the meanime, the Protestants were forbidden to publish, or sell, iny fresh works on religion; to make any further changes; x to prevent the return of their subjects to the ancient ith; it was ordered that ecclesiastical property should ve restored to those from whom it had been taken; and imally that the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians should ve banished from all the states of the empire.

This edict was opposed by the Protestant princes, exept as regards the clauses against the Anabaptists and “uinglians; and the dissentients unanimously came to a ‘esolution to refuse their aid against the Turk. On the 9th of November, the Recess was formally approved of *y all the Catholic princes and members of the Diet, and, m the 22nd of the same month, was legally published. in it the Zuinglians were proscribed; the restoration of ne ancient faith, practices and rights, wheresoever abolished, vas commanded; the married priests were to be degraded; ll changes in religion were prohibited under severe penales; the destroyed monasteries were to be rebuilt and their evenues restored; finally, a council was promised. The bove regulations were to be enforced by the Imperial *hamber, and the officers of the Emperor were to compel *ompliance. _ Such is the history of the Augsburg Confession, eu ‘ae opinions of its authors and subscribers as to its neceés- ‘ty, truth, and unchangeableness; a judgment which exserience has confirmed; for, as regards the actual state of eligious parties, that confession has long become next to a ead letter.

CHAPTER X.

Civil war apprehended.—Preparation of the Protestants. | —Luther.—League of Smalcald.—Foreign aid sought.— | Replies from England, Denmark, and France.—Charles negotiates for a Council—Clement’s answer.—Further i- | stances by Charles.—A Council resolved on.—Conditions.— | Papal Breve announcing 4 Council.—Hindrances.—Re- | newal of negotiations.—Interview between Charles and) Clement.—Council again resolved on.—Refused by the Protestants.—Death of Clement.—Paul II. |

A general apprehension, that a civil war was imminent, now prevailed throughout Germany; and, had such been the purpose of the Emperor, the opportunity was favour- | able. France was humbled and exhausted; Solyman had | suffered a severe reverse; and the Protestants were, as} yet, unprepared and disorganized. But he had no such wish; his designs and expectations were to settle the dissensions amicably, by the intervention and authority of a General Council,—an expectation which the events and proposals at Augsburg served to justify and confirm.

But such was not the moderation of the Protestants, | Even during the sitting of the late Diet, the Landgrave | of Hesse, after his departure from that assembly under the, plea of his wife’s illness, had exhorted the Protestant, princes not to yield, and declared that he, for his part, “would fight for the word of God, at the risk of his states, subjects, and life.”(‘) This advice was not followed at the time; but, as early as the 22nd of December, those princes assembled at Smalcald, and signed(®) a provisional, treaty for their mutual defence. ‘To this step they were

(f) As quoted by D’Aub. Vol. iv. p. 295. (g) The form of convention was drawn up on Dec. 31, 1530; the signature were attached on Jan. 4, 1531.

forcibly impelled by the writings of Luther; who, whilst ais party was too weak for successful opposition, had btained the credit and merit of preaching up the duty of beying, and the sinfulness of resisting, by force of arms, he decrees of the civil authorities; but, now that there was some chance of success, under the flimsy pretext of vielding to the jurists, he proclaimed a contrary doctrine, wnd, by sermons and writings, urged his followers to resistance. Accordingly, under the form of an apology for ‘heir faith and conduct, in reply to a Breve of Clement's, lhe confederated princes sent letters to the kings of Engand, Denmark, and France, soliciting support against the dimperor. The two former monarchs sent evasive answers, eut the latter despatched William de Bellay, as his amvassador, to egg on the Protestants to resistance; con- ‘luded a treaty with them at Eslingen, and deposited with the Duke of Bavaria a large amount of money to be employed in the contemplated war. A portion of the “uinglians were admitted into the confederacy, and every- ‘hing betokened preparation for a civil war. But Charles ersevered in his peaceful policy; and contented himself with renewing his negotiations with the Pontiff for the sonvocation of a council. Clement still retained his coniction of the uselessness of such an assembly for the end which seemed anticipated by the Emperor. He represented to that monarch, that General Councils had hitherto only been summoned to condemn novelties in faith, whereas the errors of Luther were little more than the revival of spinions long since condemned; that Luther had already sefused to submit to those General Councils, and there seemed no likelihood of his yielding to any other that sight be convoked; that there were no solid principles in this their new system on which to build a hope of con- “incing and reclaiming them; for the Seripture alone was with them the record and rule, and such portions only of the Scriptures as they chose to account authentic and nspired, and that in the translation which they took upon ‘hemselves to declare faithful, and according to that inliv HISTORY OF THE

terpretation which pleased their fancies, without regarding, nay contemning, the expositions of the Fathers, of an- | tiquity, and of the Church, and those interpretations which | the usages of so many centuries had sanctioned and confirmed. He also reminded him, that it would be impossible _ | that the council should be convoked and constituted — otherwise than according to the pattern of past councils; | and that, as neither Scripture, nor precedent, allowed of | laymen or heretics having a vote in such an assembly, the | most that could be granted to the Protestants would be to — hear them, and to hear them but to condemn them; and | thus would the schism be rendered final and unchangeable, | and all further negotiations impracticable.(") These considerations, the Emperor replied, were indeed _ most grave and powerful, but that, after deliberation with | Ferdinand, who had, shortly after the Diet of Augsburg, © been elected King of the Romans, he could not help | hoping, that the difficulties were not so insurmountable as the Pontiff imagined; and that, as it seemed to be the only means left, as it was the only measure untried, he | urged Clement not to delay the convocation of an assem- |) bly, which would, at all events, confirm the minds of the | wavering, and enable him to keep his word to the Protes- | tants, who were ever demanding, and appealing to, such a | tribunal. The Pontiff assented, and forwarded to the | Bishop of Portona, the conditions on which the council | should be summoned, and the specific objects to which it | should be confined,—to consider, that is, on the best means || of opposing the Turk, and to examine and decide on the || religious opinions prevalent in Germany. He stipulated || also for the presence of the Emperor at the council; a | direct petition from the Lutherans for the proposed assem- | bly, and a promise to submit to its decrees; that the place | of meeting should be in some city of Italy, at Rome, Bologna, Piacenza, or Mantua, a feudatory city of the |

(1) The above account is given by Pallav, L. III, c. 5.

mpire; and finally that those only should have votes who rere entitled to that privilege by the canons and customs f the Church.

The Emperor’s answer to these proposals was received it Rome, on the 16th of October. He replied, that if the council were speedily summoned, he would set aside all ther business requiring his presence, and assist at its proieedings; that Milan, or Mantua, would be the cities most wcceptable to the Germans; that the canons of the Church vere, of course, to be abided by; and that, as to the Lutherns, he did not now expect that they would make the equired demand or promise; but that the council was not > be hindered by their obstinacy, as it would be enough ) follow the usage of past councils, and proceed at once the condemnation of the innovators.

Upon receiving this reply, Clement resolved to act vithout further delay; and accordingly, on the first of Jecember,.a Breve of a uniform character was directed to il the Christian princes, announcing his resolution to onvoke a General Council, in some suitable city of Italy, md at as early a period as possible. A few days after the vublication of this Breve, letters arrived from the King of ‘rance, urging the Pontiff to that determination at which xe had already arrived.

It is not necessary to detail the obstacles which arose to srevent this purpose from being at once carried into effect. ‘he danger of the empire from Solyman; the refusal of ‘he Protestants to aid in repelling him; the convention ‘f Ratisbon; the intrigues of France; the political diffeences between Clement and Charles; these and other ‘vents of great magnitude occupied the attention of all varties to the exclusion of all preparations for a council.

But, no sooner had Charles repelled the inroads of the Turk, and freed himself from his more pressing engagements, than he turned his, attention again to that object; und, for this purpose, resolved to visit the Pope in person. 4 meeting took place, early in 1532, at Bologna, where, anongst other points treated of, the proposed council was

&

discussed. It was admitted, by the Emperor, that the

conditions prescribed by the Pontiff were just, and usual, and could not be departed from without compromising his

authority, arid yielding unduly to the demands of the innovators. Two conclusions were come to; the first, that the Pope should send a nuncio, and the Emperor an

ambassador, to the princes of Germany, to induce them to

come into those conditions, and to pledge themselves to |

cause their party to assist at the council, and to submit to

its canonical decisions. It was also further resolved, by | the advice of Aleander, though not without opposition, |

that the Pontiff should at once issue a Breve, wherein a

promise should be given, that a council should be sum- |

moned with as little delay as possible. Accordingly, on

the 10th of January, a Breve was transmitted to the King of the Romans, and to the other Catholic princes of the

empire ; who were also written to, on the same day, by |

Charles, who declared that he had found the Pontiff most

solicitous to perform whatever his high office required, and ||

sincere in his resolution to assemble a council. In fulfilment of his promise, Clement despatched, on

the 20th of February, 1532, two nuncios; one, his private | secretary Ugo Rangone, to Ferdinand and the Catholic |

princes of Germany ; the other, Ubaldino Ubaldini, to the

kings of France and of England. Their instructions were, |

that the Council should be perfectly free, and be celebrated

according to the usage of the Catholic Church in her | General Councils from the beginning; that those who | should assist thereat should pledge themselves to submit |} to its decrees; that those lawfully hindered from being || present should send proxies ; that, meanwhile, there should : be no fresh innovations in matters of faith; that the place | should be mutually agreed upon, the Pontiff proposing —

Mantua, Bologna, or Piacenza, any one of which cities was safe, in a fertile country, suitable, and nearer to Germany

than to any of the Ultramontanes who would have to assist |

at the Council ; that should any of the princes of Christendom refuse to aid in the prosecution and success of so

1oly a work, it was not therefore to be abandoned ; and hat should any oppose the holding of the Council, the ?ontiff was to be supported, against those efforts, by the vower of the other princes ; that, upon the expiration of ix months after a favourable answer to these proposals, ‘Nement pledged himself to convoke the Council, to be ield at the termination of a year, which period would allow ‘ufficient time to prepare themselves for that assembly.

_ A meeting of the Protestants, to whom a nuncio and mperial ambassador had been sent, took place at Smalcald ‘o consider of the answer to be given to these conditions. \fter much deliberation, a reply was given, on the last day of July, by the Elector of Saxony, in the name of the conederates. After the usual invectives against the Holy See, they declared that they could not agree, or submit, ‘o a Council summoned under the terms named; for that muuch a Council would not be free, as it was to be convoked nd presided over by the Roman Pontiff:—an objection sremature at the least, inasmuch as the instructions simply ‘tated that the Council should be celebrated in the manner ‘hat had been usual in General Councils from the beginaing; and the name of the Pontiff was actually nowhere mtroduced. It was further objected that, in the councils aeld for many ages past, there had been a divarication rom the primitive usage of the Church, the Scriptures aaving been then the sole guides, and not the authority of lhe Pontiff and of the Scholastics; an objection which, in part, the history of those councils, especially of Ephesus and Jhalcedon, shows to be as baseless as the preceding, and which involved the absurd supposition, that the doctrine ef the Scholastics, and the decrees of the Roman Pontifis, nad been, or were admitted to be, in opposition to the sacred Scriptures; as if the meaning of those Scriptures, the extent of doctrine conveyed in them, and the authority llivinely appointed to guide us in their interpretation, were aot some of the real and most fundamental questions in llispute between the Catholics and Protestants, and as such ‘0 come under the consideration of the Council.

But, in the midst of these events, Clement died, on the 25th of September, 1534, recommending, as his successor, | the Dean of the Sacred College, Alexander Farnese, who - was unanimously elected Pope, on the 13th of October, on | the very first day of the Conclave. He ascended the Pon= | tifical throne, taking the name of Paul ILL. 1)

CHAPTER XI.

Disposition of the Pontiff towards a Council.—Commission appointed.—Vergertus sent into Germany.—His interview with Luther.—Mantua proposed for the Council. —Refused by the Confederates.—Interview between Paul and Charles.—Indiction of the Council at Mantua.—Pro-_ rogation—Convoked for Vicenza.—Legates sent.—Paul | repairs to Nice.—Mediates a truce.— Council again | prorogued. |

The new Pontiff had always shown himself favourable to the convocation of a Council; a disposition which had no slight influence on his election. Nor was it long before he endeavoured to carry that purpose into effect; but the | difficulties, which he encountered during so many years, |) showed that Clement had not exaggerated the obstacles to || such an assembly. But he met with the usual fate of ) cautious and politic princes; the difficulties were ascribed to his own delays and wishes, and not to the unfortunate course of events, by which they were really occasioned. Paul considered peace between Charles and the King of France, as the first essential to the successful convocation of the Council; a result which, for many years, he laboured | in vain to produce. However, in the very first consistory,

ield on the 13th of November, 1534, he renewed his delaration of being favourable to a Council, and exhorted ‘he Cardinals to pave the way for it by an exemplary reormation of themselves, and of the whole Roman Court. de, shortly afterwards, deputed eight of the most eminent ardinals and canonists,(') to draw up such a scheme of formation as should seem to them desirable; giving them or this purpose full authority over every tribunal in Rome. de also sent nuncios to the various princes, in order to ecure their concurrence and help in the proposed counil; and, at the same time, promoted several individuals f great merit to the cardinalate, and amongst the rest, ur illustrious countryman, Fisher, bishop of Rochester, ‘ho was then in prison for refusing to follow in the schisnatical footsteps of Henry.

In furtherance also of his wish for the speedy celebraon of the Council, and as a further proof of his sincerity, e summoned Vergerius to Rome, and shortly afterwards ‘ent him on a special embassy to the various courts of aermany, that the place for holding a meeting might be “nally agreed upon.

_ Of the Catholic princes of Germany, all, but the Elector Palatine, expressed their concurrence in the City of Mantua as a suitable and desirable locality; and, even mongst the Protestant princes, George of Brandenburg vas of the same opinion.

On his road through the territories of the Elector of Saxony, the Legate was most honourably received and reated by that prince; was waited on at table by his own iands; and heard from him many expressions of respect ind admiration for the Sovereign Pontiff. The Elector Iso introduced Luther to him at Wittemberg. He came(*) xecompanied by an associate of his, John Bugenhagen,

(1) The Cardinals Piccolomini, Sanseverino, Ghinucci, Simonetta, Cesis, to- ‘ether with Jacovaccio, then at the head of the Dataria, and shortly afterwards jardinal, and the bishops of Cassano and Aix. Pallay. L, III. ¢. xvit.

surnamed Pomeranus, who was in the habit of ordaining priests, by authority of Luther and of the academy of Wittemberg. From the account, given by Vergerius to the Pope’s secretary, Luther seems to have produced a most — unfavourable impression on his mind. He represents him as speaking so barbarously in the Latin tongue, that he could not believe that some of the works published as Luther’s were really from his pen; and, he adds, to give my opinion “ derived from his countenance, dress, gestures, and words, be he a man of talent or not; he is the very personification of pride, malice, and impudence.” (') His report(™) of Luther’s conversation assuredly bears out this judgment. Speaking of the \ | proposed Council, Luther burst out into phrensy, and ex- | claimed; “I will go to the Council, and may I lose my | | head if I don’t defend my opinions against all the world. | | What comes from my lips is not anger of mine, but God’s.” (") ee s\) If the Legate had cherished a hope of reconciling the | Protestants to the council, he was speedily undeceived, by the reply returned from Smaleald, on the 21st of Decem- { ber, 1535, by the confederated princes. Besides indulging, | as usual, in the bitterest invectives against the Roman See, and the Catholic faith, they peremptorily refused to be present at a council assembled in Italy; pleading that) | the fate of Huss would await their party there, at the | hands of the Pontiff; forgetting, it may be supposed, that | Huss perished in Germany, by the hands of Germans, at a Council that had deposed various Pontiffs, and at a time when there was no actual Pope to control the proceedings. |

(1) See Pallay. L. ILI. c. xviii.

(m) His account is, in the main, borne out by that of the Wittembergers. See Lutheri opera, T. VI. Alt. fol. 492, apud Seckend. Lib. VII. sect. vi. § 34. The account is from the same hand, but from one who was not present. i

() Non est ira mea, sed Dei! Vergerius, quoted by Pallay.1.c. As the whole conversation took place publicly, whilst the Legate was sitting at breakfast it cannot well be supposed, that Vergerius’ account to the Pontiff contained any thing but the truth; as his followers and servants could so easily have furnished an accurate report to Rome. a

They required that the council should be held in Germany; that the Pope should neither convoke nor preside at it; adding other demands of a like nature, which could not be acceded to without at once sacrificing fundamental points of doctrine and jurisdiction. They were encouraged in their opposition to the council, by the ambassadors of France and England; by the former power from political motives; by the latter as a counterpoise to the hostility of ‘Rome, occasioned by Henry’s late marriage, and proceedings n religion. Vergerius, at his own request, was recalled to Rome; to give an oral account of his mission, and of the state of parties in Germany, not only to the Pontiff, but also ito the Emperor, who was then at Rome, on his return from ‘his expedition in Africa. The result of lengthened interwiews between the Pope and the Emperor was made known in a consistory, held on the 8th of April, 1536, in which Paul proposed, and all the Cardinals assembled agreed, that a council should be immediately convoked, atthe city of ‘Mantua, a fief of the Empire. The arrangement of the necessary preliminaries was assigned to seven of the Cardinals,(°) assisted by Aleander and Vergerius. The last mamed prelate advised that the city of Mantua should not ibe named as definitively fixed upon, until the concurrence of the German princes had been secured; and he also wecommended, that in the bull of convocation the cusitomary clause, “according to the form of preceding counils,” should not be inserted, as being likely to give occasion to complaints on the part of the Protestants, and as having ibeen omitted in the bulls convoking the Councils of Con- ‘stance and Basil. The latter advice was followed, but not ithe former; as all hopes were now lost of securing the ‘agreement of that party to any legitimate assembly of the ‘Church, which it was now resolved to summon to vindicate Catholic truth, and to promulge the judgment of the ‘Church on the novelties of the day. It was moreover

(©) Piccolomini, Campeggio, Ghinucci, Simonetta, Contarino, Cesis, Cesarino. 'Pallay. L. Ill. c. XIX.

remarked, that as Mantua was a city, indirectly at least, under the power of the Emperor, the Germans could have

no reasonable pretext for objecting to it, and that the |}

majority of the German princes, the King of the Romans, and the Emperor had already consented to that city as a fit and desirable place.

A Bull, accordingly, was issued on the 2nd of June,

1536, appointing the 23rd of May next ensuing, for the

meeting of the Council at Mantua; and various nuncios _ | were immediately sent to the princes of Christendom to —

notify to them formally the convocation.

The Protestant princes, who were again assembled at — Smaleald, renewed to the Papal nuncio their refusal to |

attend at the Council, and in this they were imitated by the King of England, who declared that he had nothing more

to do with the Pope than with any other bishop; that it

was the right of princes to summon councils ; that the

claim of the Pope was a usurpation ; with similar asser- | tions in conformity with his new character, as head of the —

Church in England. As this had been anticipated it created no difficulty; but an unexpected obstacle was occasioned by a demand from the governor of Mantua, that the Pontiff should pay a guard of soldiers to consist of 150 infantry,

and 100 cavalry. This the Pontiff refused, not merely on

account of the unnecessary expense, but also, because any such act on his part was likely, or sure, to be represented by the adversaries of the Church, as destructive of the liberty of the meeting.

Many difficulties arising in the choice of another city, || the Pontiff, almost at the last moment, promulgated a Bull, ||

dated April 20th, 1537,(”) in which, throwing the blame of the delay on the Duke of Mantua, he prorogued the Council until the month of November; no place, however, being designated for the assembly, as none could, as yet, be determined on. Various negotiations immediately ensued

(p): Pallay. L. IV. c. iv. says May 20, but Raynaldus gives the Bull dated as in the text.

m this subject; the Pope proposing Padua, Verona, and Vicenza, cities of the Venetian territory; or Bologna, and Piacenza, in the Ecclesiastical States. The King of the Romans incidentally recommended to the Nuncio, the city £ Trent, as least likely to be objected to by the Con- ‘ederates. Paul had, meanwhile, obtained from the Reoublic of Venice permission to assemble the Council in the vity of Vicenza; information of which he communicated 10 the Christian world by a Bull, dated on the 8th of Jetober, appoimting the first of May of the ensuing year, | 538, as the day of meeting; and expressing a hope and xpectation that, before that period, peace would be coneluded between the Christian princes.

To prepare for the Council, Paul again appointed a committee, consisting of four cardinals and five other preates;(*) with instructions to prepare such a scheme of eformation as seemed to them suitable; a task which they erformed with unsparing zeal accompanied with admirable srudence. ‘To obtain the blessing of peace, so necessary 0 the profitable assembling of the Council, the Pontiff vent nuncios to the King of France and the Emperor; whilst his’ legates hastened to Vicenza to make the necessary preparations for opening the Council; thereby giving assurance to the world of the sincerity of his inentions. The legates chosen for this purpose were three vardinals of very distinguished merit and reputation, Camegeio, Simonetta, and Aleander. As the reports of his auncios were unfavourable to his hopes of peace, Paul sesolved to assume the character of a mediator between the wo crowns, and proceeded to Nice, to bring about, if vossible, an interview between the hostile monarchs. Jpon reaching Piacenza, information reached him that ‘s yet not a single bishop had arrived at Vicenza; and, 's now but five days remained before the appointed

(4) The cardinals were Contarini, Sadoleti, Caraffa (afterwards Pope), and “ole; the prelates were Fregoso, archbishop of Salerno, Aleander, Cortese, Badia ‘all raised subsequently to the cardinalate), and Giberti. Pall. L. IV.c y.

opening of the Council, he forwarded to his legates, on the 25th of April, a Bull of prorogation, delaying the opening till some future day to be by him determined; which, by another Bull, date June 28, 1538, was appointed to be the following festival of Master.

During the month that Paul remained at Nice, first visiting one of the monarchs, and then the other, he failed to bring them to a conference; but succeeded in obtaining | their consent to a truce of ten years. Almost, however, — immediately after his departure, an accident brought the — two princes into personal and friendly intercourse; an | event for which the Pontiff caused public thanks to be returned to God, as the presage of a lasting peace. Under © these more favourable circumstances, the council was again prorogued, at the request of the reconciled monarchs.

CHAPTER XII.

Charles opposed to a Council.— Attempts at pacification, —Diet of Spires.—The Council of Trent indicted.—Apointment of Legates.—Their instructions.—Arrival at "rent.—Eifforts to assemble prelates.— Arrival of the Imverial ambassadors. — Their departure. — War between “rancis and Charles.—Prorogation of the Council.— Diet # Spires.—Peace of Crépy.— Convocation of the Council. ~ Legates.— Arrival of prelates and ambassadors.— Coun- Wl delayed.— Prohibition to appear by proxy.—Preparaons.— Instructions to the Legates.—The French prelates dered to withdraw.—Recalled.— First general congregaon of the prelates.

When every obstacle seemed at length removed, a fresh ‘ifficulty arose in an unexpected quarter. Hitherto the smperor had been urgent for the council, but, as it had ow become perfectly manifest, that there was no longer ay hope that the Lutherans would yield to its authority, e foresaw that nothing awaited them but a public conemnation by the assembled prelates of the Church, which ould only add to their irritation and hostility against the iatholics. Surrounded as he was on all sides by watchful id powerful enemies, and awed by the growing power of ie Confederates, his policy was now to prevent, or at least delay the Council; and as a means of securing this ject, he requested of the Pope that another attempt naould be eats to conciliate the Lutherans, by sending fleander as his Legate into Germany.(") ‘To this the ope assented; but the result was as fruitless as must, om the circumstances of the times, and the temper and ate of parties, have been anticipated.

(*) Pallay. L. TV. ¢. viii.

Paul, wearied with opposition, and ashamed of having again and again to prorogue the meeting of a council, which he had authority to indict, but had not power to assemble, resolved, after much deliberation, to represent to | Christendom the difficulties of his position, and to postpone | the Council to an indefinite period; declaring, at the same time, his anxiety to convoke it, at the earliest possible opportunity. A Bull to this eflect was accordingly promulgated on the 13th of June, 1539.

Nearly three years were now employed in various fruitless attempts to effect a reconciliation, in matters of religion, without: having recourse to a council. But, ,the colloquy begun at Hagenau, and continued, at intervals, during the. years 1541-42, at Worms and Ratisbon; the interview | ‘and conferences between the Emperor and the Pope at f Lucca; the book of Concord; at other similar attempts at pacification, ended in nothing but disappointment, At length, in the Diet of Spires, held in 1542, the Legate Morone proposed that a council should be held in some | town of Italy, and, as a last concession, at Trent,—a city, | which, being in the ‘Tyrol, subject to the King of the | Romans, and on the confines of Germany, could not rea= || sonably be objected to by those of that nation, who really | desired the final settlement of the existing controversies. | Ferdinand, and the whole of the Catholic members of the } Diet agreed to the offer; but, as usual, especially in the absence of the Emperor, the Protestants rejected it; pro- | testing against it as being a meeting to be EA by | the Pope, and to be assembled without the precincts of | Germany. On his part, Paul proceeded at once to fulfill | his pledge, and in a Consistory held on the 22d of May, 1542, the form and tenor of the Bull of Convocation having | been agreed upon, it was published on the feast of the | Apostles Peter and Paul, indicting the Council for the | first of November, the festival of All Saints.

Morone, lately raised to the cardinalate, with the Cardinals Parisis and Pole, having been appointed the Legates | to ‘the Council, received their commission on the seth

f October. They were instructed to notify to the Christian rinces their arrival at Trent; to affix to the doors of the Yathedral the usual intimation, requiring those to repair that city, who, by right, or custom, ought to assist at feneral Councils; but they were not to proceed to open ae Council, until after the arrival of the principal of the relates from Italy, Germany, France, and Spain; nor nen without apprising the Pontiff, and awaiting his ommission. f The Legates received the cross on the 20th of October, at being unable to reach Trent by the day fixed for the yening of the Council, they were preceded by Giantomaso di San Felice, bishop of Cava, who was deputed, with e cardinal bishop of Trent, to receive the prelates as they ‘rived; and to make such preparations as were required: at their services were little needed, as but few bishops ached Trent prior to the appearance of the Legates, on e 22d of November. So slow, in fact, were they in premting themselves, that Cardinal Farnese had repeatedly urge, on the nuncios at the various courts, the necessity _ expediting, in every possible way, the prelates of their spective countries; and the Pope had, after all, to send aron Truxes into Germany, armed with a Breve exhorting ‘e bishops of the Empire to attend. The real cause of iis tardiness was the renewed war between Charles and vancis, which rendered it unsafe for the bishops to attempt e journey. The Emperor, however, sent Granvel and Mendoza as 8 ambassadors to Trent, at which city they arrived on 2 8th of January, 1543. Granvel, the Emperor’s chief mister, remained but a short time,—but enough tran- ‘ired, before his departure, to show that the Council was ‘t now desired by his master. Mendoza still remained * a time, as the representative of Charles; but, taking vantage of the small number of prelates at Trent, which evented the opening of the Council, he soon, contrary jhis promise, proceeded to his original embassy at Venice. ais satisfied the Legates that nothing could be done at F 2

present 5 and having now remained fruitlessly at Trent for seven months, during which only a few prelates from the Ecclesiastical States had arrived; as the Turks were pressing Christendom; and the war was raging between the King of France and the Emperor; they advised. the Pontiff to prorogue the Council to a more favourable opportunity. A Bull to that effect was shortly afterwards published by the Pope. ;

Pressed on every side by powerful enemies, the Emperor found himself constrained to conciliate the confederate princes; and, in the Diet, held at Spires, in 1544, he not only repealed the Edicts of Worms and Augsburg, but placed the Protestants in a position, both as regards the | ecclesiastical property which they had seized, and their eeneral religious and political condition in the state, which they had not hitherto occupied. ‘These concessions @Xcited the indignation of Paul, who, in a breve, dated | August the 24th, 1544, remonstrated with the Emperor in bold but paternal language, and went so far as to threaten | him with the censures of the Church, if the steps which | he had taken were not retraced, or were proceeded in. |

Bold as was this letter, it was received without resent: ment by Charles, who was conscious that his late necessities had laid him open to the just complaints of the Pontiff.

But a most unexpected event soon filled the mind of Paul with gladness. After a short campaign, peace was | concluded(*) between the “King and the Emperor; for’ which the Pope ordered public thanksgivings throughout Christendom; sent to congratulate the two princes; and, shortly after, removed the suspension of the Council, in a Bull published on the 19th of N ovember, summoning that assembly to meet at Trent, on the 15th of March of the ensuing’ year.

It was now evident, that the real business of the Council would have to be proceeded with; and Paul,- without

lelay, selected as his legates, men every way equal to so nportant an office; Giammaria del Monte, bishop of Palesrina, Marcello Cervini, and Reginald Pole. The first of hese had already greatly distinguished himself in numerous mbassies of importance, and was afterwards created Pope, nder the name of Julius III. ; the second succeeded Paul a the apostolic throne; and the last had well nigh been

pointed Pope in the preceding conclave, and was no less istinguished by his virtues, than by his high birth and’ ittainments. The Bishop of Cava was again sent to preiede the Legates; two of whom almost immediately folwed; Pole delaying his departure, from fear, it is sup- “osed, of meeting with violence from the emissaries of ae King of England.

The Legates, on leaving Rome, had neither received ‘eir written instructions, nor the Bull of their faculties; wut the necessary documents were forwarded shortly before fe opening of the Council. With one clause of their aculties, which required them to act with the consent of de assembled Fathers, they were discontented; it was, sowever, decided at Rome that it should be retained.

On their arrival at Trent, they found no other prelate dere but the Bishop of Cava; but, in a few days, there rived Campeggio, bishop of Feltro, and Fra Cornelio Tusso, bishop of Bitonto. Mendoza again repaired to “rent from Venice, to act as the representative of Charles ‘t the Council.. The ambassadors also of the King of the Xomans soon followed. The small number of prelates ‘resent rendered it, in the opinion of the Legates, unwise open the Council on the day appointed; especially as ney were given to understand, by Mendoza, that the Spa- ‘ish bishops would soon set out for the Council; and the “ope had given strict and urgent orders, that the bishops mmediately under his jurisdiction should hasten to the jlace of meeting. Other motives also induced the Lesates to delay. 'Theywere anxious to have specific infornation as to the proceedings of the Diet then assembled tt Worms; and to see, furthermore, what would be the

:

result of the prohibition issued by the Viceroy of Naples, forbidding the bishops of that kingdom to leave their dioceses, and requiring them to content themselves with the

four proxies which he promised to depute to act in their |

names. j The Pontiff, immediately on hearing of this interference,

commanded the opening of the Council to be delayed ; |

issued a Bull forbidding any bishop whatever to appear by proxy; and enjoining, under the severest penalties, that _ each should appear in person, in conformity with the oath taken at his consecration. Injuriously as this affected many bishops of Germany, the Pontiff resolved to adhere to it, until he had compelled the Viceroy to withdraw his prohibition.

Meanwhile, in consequence of a communication received from two of the Legates, Pole being still absent, the Pon- | tiff determined to open the Council on the 3rd of May, the festival of the Holy Cross. To beg a blessing on the | assembly, he had purposed to sing mass himself publicl on that day, in the Vatican church; but a letter whielt reached him from his Legates on the day preceding, changed his resolution. The opening of the meeting was | yet awhile delayed, from considerations of expediency connected with the small number of prelates present, and the | secret opposition to the Council on the part of the Em- | peror; who, embarrassed as he was with the Turkish war, | found it still necessary to conciliate the Protestants. It | was, however, understood that the Legates, without waiting for any direct orders from Rome, should open the Council as soon as it seemed to them expedient, guided by the advice of Cardinal Farnese, then Legate to'the Emperor. As regards the Viceroy of Naples, he felt himself compelled | to yield, in appearance at least, to the Papal Bull; and nominally to leave his prelates to act according to their own judgment and sense of duty; sending, however, only the four whom he himself had chosen, though without the odious name of proxies. |

The Legates, fearing lest these delays might seem to

astify the assembled prelates in their wish to leave 'T'rent, aused them to be fate employed in preparing for the fujare business of the Council; and thus not only succeeded 1 quieting the disggntented, but saw with pleasure that the rrivals not merely of able theologians and canonists, but \so of bishops, increased day by day. During this delay, ae Pope, still desirous of carrying out his original wish to old the Council within his own territory, opened his pur- ‘ose to the Emperor, who, at once, through fear of the ‘rotestants, objected to it, and expressed himself contented nat’ the Council should be ‘proceeded with at Trent. _ccordingly, in a Consistory, held on the 16th of Novemer, 1545, it was resolved that the Council should open on ae 13th of December following; a breve to that effect ‘sas expedited on the 4th of December, to the Legates, and. Bull issued to the Christian world. It was also arranged -aat the prelates of Germany, on account of their peculiar “reumstances, should be allowed to appear by proxy. All ‘ae bishops present at the Council were freed from the vayment of tithes, and empowered to receive their episcoal revenues during the time of their absence from their dioceses. Various instructions were also forwarded to the -wegates in reply to their inquiries:—they were to treat of setrine at once, notwithstanding any opposition to the ontrary; the opinions, and not the persons, of heretics vere to be condemned; but they were not to content themalves with a general condemnation of heterodox tenets, ut to proceed to details also; the matter of reformation ‘f discipline, as being of secondary importance, was not to -e proceeded with at once, but to be deferred, though not ‘ as to give occasion to a belief that it was not also m due lme to be attended to. As regarded the reformation of ‘ne courts of Rome, they were to listen and attend careally to such suggestions as might be offered in the Coun- ‘il, but to leave the determination of the matter to the "ope, whose business it was, and not that of the Council, apply a fitting remedy. All letters and other docunents, expedited in the name of the Council, were to bear

;

the signatures of the Legates, as presidents, and of the | Pope whom they represented; and to have the seal of — each, or at least of the first, of the Legates; finally, they | were empowered to bestow indulgenges, but not in the name of the Council.

In the midst of these arrangements, an unexpected difficulty was occasioned, by an order from the King of | France for the return of the prelates of that nation.(') The, Bishop of Clermont instantly departed, and after much | trouble, and not without threats of enforcing a breve of the Pope requiring them to remain, it was arranged, that, | of the three remaining French bishops, the Bishop of. Rennes should repair to the King; the Bishop of Agde linger in the neighbourhood of Trent until further orders from the crown, which soon required him to return — to Trent; and that the Archbishop of Aix should remain. A few days, however, removed the opposition of Francis. — On the 7th of November, final directions were sent to the | Legates to open the Council on the 13th of December; | and a breve to that effect having arrived at Trent on the) 11th of that month, a solemn fast, and public prayers and) processions were appointed for the day following, to implore | the blessing of Heaven on the undertaking. On the same" day, was also held a general congregation of the prelates, | one of whom, the Bishop of Jaén, expressed wish that the breve appointing the Legates, and assigning their | faculties, should be read on the following day, when the | Bull indicting the Council would, according to custom, be read. This was not agreed to; as it seemed enough, to, the majority of the prelates, that the last received breve, | directing the Legates to proceed, on the day specified, to open the Council, should be publicly read.(*) ot

(t) They were four in number; Antoine Imbert, archbishop of Aix; Guillaume Duprat, bishop of Clermont; Claude de la Guiche, bishop of Agde; and Claude Dodieu, bishop of Rennes. :

(v) Notwithstanding this arrangement, it will be seen that the Bull for opening the Council was not read until the second session.

Part Second,

SESSION I.

Opening of the Council_—Ceremonial observed.—Dewrees.— Prelates present.— Appointment of Officers. — Number of Bishops from the Ecclesiastical States.

The 13th of December, 1545, the day appointed. for the opening of the Council, having at length arrived, the me- -ithod of procedure was regulated by that followed in previous Councils.’ The Legates, accompanied by the Fathers, having arrayed themselves in their pontifical robes in the

church of the Trinity, and their intoned the hymn to the Holy Ghost, moved in procession to the cathedral dedicated to St. Vigilius. The regulars led the procession, and were followed by the secular clergy; then came the bishops, and lastly the Legates, accompanied by the amibassadors of the King of the Romans; and having arrived at the cathedral, Del Monte, as first Legate, celebrated a asolemn high mass, at the close of which he bestowed, in the name of the Pope, a plenary indulgence on all present, requiring of them prayers for the peace and concord of the church. A sermon in Latin was then preached by Fra ‘Cornelio Musso, the bishop of Bitonto; after which, the yarious prayers appointed for such occasions were recited by the first Legate, who gave the customary blessings to “the assembled Fathers.

:

He then addressed a brief exhortation to the prelates, after the Bull of November the 19th, 1544, removing the suspension of the Council, and the Breve of the 22nd of February, 1545, nominating the Legates, had been read by the Bishop of Feltro.

The bishops having taken their seats were asked by the president, whether it was their pleasure that the Council should be declared to be opened; and next, whether considering the hindrances presented, to any immediate proceedings, by the festivals which were at hand, the next session should be held on the day after the Epiphany? To each of these questions, each of the prelates replied, by the customary form of approval, “ Placet.” Upon which | Ercole Severoli, as promoter of the Council, demanded that an authentic record of the proceedings should be given him. At the close of the business, the hymn Te Deum was chanted; and the Legates, having taken off their robes, returned to their dwellings, preceded by the legatine cross, and accompanied by the Fathers. A similar | eeremonial was observed at each succeeding session.

There were present at the opening, the three Legates, four archbishops, twenty bishops, five generals of religious orders, and the ambassadors of King Ferdinand. (*yvedt was not till after the opening of the Council, that the Legates received their complete instructions as to the manner of conducting the assembly; nor that the officers necessary for the management of the public business were appointed. These instructions at length arrived, and ‘were in substance such as they have been already represented; Achilles de’ Grassi was nominated Advocate of the Council; Ugo Buoncompagni was chosen Abbreviator, to draw up, that is, the official documents; and Angelo Massarelli was deputed to the important office of Secretary, at first but for a time, but his great ability and aptitude

(ww) Pallay.L. V. c. xviii. Le Plat’s list is somewhat different. According to him, there were, besides the Legates, four archbishops, twenty-two bishops, and five Generals of Orders.

soon secured him that empioyment till the close of the Council. Only one point of importance remained to be regulated, which the Legates referred to Rome. They wished to know whether the votes were to be given by nations, or by individuals; and, at the same time, urged om the Pontiff the necessity of giving an example to the other princes, by sending to the Council bishops of disuinguished reputation, moderation, and peacefulness. And, as it has been not unfrequently represented, that, of the orelates present, the majority were under the direct territorial influence of the Sovereign Pontiff, it may be well, mee for all, to remark, that, so far was this from being the case, in reality not one in five of the bishops who assisted at the Council but was completely independent of chat influence, and under the immediate control of some one or other of the great princes of Christendom; as the very slightest inspéction of the list of bishops present, and of the countries from which they came, will at once evince. ‘The history too of almost every session of the Council joroves the complete independence of the bishops on the ‘Pontiff; and the unanimity which, in the midst of interests she most varied, prevailed, as regards all, or nearly all, the llecrees of faith, and even, as a general rule, in regard of lliscipline, is not the least marvellous fact in the history of hhis great event.

SESSION IL.

Preparatory congregations. — The right of voling.— The representing clause.—Complaints.—Decrees.—Opposition.—Prelates present.

All was now busy preparation for the ensuing Session. — Private congregations were almost daily held to consider | the subjects to be treated of, and to prepare the necessary decrees. But, besides these most important matters, there were others, of less consequence indeed, but still requiring an immediate adjustment, which occupied the minds of the Legates and prelates.

It had to be decided whether any persons, besides | bishops, should be permitted to give their vote on matters of doctrine; and, after some difficulty, it was settled, that | this privilege should be allowed to the Generals of the | Religious Orders, and that the three abbots of the Cistercian Order should have but one vote, as representing one order. Asregards those prelates who might be prevented, by some lawful impediment, from being present at the Council, but who sent their proxies, it was resolved, that the decision as to the right of voting should in each case rest with the Sovereign Pontiff. Another subject of contention, which, though for a time adjusted, was never finally settled, was the title to be given to the Council, at the beginning of the decrees in each Session. Many, not content with the terms “ general and cecumenical,” wished to add the words “ representing the universal church;” but the majority objected to the phrase, as not having been used in the ancient Councils, and as being useless when coupled with the words above-named; whilst the Legates regarded the expression as likely to give unnecessary umbrage, at the outset, to the Protestants, and as somewhat odious from having been employed by the Council

1546. ] SESSION IL. Ixxvul

of Basil which ended in being schismatical; whereas the ‘Council of Constance had, in the peculiar circumstances of the Church and of the times, special reasons for adopting it. rom a letter addressed by the Legates to the Pontiff, it its clear that the real cause of their opposition was the purpose for which, and especially the connexion in which, that phrase was used at Basil and Constance. The spirit of independence, if not the affectation of supreme authority, which this dispute evinced as animating many of the Fathers, was further manifested in many minute ‘particulars. _ Thus, they complained that the Legates had “opened the letters of the deputy of the Spanish ambassador without the consent of the rica; and when the Legates, for the more easy expediting of business, had appointed ithree of the oldest bishops to collect and give in the votes of the assembled prelates, they were compelled to abandon ithat arrangement; whilst, even the exemptions from tithes, granted by the Pope to the bishops present at the Council, were cavilled at, as being the exercise of a power which ought to have been left to the Council.

On the day already appointed, the 7th of January, 1546, was held the second session; at which Giovanni Fonseca, bishop of Castell 4 mare, celebrated the mass, and Coriolano Rieeticano: bishop of San Marco, preached. After the usual prayers, the secretary Massarelli read, in the name of the Legates, a long exhortation, composed by Cardinal Pole, in which the prelates were exhorted to the zealous practice of those virtues which their high office, ‘and their present position, so forcibly demanded at their hands. The Bishop of Castell 4 mare then read the Breve(*) which had fixed the 13th of December for the opening of the Council, and the Bull prohibiting votes by proxy. This was followed by the reading of the decree on the manner of life to be observed by the bishops, and others, at Trent, as given in the body of this work, under the second session.

(X) Dated Dee. 4, 1545.

The Placet was unanimous with two exceptions. — William du Prat, bishop of Clermont, demanded that, in the | id appointed. to be said, the name of the King of | ‘vance should be added to that of the Emperor, a request which was not complied with, as likely to produce similar — demands on the part of other monarchs, and also as being a deviation from the usage of the Church in her prayers on Good Friday. The second opposition was on the part of several Italian and Spanish bishops, and of one French bishop, who objected to the omission of the words “ representing the Universal Church.” '

Besides thirty-five theologians, as consultors, amongst — whom were men of great eminence, as Soto, Oleaster, Catherinus, Vega, and others, there were present at this session, four cardinals, four archbishops, twenty-eight bishops, four generals of orders, and three abbots.

SESSION III.

Preparatory Congregations—Haith and Discipline to ve united.—Eaample given by Del Monte.—Prelates divided nto three classes.—The Session and Decrees.—Death of Luther.

_ The first congregation, preparatory to the third session, was held on the 13th of January, and was principally employed on the vexed question of the title to be given to “the Council, at the heading of the decrees. But, in the subsequent meetings,(”) a question of greater importance arose, which was long debated with much violence and obstinacy. It was well known to be the wish of the Emeror, that the Council should confine itself, at first, to he reformation of discipline, as least likely to give um- ‘orage to the Protestants, whom, from political motives, he was still anxious to conciliate; but as the sovereign Pon- ‘ifs, in their various Bulls, had proclaimed one of the special ‘objects of the Council to be the extirpation of heresy, the wishes of the Imperial party were resolutely opposed. It was represented, that it had been the custom of preceding Jouncils to begin with dogma; that articles of faith being of most importance, it was but suitable that they should aave precedence; and that, whereas the faith of the Church was clear and easy of definition, great difficulties surrounded the subject of reformation, which, being a matter, in great art, regulated by varying times and circumstances, required calm and deliberate investigation; otherwise, it might happen that they might change, without reforming, ‘he abuses complained of. These and similar reasons, it was urged, had induced the Pontiff to require of the “uegates, that faith alone should at first be treated of. But

(¥) On January 19th and 22nd.

it was soon apparent to the Legates, that this command could not be complied with, without an open rupture with many of the prelates; of which they speedily informed the Pontiff through Cardinal Farnese, and, after some delay, the advice of Campeggio, bishop of Feltro, was followed— | that both faith and discipline should be treated of together, the one proceeding uniformly with the other.

As an example to the rest, the first Legate, after returning thanks to Almighty God for the desire manifested by | the prelates to reform whatsoever real abuses existed in their order, declared that he would at once renounce his | bishopric_of Pavia, lessen the number of his attendants, | and in every feasible way reduce his expenditure; a declaration which filled the majority of the bishops present no less with wonder than joy; whilst it confounded. others, who, in urging the necessity of reform, had not anticipated that the work was so speedily to begin with themselves.

“The Cardinals Cervini, Pacecco, and.Pole followed in_| the same train as the Cardinal Del Monte; and admonished the Fathers, that the reformation ought to commence with | themselves, and extend to whatsoever and wheresoever abuses existed unworthy of the purity and perfection of | the Christian character.

On being informed of the determination to unite faith. and discipline, the Pontiff was highly indignant; reproved the Legates; and insisted on their withdrawing their concurrence. Butafter some difficulty, it was finally arranged, that the treatment of faith and discipline should not have place in the next, but begin with the ensuing, Session; a compromise which tends to confirm the remarks already made, onthe perfect-freedom, and independence on the Pontiff, of the assembled Council.

In order to facilitate business, and to secure a more calm consideration for each question, the prelates were divided into three congregations; one of which met at the residence of each of the Legates. The result of their deliberations was to be communicated to general congregations, to be there finally examined and decided on,

1546. ] SESSION III. Ixxxi

mrevious to the public Session. ‘These assemblies began irst to meet on the 2d of February, and in each of them tt was stated, that many bishops were known to be either m their way to Trent, or preparing for their journey; and twas proposed that all further decisions should be susvended and avoided until after their arrival. This delay ‘eemed but reasonable to the majority; but, by the advice f the Bishop of Fano, it was resolved, though not without pposition, that, after the manner of antecedent Councils, ‘he Creed, as recited in the Mass, should be proposed ublicly for acceptation in the approaching Session.

That Session, according to appointment, was held on re 4th of February; 1546. Pietro Tagliavia, archbishop f Palermo, sang the solemn Mass; and the sermon was

weached by Ambrogio Politio, better known by his regious name, Catherinus. The celebrant read the two ecrees given under the third Session,—the one accepting ‘ne Creed, the other appointing the 8th of April for the vext Session. ;

It may be remarked that, though no decree was proaulgated binding the Council to treat conjointly of faith ind discipline, it had nevertheless been clearly understood, a ageneral congregation, that such was to be the method jursued in the following Sessions.

There were but three dissentients, on the proposal of ie first decree; and their objections were not to the “reed, but to the omission of the representing clause. “wo also entered their protest against the omission of a secree binding the Council to treat conjointly of faith and ‘iscipline.

There were present, besides thé three Legates, the Carjinals of Trent and of Jaén, twenty-seven. bishops, three ibbots, five generals of orders, and Father Le Jay, as the ‘roctor of the Cardinal Bishop of Augsburg.

It was about this time, that is, on the 18th of February, 546, that Martin Luther died, in the territory of the Younts of Mansfeldt, where also he was born. 'Thisis not

the place to enter into an examination of the various, and | often contradictory, qualities of this man. But, his learn- _ ing may be measured by his writings; his sincerity by | his repeated offers of silence provided his adversaries

would remain quiet ; his morality by the authorization of

polygamy in the person of the Landgrave of Hesse ; his © religious system by the motives which prompted it, the | changes which it continually underwent, and by the few | years which have seen it, piece by piece, almost universally | abandoned ; his distinctive principle, by the herd of fanatics and sects that, in following it, have disgraced | Christianity by their tenets, and by the more vile theories | of rationalism and thinly disguised infidelity that have

emanated from it. |

SESSION IV.

Canon of Scripture.—Questions regarding tt.—Opinions held in the Congregations.—On the anathema appended to “he decree.—Arrangements to expedite business.—Congreyations of Theologians and Canonists.—Deputies to prepare he decrees on Reformation.—Apostolical Traditions.— Debates on that subject—The Council of Florence.—The vepresenting clause.—On receiving Apostolical traditions md Scripture with equal affection of piety and reverence. | —The catalogie of sacred books.—The authorized version. —New edition of the Vulgate proposed—Rule of interpre-

-ation.—On commentaries, and printers—Scriptures in the vernacular tongue.—The Session—Number of Prelates resent.

In the first general congregation, held on the 8th of “ebruary, 1546, the Legate Del Monte,—after a few emarks on the representing clause, and on the omission, athe last session, of any decree binding the Council to mite faith and reformation in its proceedings,—proposed, 8 the subject to be examined and prepared for the ensuag session, the canon of sacred Scripture; which, as inalving the settlement of the groundwork of faith; and 3 amatter which the heretics had thrown into doubt and onfusion; it was desirable first to dispose of.

This being agreed to, three questions were, on the 11th “February, placed before the private congregations to be onsidered.

1. Were all the books, commonly received as forming ‘se Old and New Testaments, to be proposed as sacred vad canonical. | 2. Was such approval to be given without any fresh | samination of the evidence in their favour.

3. Was it advisable to divide the sacred writings into two classes ; one, comprising guch books as the Proverbs and Wisdom, to be read for edification ; the other, containing such writings as were to he used for proof of doctrine and morals. ‘This last question was urged at the

instance of Bertan and Seripando, and especially of the |

latter, who, in an essay of much learning, endeavoured to support the proposed division as the best and most orthodox. It found, however, few or no supporters, and was accordingly silently dropped, as utterly untenable as a) question of fact, and as opposed to the received opinion | and practice of the Church. |

Neither was there any great diversity of opinion as regards the first question. Cardinal Cervini expressed the almost unanimous sentiment of the Council, when, in the | general congregation of the 12th of February, he declared that, although many heretics and a few Catholics, had denied the inspiration of some of the ordinary books of which the body of Scripture is composed, the matter had been long since practically settled; by a gradual but accumulating evidence expressed and represented, with greater or less fulness, in various authentic records derived from the early ages of the Chureh; and that so uniform a practice and belief prevailed on this head throughout the Christian world, prior to the new-born heresies, that no doubt could remain that the whole of the books of Scripture, as used in the Church, were to be acknowledged and proosed as the word of God.

On the second question, there was much diversity 0! opinion; not only amongst the Fathers, but even betweer ‘hs Legates. The Cardinal Del Monte was opposed to an) fresh examination; whilst Cervini and Pole were desirou: that the evidence in favour of the inspiration and canoni city of each of the deuterocanonical writings should b carefully stated, and the ordinary objections answered The former appealed to the principle ever acted on in th Church,—that what has once been settled as regards faitl by Councils approved of by the Church, shall never agait

10t only not be doubted of, but not even be subjected to a fresh conciliar examination. That examination had seen made by eminent prelates; the result recorded in ‘he public acts of the Church; the decision had received he tacit sanction at least of the Church, and as such’ was aot to be disturbed, or, by renewed examination, treated as if doubtful. As to the objections of heretics, their refuation had been undertaken, and satisfactorily accomplished, vy many able Catholic writers.

On the other hand it was urged, that the examination proposed was intended, not to throw doubts on the past llecisions of Fathers and Councils, but to confirm them; and to furnish a clear and ready answer to the objections of modern separatists.

In the private congregation at which Cervini presided, ‘this Sesee opinion prevailed; but, in the general congre- ‘gation, held on the 12th of February, no decision was ‘some to; and in that of February the 15th, so great was he confusion and difference of opinion, that it became Niaecessary to take the votes of each separately and by name. ‘From this scrutiny there appeared, as has been said, the; nost perfect unanimity in receiving as canonical the usual ‘Books of Scripture; but, as to adding an anathema against such as refused to admit all the deuterocanonical writings, there was a difference of sentiment: Cardinal Pacecho, and with him the Legates, and more than twenty of the Fathers, being in favour of the anathema, whilst Madrucci, followed iby fourteen of the bishops, opposed it. As to the renewed examination of the evidence in favour of the books of Scripture, ‘it was arranged, in the congregation of the 20th of February, ‘that a private examination should be entered upon; such as might enable them to give an account of their faith on lithis head; but that the result was not to be registered ‘amongst the public acts of the Council. ‘To expedite and ‘facilitate business, several useful arrangements were now ‘come to; the first assigning, to each of the three congre- ‘gations, two of the Fathers—one eminent in theology, the ‘other in canon law—whose duty it should be to draw up

the decisions come to on Scripture and Tradition;(%) the second was of a permanent nature, and consisted in dividing into three classes, or committees, the theologians and canonists, who had repaired to the Council in considerable numbers, and comprised some of the most profound scholars of the day. ‘They were henceforth to be employed as consultors to the assembled prelates; were to be presided over by the Legates, with a recommendation to the bishops to assist at their deliberations, but not to take any part whatever in their proceedings. The various questions placed before the three congregations of prelates, were also to be submitted to these classes of theologians, and the result of their examination was to be referred to the congregation of bishops, to be by them considered, prior to the general. congregations and sessions. About the same time,(") in order that discipline might proceed together with faith, as had been agreed on, eleven of the Fathers and theologians were deputed(") to consider and report on the abuses that might be found to have crept into the use, whether of Scripture or of Tradition.

These regulations having been completed, the private congregations proceeded to consider divine and apostolical traditions—such doctrines, that is, and practices, as, taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles, have not been recorded in the sacred writings, but have been transmitted, in various ways, from age to age. Numerous congregations, both particular and general, were held on this subject. On the existence of such traditions all were agreed; but whilst some insisted that the received traditions should be distinctly ae ne others were as urgent that they should be approved of in the most general manner possible, even to the exclusion of the distinctive term apostolical, for fear of

(*) The prelates, appointed to this office, were Salvador Alepts, archbishop of’

Sassari, the Archbishops of Matera and Armagh, and the Bishops of Badajoz, of Beleastro, and of Feltro.

() In the congregation of February 18th.

(v) They were Filholi, archbishop of Aix; Vigerius, bishop of Sinigaglia; the Bishops of Cava, Castellamare, Fano, Betonto, Astorga: aided by Seripandy, Alfonso di Castro, Richard of Mans, and Catherinus.

(1546.] SESSION ‘IV. Ixxxvii

seeming to repudiate such usages and rites as could not

be traced to that source. After repeated meetings, a orang sentiment of agreement spread amongst the Fathers, that the decree of the Council of Florence should be their guide, not only on the canon of Scripture, but also on Tradition; when the Bishop of Chioggia objected, that the decree of Florence was dated the 4th of February, 1441, whereas, as he was of opinion, that Council actually terminated in 1439. To this the first Legate, prompted lit is thought by Cervini, replied, that it was true that the (Greeks left the Council at the period named; at the close, that is, of the seventh session; but that the Council in reality continued open at Florence for three years more; was finally transferred to Rome; and that there could be mo doubt of the authenticity of the decree in question, since it was preserved in the Castel S. Angelo, at Rome, signed by the names of the Fathers then present, and authenticated by the Pope's seal; and that Cervini had ihimself seen and examined the originals. Later, at the wequest of Cervini, Cardinal Farnese sent an authenticated copy of the document in question.

At length the six deputies, commissioned to draw up ithe decree_on Scripture and Tradition, in conformity with ithe sentiments of the various congregations, presented the fruit of their labours to the assembled Fathers. The Bishop of Fiesoli at once raised the old objection to the comission of the representing clause, and to the insertion of the words “ the ates of the Apostolic See presiding.” As to the omission, it was again replied by Cervini, that ‘the words were unknown to the ancient Councils, and had mot been used by any Council at which the Pope presided; whilst, as to the words inserted, he endeavoured to show ithat they had been employed by some of the most ancient isynods of the Church.

Against the exposition of the sources of faith,—wherein lit was decided, that the’ Council received the written revelations of God, together with the unwritten revelations, or traditions, which, uttered by Jesus Christ to the

apostles, or made known to them by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, had been handed down from age to age, even to the present day,—it was objected by some, that the statement was too limited; by Seripando that it was too extensive; but the difficulties of both these parties were surmounted after a brief explanation.

The declaration, that both the written and the unwritten ||

word were received “with equal affection of piety and reverence,” was opposed by Bertan, on the plea, that, though every truth is from the first great truth, yet is not every truth to be revered as the word of God. To this Musso replied, that the traditions, equalled with the written word, were such only as were equally the revelations of God; merely differing in the accidental circumstance, that the one class of truths was recorded in writing by the

apostles, whereas the other was preached and transmitted”

by the same authority. That, as the being written did not make certain registered truths the word of God, neither did the being not written cause the traditions treated of to cease to be the word of God. But, though this was the sentiment of the great majority, and a truth so obvious, Musso, in the next congregation,(") was willing to place, instead of equal,(*) the word like, or similar;(°) a change, however, which was not acceded to.

In the general congregation of the 5th of April, the bishop of Chioggia raised a more intemperate opposition 5 regarding the traditions as laws, not as revelations; and pronouncing it impious to declare them of equal authority with the written word. This sentiment had no approvers, but excited the indignation of the whole assembly; which soon caused him to explain away, as best he could, his strong censure.

As regards the list of the sacred writings, the proposed

phrase, psalms of David, was objected to, as seeming to |

decide that all those pieces were from the pen of that

(c) April 3, 1546. (@) Pari. (e) Simiti.

546, | SESSION IY, Ixxxix

ing and prophet; and accordingly the words Davidical *salter were substituted. The acts of the apostles which, )1 the proposed draft of the decree, were placed after the pistles of St. Paul, were, in the same general congregaon, put after the gospels.

A more violent discussion arose, or was renewed, on “ae proposal to append an anathema against those, who, a the words of Hie decree, as proposed, “violated the ered books and apostolical traditions.” Seripando revarked, that such an anathema had never heretofore been ‘Ided to any canon prepared’ by any previous authority; id proposed, that at most there should be imposed an xcommunication, and that not to be ipso facto incurred,

it to be launched by competent authority. The example, -owever, of the seventh synod was cited against him; and

jas resolved that no alteration should be made, in this ‘spect, in the decree.

le likewise objected to the proposed words, “violators Scripture and of Tradition,” as being too general, and ‘wey were accordingly changed into those now found in | ae decree, “Tf any one receive not,” &e, The question of the abuse of the Scripture came next ander consideration ; and four especial complaints on this 5

ead, and their remedies, as proposed by those named above delegated for this purpose, were examined in the general ongregations.

1. The great variety of translations current in the hurch was an evil to be remedied ; and it was accordingly ‘vised that one translation only should be regarded as authorized ; and for this purpose, St. Jerom’s version, or we Vulgate, was daiacied and proposed, as being the vost ancient; the most used; as representing more rrectly the state of the ancient copies of the Greek and ‘lebrew Scriptures than any other Latin version, or even, ‘obably, than any other then, or now, existing, Greek or ‘lebrew edition; and finally, as having been prepared wes before the modern disputes, and therefore unbiassed y them.

2, The mass of various readings found in the different | | editions of the Bible, both in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew copies, rendered it advisable, that as accurate an | edition as possible should. be printed, under the care of the Sovereign Pontiff, and a copy be forwarded to every | episcopal church. |

3. The license of interpretation being the great evil of | the day, various regulations were proposed as calculated | to secure a more accurate exposition ; and, amongst other | proposals, it was recommended, that it should be forbidden | to interpret the Scriptures contrary to the declared ‘senti- | ment of the Church, and to the unanimous consent of the | Fathers; and that the license of certain ecclesiastical censors should be required, previous to the publication | of any commentary on holy writ.

4. Printers were found to publish from very incorrect | editions of the Scripture, and to publish these, and notes | on the sacred books, without their own name, or that of. the author: to remedy this evil, heavy penalties and fines | were advised against all who should henceforth be guilty of such conduct.

‘Cardinal Pacheco was of opinion, that, in addition to the abuses above-named, the translation of the Sriptures into the vulgar tongue, ought, in such evil days as they had fallen upon, to be enumerated as one of the most prominent evils; remarking that, for ages, the Scriptures had not existed, even amongst the Jews, in the vernacular tongue; but he was reproved civilly, though warmly, by Cardinal Madrucci, who reminded him, amongst other things, of the scandal which such a procedure would give to Christendom, and what a triumph especially it would furnish to the Germans; and declared that any such act would be opposed to the advice of St. Paul, who would have the sacred word familiar to the faithful. This opinion prevailed; though there were not wanting some who thought the advice of Pacheco, as a rule for extraordinary circumstances and times, sound; and considered, that certain parts, at least, of the sacred writings were neither

546. SESSION IY. . kei

atended for promiscuous study.and reading, nor beneficial o all; and that the history of the Church, both Jewish jnd Christian, would furnish no mean support to a judiious restraint on the indiscriminate use of the vernacular Scriptures. The first recommendation of the delegates. vas unanimously adopted by the Fathers; but Cardinal *acheco not only desired that the Vulgate should be provosed as the authorized version, but also that all others thould be repudiated, especially those by heretics, and vould have the rejection extend even to the Septuagint. “his was strenuously opposed by Bertan, as being contrary ) the practice of the Church, which not only had used de Septuagint, but had availed itself also of the versions € Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila. It was also -ecommended, by some of the bishops, that the Council ould select and propose some one copy of the Greek, and f the. Hebrew, and even of other languages, as authorized “y it; but to the majority it seemed sufficient to confine nemselves to the Vulgate, as being a version into a snguage more extensively understood than any other ‘aroughout Christendom. So that, on this head, the *commendations of the deputies were solely and fully greed to.(')

_ 2. As to the proposed corrected version of the Vulgate, _ Was decreed, “that an edition was to be printed in the “sost correct manner possible.”

3. The resolutions come to on the interpretation of the ~acred Scriptures will be best seen in the translation of ae decree given in the body of this work. But it ma remarked, that the bishop of Chioggia noticed, that the words of the decree were not to be understood of any ‘nd of difference from the unanimous interpretation by

() It may be useful to remark, that Vega, in the congregation at which he | sisted, explained the words of the decree, as asserting the entire freedom of the “algate from all errors against faith and morals, but not from such imperfections ‘sare incidental to all translations. See this subject well treated of by Pallaviau, L. VI. c. xvii. p. 573—582.

the Fathers, but of a direct opposition to, and contradiction of it; and that to give a new exposition to @ passage, which, neither by the authority of the Church, nor by the unanimous consent of the Fathers, had received a fixed meaning, was In no way opposed to the mind of the.

Council. The cardinal of Jacn was urgent, that all commenting |

on the Seriptares should be confined, to Doctors and | Clerics; but he was warmly resisted by Madrucei and the | majority of the Fathers, who contended that, as the | Scriptures were written for the instruction of all, so might | all study them, and give, if they pleased, the result of

theix meditations to the world; and that the establishment |) of censors was & sufficient security against any danger

from heterodox interpretations. 4

4. It was agreed, at the suggestion of Madrucci, that no work on the sacred Seriptures should be allowed to be published without the name ofthe author: and, with regard to printers of the Seriptures, the decree of the last Council of Lateran was adopted and confirmed.

Though very many other suggestions were offered, in regard of various other abuses of the Scriptures, but little further was done, on this subject, this session.

Meanwhile the members of the Council went on increasing; as, during the congregations just held, there had arrived, besides the Imperial ambassadors, several Spanish, Greek, and Italian bishops.

Such were the various matters treated of in the committees and congregations, prior to the sublic Session, held on the 8th of April, 1546. On that be) the archbishop of Sassari having celebrated the mass, and the general of the Servites preached, the decrees agreed upon were publicly read by the celebrant, and approved. of with but slight opposition, as all gave their Placet, without remonstrance, except the following. The bishops of Cap accio, I‘iesole, Badajos, and Osca, renewed the demand for the representing clause 5 whilst the bishop of Chioggia, instead of the usual term of approval, answered, “I will obey,’

1546.] " SESSION V. xeiii

hereby intimating his discontent with the clause that seceives, with equal reverence, the Scriptures and apostoliisal traditions; against which clause, Soranzo, coadjutor vishop of Bergamo, also expressed some slight objection.

There were present at this Session, the three legates, wo other cardinals, eight archbishops, forty bishops, and the same abbots, and generals, as in the preceding Session.

SESSION V.

Congregations.—Original sin to be treated of.—Reforms oroposed.—Heads of Inquiry on Original Sin.—Propo- ‘sitions extracted from heretical Writers.—Principle folowed in framing the Decrees.—Opinions prevalent in the ‘Congregations. —Proposed Declaration relative to the B. Wirgin—On Infants who die unbaptized.—Greneral character of the Decrees.—Reformation.— Decrees on.— ‘Complaints against the Regulars. — Bishops to act, im cer~ tain cases, as Delegates of the Apostolic See.— inal changes in the draught of the Decrees. The Session.— \WDissentients.—Prelates present.

Having laid the foundation of the structure of faith, it owas resolved to proceed to the heresies of the day, and first of all to the question of original sin, as being the groundwork of the role mystery of redemption; and then ‘to pass on to the closely connected subject of justification, whereby original, and other, sin is destroyed; and finally, ‘to the ‘sacraments, as the divinely appointed means of obtaining, preserving, and strengthening us in the grace of God.

This determination was communicated by the Legates ito the Sovereign Pontiff, in a letter in which they recommended various reforms in favour of episcopal residence

and jurisdiction; subjects on which we shall soon have to | treat in detail. To this the Pope readily assented; but not so the Imperial ambassador, and many prelates who |

knew the anxious desire of the Emperor, not to inflame

the minds of the Protestants by decrees adverse to their | novelties. But, neither the arguments, nor the threats, of |

Toledo, the Imperial envoy, could move the Legates from their purpose; in which they were speedily confirmed by a letter from the Pontiff, which caused them to proceed at once, in the private and general congregations, to the consideration of the question of original sin; notwithstanding the entreaties of the ambassador, for a delay at least, until he could receive an answer from the Emperor. Accordingly, in a general congregation, held on the |

28th of May, the Cardinal Del Monte proposed that they |

should resume the examination of the doctrine of original | sin, on which they had already been employed, slightly |

in their public, and much in their private, meetings; a

proposal, which, after some opposition, was agreed to. It was then resolved that their inquiries should be directed to these five points: the nature of original sin; the manner | of its propagation; the effects produced by it; its remedy;_ and the effects of that remedy.

There were also, at the same time, placed before the Fathers the following propositions, extracted from the writings of the heretics, to be examined, and, if declared heterodox, to be condemned :

1. That though Adam, by his transgression of the prohibition of God, lost his original justice, incurred the anger of God, and subjected himself to the penalty of death, yet did he not transmit sin, but only the punishment of sin, to his posterity,

2. That the sin of Adam is called original, because it has been transmitted from him by imitation, but not by propagation.

3. That original sin is the ignorance or contempt of God, causing man to be without trust in God, without fear, and without-love of Him, and subject to concupis-

(546. ] SESSION Y. XV

rence ; is, in fact, a general corruption of the whole man,

m his will, soul, and body. 4. That there is in children a proneness to evil, which,

when they come to the use of reason generates a distaste

‘or good, and a love for evil; and that this is original sin. 5. That children, though baptized for the remission of

ain, are not born in sin, and this especially as regards the

children of the faithful. 6. ‘That baptism does not eflace original sin, but only sauses it not to be imputed, or as it were erased; so that,

though it begins to be lessened, it is never utterly destroyed, in this life.

7. That this sin, by remaining in the baptized, retards

‘heir entrance into heaven.

8. That concupiscence is truly and essentially sin.

9. That, besides death, and the other penalties of vrigiaal sin, the fire of hell is its appointed punishment.

These opinions, therefore, and the questions already

aamed, were subjected to long and minute examination.

On the nature of original sin, and the manner of its

ropagation, the numerous and well-known systems of the

‘arious schools were urged with great earnestness and ability

“y the various “godae oa iG of those schools ; but, as the

Souncil firmly adhered to the principle, that, not the opiaions of the schools, but the heresies of the times were the

bject of their meeting; and that, consequently, in the

lecrees, everything should be carefully avoided, which

might seem in the least to give the preference to one class

of opinions over another on these mysterious subjects ; it

‘SS not necessary to enter into any details on the usual

scholastic systems, or to analyze the lengthened arguments which ee the congregations for months, on

the nature or quiddity of original sin, and the specific

manner of its transmission. It will suffice to remark,

that, in the private congregations, the opinions of St.

Thomas, on the first question, urged by the Bishops of

‘Motola and of Bossa, both of the order of St. Dominick,

seemed to find most favour; whilst, on the second, the

ingenious explanation, or illustration, urged with consum- 1 mate skill by Catherinus,—who argued for the existence of a covenant between the Almighty and Adam, by which — the obedience or disobedience of our first parent-was to affect the whole human race either for good or evil,—was looked upon as furnishing a simple, perhaps a probable, solution of a great difficulty; though, it was felt, that, despite his ingenious interpretations of Scripture in favour | of his views, the existence of that pact or covenant re- | mained still to be proved. It will, accordingly, be seen | in the decrees of the Council, that, contenting themselves with asserting the existence of original sin, and its actual propagation, the Fathers condemn the contrary heresies, | but avoid all notice of the various systems, by which the nature of that sin and the manner of its transmission, are | attempted to be explained.

When those decrees were read in general congregation on the 8th of June, Cardinal Pacheco required that, to the second canon which asserts the transmission of original sin to the whole human race, there should be added the words: “As regards the Blessed Virgin, the Council does not intend to define anything; although it is piously believed, that she was conceived without original sin.” This opinion had a majority in its favour, but was opposed by all the bishops of the Dominican order, and by a few other prelates, as a deviation from the resolution not to condemn any opinion prevalent in the church: for, as it seemed to them, to declare one opinion pious, was indirectly to condemn the contrary as impious. It was at length, after much debate, agreed, that the obnoxious words should be expunged; and that the council should content itself with citing the well-known declaration of St. Augustin,(*) that, when speaking of sin, there was no intention of including the blessed mother of God; and with renewing the decree of Sixtus IV. on this vexed question.

(s) Excepta itaque sancta yirgine maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nul- Jam prorsas cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo questionem. De nat. et grat. ec. 36.

As regards the other points: there was neither difficulty, nor difference of opinion on the effects of original sin, and the punishments inflicted on that sin: but a question arose as to the nature of the punishment endured by infants who die in original sin; unregenerated, that is, by baptism.

This being one of those questions agitated in the schools, no mention is made of it in the decrees ; but, in the con-

-gregations, the opinion of St. Thomas found most favour ; which, whilst it excludes them from the beatific vision of

‘God, considers them free, both from the pain of sense and

of loss, and in a state where existence is preferable to annihilation.

That baptism is the appointed remedy of original sin, and restores man to the grace and favour of God, making

aim the heir of heaven, was universally admitted; and it was also equally agreed, that nothing that has the true ature of sin remains in those regenerated by that sacrament; and that, consequently, concupiscence is not properly speaking sin, though it incline to, and is. one of the affects of, sin. ,

Finally, it will, at a single glance, be seen, that the pro- ‘positions extracted from the writings of the Protestants, specially of Zuingle, are directly and especially condemned m the decrees of the Council.

Tt has been already said, at the beginning of this sec- ‘don, that very important reforms in favour of episcopal ‘jurisdiction, and tending also to promote the residence of ‘prelates in their dioceses, together with the restriction, or prohibition, of pluralities, had been proposed, by the Legates, to the Pontiff: it was, however, determined, that, ‘before touching on subjects so vast and important, certain ‘reforms, connected with the use of the sacred Scriptures; ‘the establishment of more numerous lectureships on those writings; and the more frequent preaching of the word of ‘God, should be considered and resolved on in the present ‘Session, —1matters which had already engaged the attention ‘of the Council, in the preceding Session, but on which no specific decision had been come to.

In the congregations held on these points, we find very bitter complaints, on the part of some of the prelates, and especially a Martelli, aha of Fiesole, against the privilegen and exemptions granted to the Regulars in their dio coses 5 80 AB LO 5 panes the ordinaries, 1 was represented, but the name, without the authority, of bishops: that to the Regulars alone was practically confined the office of preach= ing; to them the confessional; ina word, nearly the whole ministry and government of their churches. ‘These repre sentations were replied to, with his usual moderation and skill, by Cardinal Pole; and with more severity, in the next congregation, held on the igth of May, by the Car dinal Del Monte, who declared that the imputations, cast on the Regulars, were both injurious to the Roman Pon tiffs, and insulting to the Regular orders. Martelli, find. ing himself opposed to the great majority of the Council, was obliged to apologize.

Numerous congregations having been held on the contemplated reforma, it was at length resolved, that, not onl in cathedral, and metropolitan, churches, and other he,

laces, a leetureship on aacred Seripture should be established where such did not already exiat, but also that a similar arrangement should be made in all houses of Regulara ; ax may be seen in detail in the first chapter one

Reformation,

The provisions of the second wre rogard the duty:

and office of preaching, which was to be exercised by the bishopa in their own dioceses y and certain limitations of the privileges of Regulars, who were not thenceforth to be allowed to preach, except in churches belonging to their own order, without being licensed by the Fishop’} and, even before preaching in those of their own order, were to receive the episcopal benediction, Other wise regulations on this subjeet will be found in the chapter named,

Bouidos the above reforms, the means of onforeing the residence of bishops came under long and repeated con= aideration; but it was at length agreed to reserve that aubject for after deliberation, whon the obstacles to resis dence should have been more effectually removed,

1546, SESSION Y. Xcix

In reading the first chapter on reformatidh, in this Sesion, & phrase will be met with, which occurs very frequently ‘im other parts of the Council, and which it will be well wriefly to notice here. The bishops are empowered to act “as the delegates of the Apostolic See,” in certain cases if negligence on the part of superiors of the Regular orders. “his phrase was adopted as a compromise between the Regulars and the Bishops, in cases which had heretofore een, by special privilege, reserved to the Sovereign Pon- ‘ff On the one hand, therefore, it was resolved, prac- ‘eally to restore the episcopal jurisdiction; and, on the ther, it was wished, in name at least, to respect the privioges of the religious; and, for this end, the bishops. were mpowered to exercise indeed their jurisdiction—in certain aatters hitherto privileged and exempted—but not by heir ordinary power, but as deputed thereto by the Aposalice See, Such were the matters that occupied the various conwegations, until within a few days of the fifth Session. ‘he deputies had now drawn up the proposed decrees, seording to the votes of the assembled Fathers, and the ssult of their labours was laid before a final general contegation, held on the 8th June, The principal verbal iterations made, on that occasion, in the form of the devees prepared by the delegates, were the following;—

Tn the first decree on original sin, instead of “ the justice ‘herein Adam had been created” (creatus), there were ibstituted the words, “the justice wherein he had been onstituted” Sieg Hey in consequence of a remark by ardinal Pacheco, that it was not certain that Adam was adowed with that justice at the first moment of his creaon, In the same decree, after declaring that Adam, by figinal sin, was deteriorated both in body and soul, there ere originally added the words, “and no part thereof bed Gninvured,” which were unanimously eliminated. Then considering the fifth section of the decree, there ‘AS some controversy relative to the words, “all that which as the true and proper nature of sin,” and more on the

(

¢ COUNCIL OF TRENT: [1546.

words which féllow, that “in those born again, there is nothing which God hates;” but both declarations were retained; the former, as not being opposed to the existence of concupiscence, which, though called sin by St. Paul, ‘s so called as being an effect of sin, and inclining to it;

and the latter, upon its being represented, that the word —

born again (renatus) was deliberately used instead of baptized (baptizatus) ; as there is not anything in the regenerate which God hates with a hatred of enmity, though, in the baptized, there may be, if baptism be not received with due dispositions.

At the fifth Session, which was held on the 17th of June,

1546, Alexander Piccolomini celebrated the mass, and the | sermon was’ preached by Marco Laureo. The decrees | having been read, the only remonstrants were Cardinal Pacheco and certain bishops, who were discontented with the clause relative to the Blessed Virgin ; the Bishop of

Cava, who still was dissatisfied with the declaration, that, in the regenerate there is nothing which God hates; whilst three prelates renewed their protest against the omission of the representing clause. | There were present at the

Council, four cardinals, nine archbishops, forty-eight bishops, two abbots, and three generals of religious orders.

1546, | SESSION VI. ci

SESSION VI.

Preparatory Congregations.—Justification; and impeiments to Episcopal residence, the subjects to be treated of —Heads of inquiry on Justification, as laid before the Consultors.—Opinions held in the Congregations.—The ‘same subject, as placed before the Bishops.—Deputies appointed to prepare the decrees.—Their report remodelled. —The Catholic doctrine to be stated fully, and the errors of the innovators separately condemned.—The prepared draught retouched.—Character of the decrees.—Final alterations.—Decrees on Reformation.—Impediments to residence.—The Session.—Dissentients— Doubts as to the wassing of the decrees on Reformation.—Actual decision. —Number of prelates present.

On the 21st of June, a few days that is after the pre- ‘ceding Session, was held the first general congregation; ‘nm which Cardinal Cervini, in the absence of the first ‘Legate from illness, addressed the assembly on the subect of justification, which was now to occupy their attendon; and referred to those impediments to episcopal vesidence, which were to be considered and removed, “defore enforcing the penalties of non-residence against he prelates. He, supported by Pole, represented to the ‘*athers the great importance of the subject of justificaion; reminded them that no preceding Council had been valled upon to state fully the doctrine of the Church on this article; that Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith only was at the root of most of his errors on the sacraments, the power of the keys, and even on indulgences and purgatory; and that therefore, as, in the preceding Session, they had stated the doctrine of the Church on original sin, it behoved them to point out its real remedy, with equal care and accuracy.

Cardinal Pacheco then addressed the assembly, and recommended that, on so extensive and fundamental a subject, the consulting theologians should first examine the various points into which the matter divided itself, and present a digest of that examination to the Fathers; and that, meanwhile, other deputies should apply themselves to the obstacles to episcopal residence. This advice was followed; and, on the 22nd of June, the subject began to be discussed under the following heads, by the theologians, in the presence of the legates and many of the bishops.

1. What is the meaning and the essence of justification; what is meant, that is, by the expression, a man is justified.

9. What are the causes of justification ; that is, what does God effect, and what is required on the part of man,

3. How are we to understand the words of St. Paul, man is justified by faith ?

4. Whether, and in what manner, works before, or after, justification concur thereunto; and what share have the sacraments therein.

5. What precedes, accompanies, and follows justification.

6. The authorities, whether Scripture, Councils, Fathers, or Apostolical ‘Traditions, on which the answers to the proposed questions rest.

On the first point, it was agreed, that the word justification signifies the passage from the state of enmity with God, to that of friendship, and adoption as the child of God; that, as to its essence, its formal cause is charity or grace infused into the soul. To this there was but one dissentient, in the person of Fra Lorenzo Mazzocchio, a Servite, who maintained an opinion, ascribed to the Master of the Sentences, but not followed in the Schools, that justifying grace is not a thing inherent in and interior to the soul, but the exterior assistance of the Holy Ghost.

He also, supported by two others, contended, on the second point, that free will concurs passively, not actively, in the work of justification.

1546.) SESSION VI. ; cli

On the third point also, the three above-named theologians, with only one other follower, maintained that jman is said to be justified by faith, in as much as he is justified when he firmly believes that pardon will be granted him through the merits of Christ: whereas the west of the theologians unanimously taught, that man is said to be justified: by faith, because without faith it is impossible to please God; that it is the first remote disposition, and as it were the root of justification, but not its proximate and efficient cause, which is faith accomjpanied by baptism or penance; whilst its formal cause is faith animated by charity and sanctifying grace; faith, that is, working by charity.

So also on the fourth point, with the above exceptions, all agreed, that works antecedent to justification are only meritorious thereof de congruo, as disposing, that is, to Justification by a certain fitness or congruity; whereas works, performed after justification and in the state of grace, being done in Christ, whose living member the just man is, and being made available by His merits, preserve and augment de condigno the grace reise recessarily, that is, and essentially, as an eflect due to heir performance, through the merits, however, of Christ, and as the result of His gratuitous promises.

The fifth question, being involved in the antecedent points, was explained in accordance with the previous conclusions. ~ On the last day of June, the theologians placed before a general congregation the results of their inquiries; upon which, Del Monte, who was now sutfliciently recovered “rom his illness to preside, observed that, from the report ead, it seemed desirable to reduce and examine the ques- ‘ion under three heads.

1. How is the Passion of Christ applied to him who is onverted to the faith, and what grace is thereby afterwards obtained, or merited.

2. What is to be done by the justified in order to persevere in grace,

3, What can, and ought, he to do who has forfeited that grace; can he recover it, and how ; and in what is this second justification like, or unlike, the first. ‘Thus, the action of grace on man was considered in the three following states,—that of the infidel, or unbelieving, adult, when first converted and justified ; that of the justified who perseveres in grace ; and, lastly, that of the fallon who recovers it.

This decision was agreed to by all the Fathers, except Pelargus, the proxy of the Archbishop of 'Treves, who was of opinion that the proposed matters would be incomplete, without an inquiry into free will, the assent of which is, in adults, essential to justification, It was also rowolved, that the writings of the heretics should be examined, and that such propositions as seemed heretical, on justification, should be mf before the Bishops for consideration, And accordingly, twenty-three errors, extracted from the writings of Luther, Zuingle, and other heretics, were, shortly afterwards, read in the congregations, Finally it was aréanged, that no decree should be sketched, even by the consultors, until the whole subject had been considered by the Mathers of the Council; and that, on each point, the sentiments of the Mathers present should be taken individually, and not collectively, as herelofore,

Almost daily congregations were now held; and, the first point having: been completely sifted, it was resolved, in the general congregation held on the 15th of July, to appomt four deputies to draw up a decree expressive of the sentimonts of the Fathers on that subject. ‘The votes, which were given secretly, were in favour of the Archbishop of Armagh, and the Bishops of Acci, Bitonto, and Beleastro, In the congregation of the 24th of July, these prelates presented the result of their labours; but, upon being submitted to the judgment of the Iathers, it mot with but little favour, as being obscure, overloaded with argument, and objectionable on other grounds, — "The draught, therefore, was confided especially to Seripan=

516. SHSSION VI. oy

0,(*) to be remodelled ; though, even after his labours,

was again altered in many particulars.(") — [t was, at jae same time, resolved, that, for the sake of greater

learness, the Catholic doctrine on justification should be vated consecutively in a series of decrees; and the errors f the heretics, on the same subject, be condemned in a umber of canons, with the accustomed anathema, When ais important task was completed, a copy was given to ach of the Fathers, and one forwarded to Rome, But ne remarks made on the first sketch were so numerous, nat the document had to be rewritten, and even then it ad afterwards to be changed in many places. The aethod followed in making the alterations was this, Lf ne majority of the bishops coneurred in recommending alteration, it was invariably made; if the change was if importance, even though suggested by but one prelate,

was submitted to all the Fathers individually; if but of ‘ight consequence, the matter was referred to some minent theologian, and to the deputies who had been gaged in preparing the original draught.

The result of these protracted labours, which extended ver several months, is found in the sixteen chapters, or wcrees, and the thirty-three canons which form te dog aatical portion of the sixth Session ; and, if it be permitted draw a comparison, between one division of the labours f the council and another, it will probably be thought,

(©) This commission consisted of three bishops, and throe generals of orders, vosided over by Cervini, Pallavicini only gives the name of Seripando,

(h) One reason of thie may, perhaps, be found in the poouliar opinions enters ‘ined by Seripando on justification, According to him there are two kinda of ‘stico: one intrinsic, which he again divided into two kinds ; the former being sat whereby, of enemies, we become the friends of God, and this is eMocted by Ae grace infused in baptism ; the latter is thi by which man is said to live justly, ‘nd this results from the acts of virtue performed by means of the grace above ‘amed, The second kind of justice is extrinsic to ua, and consiata in the justice ‘nd merits of Christ, imputed to us by God’s merey as our own, aocording to such sonsure, and for such effects, as God wills, It requires both thie intringio and ox. Hinsic justice to onable man to attain to everlasting glory, Only five theologians pported this system, which was impugned by the rest, and especially, ina very whe argument, by Lainez, of the Society of Jesus,

that this section of the Council of Trent surpasses that of any other Session, and is not excelled by any other council of any age.

It will be useless to give a summary of decrees, which the reader can so easily and profitably study in their entireness; it remains, therefore, to notice such alterations as were made in the final congregations before the actual Session.

Towards the close of the first chapter, where it is said, that neither the Gentiles, by the force of nature, could free themselves from the power of the devil, nor the Jews by the letter of the law (per litteram legis), there had been placed, in the minutes, simply by the law (per legem). In a congregation, held on the 15th of November, Cardinal Pacheco, and the Bishop of Castellamare, had. proosed to add, alone, to the word law; in order not to decide that the law was useless to salvation; and that the legal observances, performed as signs of faith in the Redeemer to come, were without merit. The actual alteration was made on much the same ground; to leave untouched, that is, the common opinion of the schools, in opposition to the Master of the Sentences who had denied that the Jewish sacramental rites conferred sanctifying grace, even as good works performed in faith and charity; and also to render the decree conformable to what the Apostle condemns in the Jews, when boasting of their privileges over those of the Gentiles,—that they alone had known and practised the letter of the law. Again; in the last words of the chapter, it is said that free will was attenuated and bent down (attenuatum et inclinatum) ; words substituted for wownded (vulneratum), in order to avoid condemning the school opinions on the effects of original sin on free will. Even this alteration was objected to by some, who wished the words to be altogether eliminated, or explained, by adding, “with the withdrawal of gratuitous gifts.” No alterations were made in the draught of the second, third, and fourth chapters; but, in the fifth, the words, “forasmuch as he is also able to reject it” (the

1546. ] SESSION VI. cvil

preventing grace of God), (‘) were added at the suggestion of the General of the Conventuals, who, however, recommended a less judicious form; namely, “for it is in his power not to receive it.”

The declaration, contained in the sixth chapter, that the justification of the unbeliever or sinner begins from fear, was discussed in various congregations, some thinking that hope is the first impulse, but the great ma-

_ jority of the Fathers decided to the contrary. The words of the same cliapter which describe the sinner as proceeding from the hope of pardon, to “ begin to love God as the fountain of all justice,” were not originally in the decree; but were, after some discussion, inserted at the suggestion of the Archbishop of Sassari, Claude Le Jay, Lippomani, and Pio, the General of the Con- --ventuals. The seventh chapter is directed mainly against the _ errors of Luther, especially on the formal eause of justification; on the actual remission and cancelling of sin; and his favourite doctrine of imputative justice. It also aims at the opinion of Seripando, on the intrinsic and ‘extrinsic application of the merits of Christ, in justification; ‘for, the Council having declared that there is but one formal cause of justification, the justice of God, that is, ‘infused into the soul and inherent in it, any opinion, ‘defending more than one formal cause of justification, is condemned.

The ninth chapter denounces that presumptuous ceritainty of salvation which was proclaimed by the heretics as essential to justification. It was proposed to declare, that ‘no one could be certain of his salvation with “ Catholic ‘Faith;” but, after much debate, the words now contained ‘Jin the decree were adopted; namely, “with that certainty

of faith which cannot be subject to error,” or, under which ‘error cannot lie.(*)

(*) Quippe qui illam et abjicere potest. (k) Cui non potest subesse falsum.

In the fifteenth chapter, it was proposed to substitute the the word apostacy, for infidelity or unbelief (infidelitas) ; but the latter was retained as being the term employed by Luther.

In the Canons, which are condemnations of the prevailing heresies, there was but little need of altering the form in which they had been prepared; except in the fourth, where, instead of man, was put the free will of man, to meet such cases as the vocation of St. Paul.

The attention of the bishops was now specially directed to the subject of Reformation; and directly to the residence of bishops. But the proximity of the day of Session did not allow them to enter upon many of those impediments to residence, which it had been proposed to examine, and to remove or alleviate. ‘The following matters, therefore, were settled as a beginning of this great work.

It was declared to be obligatory on prelates to reside in their own dioceses; and, to secure this most desirable object, the ancient canonical penalties were renewed, and fresh ones of great severity imposed. Whether the obligation to residence was of divine or ecclesiastical right,—a question which, later, occupied and divided the Council for so long a period,—was slightly touched on in this Session; but was, at the suggestion of Del Monte, deferred. It was also resolved, that all who are charged with the cure of souls should be compelled to residence, by their Ordinaries; and, even if deemed expedient to allow a temporary absence, the bishop, as the delegate of the Apostolic See, was to appoint a vicar, with a competent salary derived from the revenues of the benefice. All irregularities of conduct, on the part of Secular priests, and of Regulars living out of their monasteries, were to be taken cognizance of and punished by the Ordinaries. The exemptions, enjoyed by chapters, and others attached to the greater churches, were abrogated; and bishops were prohibited, under pain of suspension, from exercising any pontifical function, in the diocese of any other prelate, without his express permission.

1547.) SESSION VI. cix

The Session, which, in consequence of the debates on justification, and other hindrances, had been postponed, was held on the 13th of January, 1547. The mass was celebrated by Andrea Cornaro, archbishop of Spalatro, ‘and the sermon was preached by Tommaso Stella, bishop ‘of Salpi. The decrees on justification were the first projposed, and were agreed to with the most perfect unanimity,

with the following exceptions. Vigerio, bishop of Sini-

‘gaglia, objected, that the decree was defective in its manner

‘of treating on faith, and the divine mercy, and that, as

regards the certainty of being in the state of grace, he

‘approved of the decree, in so far as it was confined to the

condemnation of the opinions of the heretics, as had been

represented in the congregations. On the other hand, the

‘bishop of Bossa was desirous, that the words of the decree

son the subject of the certainty of being in grace, should

‘be transferred to the fourteenth Canon, and thus the

heretical doctrine be anathematized. Some also of the

‘bishops renewed their remonstrance against the omission

of the representing clause. The rest of the Fathers, as

has been said, approved of the decrees and canons without

/any limitation whatever.

But, as regards the chapters on Reformation, the

_ difference of opinion was very great. This, in fact, had

been anticipated, and had caused the Legates, in the

' general congregation held on the preceding day, to

request of the Fathers, to give their votes and opinions,

on the subject, in writing, in order to avoid the incon-

_ yeniences that would attend open contestation, in public

_ session. ‘These papers were, however, so long and so

- various, that the Legates found it necessary to defer the

‘ consideration of them to another opportunity; with the

. promise to make known the decision of the majority, in a

' general congregation. This was agreed to: and it may

' be mentioned here, that, in the congregation held on

the 25th of February, it appeared, after examination, that

| the decrees as proposed had been approved of by a

| majority; and they were accordingly declared to have the

* sanction of the Council.

The next Session having been appointed to be. held on the third of March, the contumacy of the absent prelates | was noted; and it was resolved to proceed against them according to the canons; with the exception of the Ger- | man bishops, who were declared to be lawfully hindered: from attending, by the state of their Churches.

There were present at the Council, four cardinals, ten archbishops, and forty-five bishops, Claude Le Jay, and Pelargus as proctors of the bishop of Strasburg, and of the archbishop of Treves, two abbots, and five generals of | orders.

The decrees on Reformation met with some opposition at Rome; but the Pontiff soon showed that he did not intend them to be an idle letter; for, in a Bull dated February the eighteenth, 1547, he imposed the obligation of residence even on the cardinals; and such of them as_ held more than one bishopric, whether in commendam, or on some other plea, were required to select, within six months, the one which they wished to retain, and to resign the rest.

1547. | SESSION VII. Cxi

SESSION VII.

Preparatory congregation.—Doctrine; Sacraments. in general, and Baptism and Confirmation.—Reformation; Impediments to residence.—Errors against doctrine from “he works of the Innovators.—Referred to the Theologians. —Their report.—The Canons nearly in the words of the heretical propositions—Prepared by Seripando.—Alteratons made therein in congregation.—Meaning of the Canon om the intention of the Minister.—Decrees on Reformation. —The Session—Prelates present.

On the 15th of January, 1547, two days, that is, after the preceding Session, the first general congregation was aeld; in which it was decided that the sacraments should e next treated of, as being the divinely appointed means y which justification is acquired, preserved, and augnented, or, if lost, recovered; and that the subject of Reformation should be proceeded with, especially in relaion to the impediments to episcopal residence.

On the 17th, it was arranged, that the particular con- ‘regations on faith were to be held in the presence of the uegate Cervini, and those on Reformation before Del Monte; the third Legate, Pole, having resigned during ne previous Session, on the 27th of October, in consesuence of continued ill health. On the same occasion, ‘ervini read the errors, which had been extracted from ne writings of the innovators, on the subject of the acraments; and Del Monte a list of such impediments to esidence as had been sent in by the various bishops. It vas also resolved that, as the Council of Lateran had ufficiently stated the Catholic doctrine on the sacraments,

would not be necessary to prepare any connected decree ‘n the subject, as had been done in the previous Session ;

but would be enough to condemn the errors of the innovators. As the subject was too extensive for one Session, the sacraments in general, together with Baptism and Confirmation in particular, were first to occupy the Council. |

Almost daily congregations of the consulting theologians were accordingly held to examine the following propositions from the works of the heretics; fourteen of which regard the sacraments in general; seventeen relate to Baptism, and four to Confirmation.

1. The sacraments of the Church are less than seven.

9. The sacraments are not necessary ; as grace may be obtained without them, by faith alone. |

3. One sacrament is not more worthy, or excellent, than another.

A. The sacraments do not confer grace on those even who do not place any obstacle to their operation.

5, Neither grace, nor the remission of sins, was eve) bestowed by the sacraments ; faith alone in the sacrament operates: these offects.

6. Immediately after Adam’s fall God instituted th: sacraments, whereby grace was bestowed.

7, Grace is given by the sacraments only to those wh. believe that their sins are forgiven.

g, Crrace is not given in the sacraments, always, and t: all men, by virtue of the sacrament; but only when, an where God wills.

9. There is not a sacrament that imprints a character,

10. An evil minister does not confer a sacrament.

11. All Christians, of both sexes, have power to ad minister the word, and the sacraments.

12. Hach pastor may enlarge, abridge, and change, he pleases, the forms of the sacraments.

13. The intention of the minister is not necessar neither does it operate anything, in the sacraments,

14. The sacraments were only instituted to nouris faith,

15. There is no true Baptism in the Roman Cathol Chureh,

1547. | SESSION VII, exiil

_ 16. Baptism is free (liber), and not necessary to salvation,

17, When conferred by heretics, it is no true baptism.

18. Baptism is penitence, .

19, Baptism is at an outward sign, like the red mark

stamped on sheep, and is of no use in justification,

20. Baptism ought to be renewed.

21. ‘True baptism is that faith whereby it is believed,

that sins are forgiven to the penitent.

22. By baptism sin is not utterly destroyed, but only

inot imputed.

23. The baptism of John had the same efficacy as that

of Christ.

24. The baptism of Christ did not make that of John

of no effect, but only added a promise to it.

25, In baptism, immersion alone is necessary, all other

veremonies may be omitted without sin.

26. It is better not to baptize infants, than to baptize

them when incapable of believing.

_ 27. Infants ought not to be baptized, because they have

no actual faith of their own.

| 28. Those baptized in their infancy ought to be rebap- ‘ized upon coming to years of discretion; because they ‘had not faith,

29. They ought to be asked, upon coming to the use of reason, whether they will ratify their previous baptism ; and, if they refuse, they are to be left to their free choice.

30. Sins committed after baptism are forgiven by the sole remembrance and faith of the baptism received,

31. The baptismal vow has no other condition but that of faith, and annuls all other vows.

$2. Confirmation is not a sacrament.

33. It was instituted by the Fathers, and has no pro- ‘mise of grace.

34, It is now a useless ceremony; and was formerly nothing but a statement of faith, made by children, in the ‘face of the Church, .

35. A bishop is not the sole minister thereof; but every priest may confer it.

On the 7th of February, Cardinal Cervini presented, in a general congregation, the opinions of the theologians on _ the above propositions, and referred them to the consideration and decision of the assembled prelates. The result of their deliberations is found in the thirty canons which constitute the doctrinal portion of the seventh Session; thirteen of those canons being on the sacraments in general; fourteen on baptism; and three on confirmation. It will be seen that they are given nearly in the words of the heretics, as they were drawn up for condemnation by Seripando; after numerous emendations, however, in the particular and general congregations. It now remains briefly to notice such alterations in the original draught of the canons, or such remarks on their wording, as may tend to elucidate their meaning.

In the third canon, the words, in no way, or, in no respect (nulla ratione), were added in consequence of the remark of certain of the Fathers, that each sacrament is not, when considered under certain respects, inferior to any of the rest. It was, therefore, the opinion of Luther that was condemned; he having maintained, that “one sacrament is not in any way more worthy than another; for that they all consist of the word of God.”

In the eleventh canon, also, is condemned Luther's opinion,—which flows directly from his principle of justification by faith alone,—that the sacrament is valid, though administered as a joke, and with the most evident intention to make a mockery of it. Pallavicini(') tells us that this only is condemned by the Council; which did not wish to touch upon the various opinions held in the schools on this subject, but simply to condemn the aforesaid error of Luther, who ascribed all to faith, and nothing to the outward ministry. Hence Catharinus still defended, after the Council, an opinion which had emiment supporters before

his time; that, for the validity of the sacrament, it is enough that the minister act outwardly in a serious manner, free from obvious jesting; whatsoever may be his inward intention, or want of intention.(™)

To the first canon on Baptism, some objection was raised from the words of St. Luke iii. 3, but the opposition was overruled by the words of St. Luke iii. 16, and by the testimony of various Fathers of the Church.

In the third canon on confirmation, the word ordinary (ordinarium) was, after a protracted debate, inserted; in consequence of the power of administering confirmation having been, and being still, exercised by various priests; especially by one of the orders of St. Francis. Meanwhile, the impediments to residence, especially pluralities, and the unions of benefices, had continued to occupy the attention of the congregation appointed for this subject. The result of their seccuhiiedssibe) rendered far more stringent in the succeeding Sessions, is comprised in fifteen chapters, which are so plain and useful, as not to need either comment or recommendation.

Eyerything being now prepared, the seventh Session wwas held on the day appointed, the 3rd of March, 1547. ‘The mass was celebrated by Andrea Cauco, archbishop of

‘Corfu; but the usual sermon was omitted in consequence ‘of the illness of Martirano, bishop of San Marco. The ‘canons of faith were unanimously approved of by the ‘Council; the decrees on Reformation had fifty-nine votes in their favour, as also the votes of the remaining thirteen

Fathers, with some slight remonstrance or exception jagainst particular clauses. Thus, the Bishops of Badajoz, -Astorga, Osca, Calaorra, and Clermont, wished that the ‘Cardinals should be specified by name as incapable of ‘holding more than one episcopal church; though that ‘had already been provided for by a Papal Bull. Some of ithe preceding bishops, together with the Bishops of Porto, ‘Bossa, Fiesole, Lanciano, Castellamare, and Mitilene, ob-

1() See Prop. 28. damn. ab. Alex. viii.; and Bened.xiv. De Synod, L. vii. c. 4. 5 12

‘ected against the omission of the representing clause; whilst the Bishops of Sinigaglia and of Fiesole remonstrated against causing the bishops to act as delegates of the Apostolic See. There were present, three cardinals, nine archbishops, fifty-four bishops, the proctors of the archbishop-Elector of Treves, and of the Bishop of Augsburg, two abbots, and five generals of orders.

The Eucharist to be treated of —Day of Session anticipated.—Causes of.—Illness and Deaths at Trent.—Commission to transfer the Council.—Congregation to consider on the Translation.—Determination postponed.—Resolved on in the ensuing Congregation.—Opposed by the Imperialists._Session.—Decree for the Translation to Bologna. —Prelates present.— Their Votes.— Departure of the Legates and most of the Bishops from Trent.—The Imperialists remain.—Opinions at Rome—Translation approved of by the Pope.—Offers a safe-conduct.—E fforts to assemble the Bishops at Bologna.—The Imperialists refuse.

The next Session had been fixed for the 21st of April; but, for reasons which must now be named, it was found necessary to hold the Council at an earlier period. On the 4th of March, the day after the last Session, copies of the heretical articles on the Eucharist were given to each of the Fathers; but, on the 6th, Henrico Loffredi, bishop of Cappaccio, died of a malignant and contagious disorder, which had previously carried off the General of the Cordeliers, and had assailed some of the servants of other prelates. The Legates and bishops were alarmed;

1547. ] SESSION VIII. CXVii

but still a general congregation was held on the 7th, in which, after some other general business, the sacrament of the Kucharist was proposed and agreed upon, as the next doctrinal subject to be examined and propounded. The Legates, however, had already written, on the 5th, to Rome, for the necessary commission to translate the Council, should the disease go on increasing. Meanwhile, prohibitions having been issued from the neighbouring cities forbidding all communication with Trent; several of the prelates having left the city without leave; whilst others were preparing to depart; the Legates resolved, without waiting for an answer from Rome, to avail themselves of the directions given them a short time previously by the Pontiff,—to follow, should any sudden emergency seem to require the translation of the Council, the opinion of the majority of the prelates. They accordingly proceeded to take the testimony of two eminent physicians; who declared, that the disease was deadly and infectious, and would increase as the weather became warmer. In the general congregation, held on the 9th, after the opinions had been delivered on ‘the first articles on the Eucharist, the Legates stated to ‘the Fathers the judgment given by the physicians; the known fact of the deaths amongst them, and in the city; the flight of many of the bishops; and the readiness and anxiety of others to depart; and requested the assembled prelates to declare their wishes, by which they them- Selves would be guided; prepared in all things to act up to their advice, except it were for the dissolution of the Council. The Imperialists, supported by one or two others of the Fathers, declared themselves taken by surprise, and asked for time to consider; which, after numerous suggestions from the prelates present as to the best measures to _be adopted, was granted, by the president, until the following day. _ Accordingly, on the 10th of March, the bishops having assembled in general congregation, the first Legate gave it as his advice, that the Council should be translated, as

being the most judicious measure under their present circumstances ; and that the city of Bologna seemed to him to be the best adapted, on many grounds, as the place for

continuing the Council. After much opposition from —

Cardinal Pacheco, and others of the Imperialists, this advice was agreed to; and it was accordingly resolved to hold the public Session on the following day. Severoli, the Promoter of the Council, was in the interim employed in drawing up an authentic report of the infectious nature of the disease which necessitated the removal of the Council.

Having assembled in Session, on the eleventh of March, 1547, and performed the usual ceremonial, the first Legate

briefly recapitulated his remarks of the preceding day ;—

dwelling especially on the disposition of the Legates to act entirely in conformity with the wishes of the majority. At the request of Cardinal Pacheco, the declarations of the physicians, and the examinations of witnesses, were read; from which it appeared, that, for some time, the disease had been gradually spreading and becoming more fatal; that the daily number of deaths was very considerable, but that, to prevent alarm, orders had: been given not to toll the bells as usual for funerals, or for the departing; that of those who had come to the Council, four were dead, and one was in extreme danger; twelve prelates had already fled; the ordinary physicians were leaving the city; all communication was about to be cut off between them and the neighbourhood, which would soon add famine to pestilence: finally, the most eminent physician of his day, Fracastoro, had declared, that he would not remain another month in Trent, for a hundred crowns of gold a-day, and that those that remained would repent of their temerity. After this, the Cardinal Del Monte proposed the translation of the Council, in the form, agreed upon in the coneregation of the preceding day, which is that given under Session VIII. ; in which, besides the translation of the Council to Bologna, the 2st of April is again agreed upon as the day for the ensuing Session.

1547. ] SESSION VIII. ONIX

Ot the fifty-six prelates then remaining at Trent, thirtyeight approved of the translation unconditionally; fourteen opposed it; whilst the remaining four either were undeeided, or approved of it under certain conditions. “The ‘Legates abstained from voting; but, when all was settled, they produced the Papal Breve, dated as early as the 22nd of February, 1545, which empowered them to transfer the ‘Council, when, and whither they pleased; which at once removed the principal argument or objection of the adverse iparty.(") :

The Legates left Trent on the 12th, two years exactly from the time of their arrival at that city. They were fol- ‘lowed to Bologna, at various intervals, by the prelates who ‘had agreed unconditionally in the necessity of the translation; whilst those who had in like manner opposed it, continued at 'T'rent;(°) except the Bishop of Fiesole who, ‘after some hesitation, joined the Legates at Bologna, The ‘Bishops also of Agde and of Oporto, who had been neutral in the last Session, followed his example; the former, acting by the direction of the King of France; the latter ‘through fear; two of his servants having been seized with the disorder, one of whom died within the space of three days.

At Rome, the news produced a variety of feelings ; but, ‘n a consistory held on the 23rd of March, 1547, the Pope approved of the step as prudent, lawful, and necessary,

y a Breve, dated the 29th of March, the Pontiff offered a sate-conduct to all who might choose to repair to the Jouncil. The Legates also used their utmost endeavours fo increase the number of prelates; and, for this purpose, ‘nvited those bishops who iad fled from 'Trent; aa forwarded a letter to each of the bishops, remaining at that

n) The Bull is given in the body of the work, at the close of the seventh Session. ©) The following were the prelates who continued at'l'rent: Cardinal Pacheco, vishop of Jaen; Tagliavia, archbishop of Palermo; Sassari, archbishop of ‘Tarraa; and the Bishops of Sinigaglia, Fiesole, St. Mark, Bossa, Castellamare, ciano, Siracusa, Baia. Astorga, Osca, Caghari, the Canaries, Oporto, Agde, and Aquino. ke

were made for the Elector of Cologne, who had announced ius intention to be present. There also arrived two other mbassadors from the Emperor; Ugo Count de Montfort, ss ambassador from the Empire, and, shortly after the welfth Session, William of Poictiers, to represent the proince of Flanders, whilst Toledo acted as his envoy from Spain.

On the last day of August was held a general congre- ‘ation, in which it was resolved to hold the appointed session on the following day; but to prorogue the Council mtil the 11th of October, then to meet definitively for the tual despatch of business. . The reasons for this delay te found in the decree. - Fra Baldassar Eredia, archbishop f Cagliari, celebrated the mass; but, in lieu of a sermon, ‘exhortation on the manner of comporting themselves uring the Council, was read to the Fathers, by the vecretary Massarelli, in the name of the presidents. The ‘ecree of prorogation, in which it was settled: that the werament of the Eucharist, and the remaining impedisents to episcopal residence should be treated of in the ext Session, was read by the celebrant, and unanimously dproved of.

‘There were present, in addition to the three presidents, ardinal Madrucci, seven archbishops, and twenty-seven sshops.

An unexpected, but. bitter, dispute, had meanwhile ‘sen between the Pope and the King of France, on the -bject of the dutchy of Parma. James Amyot, abbot of ellozane appeared at Trent, two days before the holding ~ the Session, as ambassador and bearer of a letter, from te French monarch. He presented the letter to the residents, after the actual business of the Session had rminated. It was addressed to the Tridentine conven- ®m (conventum) ; a phrase which gave offence to the panish bishops, but which Amyot explained as bein te sole act of the royal Secretary, who, it would be found ym the contents of the letter, used indiscriminately the FE K 2

words Convention and Council. After a private deliberation, it was agreed to receive the explanation given, and to suppose that, by the use of the obnoxious word, there was no intention to lower the dignity, or to deny the, cecumenicity, of the Council. The letter was then read. It declared, that the King of France could not neglect to represent to the Council, the reasons which compelled him to prevent his prelates from assisting at the Council summoned by Julius; being, however, certain that the assembled Fathers would act as disinterested judges, in regard of one who was called, and endeavoured to merit the name of, the eldest son of the Church. After similar language, it concluded with declaring, that he would not only yield assent and support to what had been hitherto decreed, but also to whatsoever should be ordained, in a lawful manner, in the future Sessions. The ambassadox then entered into a similar argument, and lodged a similai protest—as to the inability of the prelates to attend ai the Council,.on account of the war that was waging ov the subject of Parma—to that which had been alread) used, at Rome, in the consistory.

The Council took time to reply, and directed the am bassador to present himself, at the next public Session for an answer to the letter read. He did not, howeves appear on the day appointed; but, by the direction of th king, published, at Fontainbleau, on the 3rd of Septem ber, a protest of much the same character as the above named; which, as the French prelates had no need passing through the Papal territories in order to repair t Trent, but only through the territories of Charles, wit whom Henry was at peace, was seen to be a mere pretex to cover his wish to wound Julius.

1551.] SESSION XIII. CXXXiii

SESSION XIII.

Articles on the Eucharist extracted from heretical writers.—Opinions of the Theologians.—Of the Bishops.— Draught of the Canons and Decrees prepared.—Alterations suggested and made.—Resolved to state the Catholic Doe- ‘rine and to condemn the errors of the Innovators.—Four wrticles postponed.—Safe-conduct promised.—Decrees on "eformation.—The Session.—Prelates present.—Arrival of the Elector of Cologne—The Elector of Brandenburg ‘ends his agent.—Reply to the Protest of the French King.

On the 2nd of September, 1551, the day after the last Session, a general congregation was held, in which ten ticles, extracted from the conflicting writings of the Proestants, on the holy Eucharist, were distributed amongst he Fathers. These articles were the following:

1. That in the Eucharist, the body and blood, and the livinity of Christ are not truly present, but only as in a lign, as wine is said to be in the sign of an inn.(‘)

2. That Christ is therein exhibited, not sacramentally, wut only spiritually, to be eaten by faith.

3. That, in the Eucharist, together with the body and jlood of Christ, there is the substance of the bread and vine ; so that there is no transubstantiation, but only a aypostatical union of the humanity of Christ with the wbstance of the bread and wine.

4. The Eucharist is solely instituted for the remission of sins.

5. That Christ in the Eucharist is not to be adored, ‘or to be worshipped with festivals, nor carried in prosessions, nor to the sick; and the worshippers thereof ire idolaters.

(9) In circula ante tabernam.

CXXXIV COUNCIL OF TRENT: [155].

6. The Eucharist is not to be reserved in the sacrarium, but is to be consumed at once, and given to those present; to act otherwise is an abuse of this sacrament ; neither is it lawful for any one to communicate himself.

7. That, in the consecrated hosts and particles which remain after communion, there does not remain the body of the Lord, which is there whilst bemg- received, but neither before nor“after.

8. That it is of divine right that communion be received under both kinds, even by the laity and children, and that they, therefore, are guilty of sin who cause the people to receive under one kind.

9. As much is not contained, nor is as much received, under one kind, as under both kinds.

10. That faith alone is a sufficient preparation for communion; that confession is not necessary thereunto, but is left to each one’s choice, especially in the case of the learned; and that a person is not bound to communicate at Easter.

At the foot of each of these articles was cited the work whence it was extracted; and the Theologians were directed. amongst other regulations conducive to order and evidence, that their sentiments should be derived from and confirmed by the sacred Scripture, apostolical tradition, aproved Councils, the writings of the Sovereign Pontitis and of the holy Fathers, and the consent of the Catholic Church.

The matters, however, proposed, required but littl labour or consideration, as they had been well nigh pre pared and perfected during the recess at Bologna; anc had been already, as far as the Eucharist is concerned, 0 a great measure decided in the Councils of Lateran Florence, and Constance. And it may be as well agai to remark, that though, on the substance of the dogma o the Eucharist, all the schools were agreed, yet had the: their different methods, or systems, of explaining th modus, or manner, of the real presence, and other ques tions of the like kind; and that it was the careful stud)

1551.) SESSION XIII. CXXXV

of the Council to avoid every expression, which could in any way be thought to affect any of those opinions, or systems.

The first, third, fifth, seventh, and eighth articles were unanimously condemned, in the congregations, as heretieal. The second article it was deemed superfluous to notice, as being already condemned under the first proposition.

The fourth article was, by some, considered heretical, on account of the word alone, or solely; and they consended, that the omission of that word would render the sentiment Catholic; but others wished this proposition to ye condemned; retaining, in the condemnation, the word alone, or, principally.

That part of the sixth article which declares it unlawful ‘or any one to communicate himself, it seemed, to. some of the Theologians, necessary to condemn; with the addision, however, of the words, in no case; not even one of necessity, or for a priest who is celebrating mass.

_ The first part of the ninth article, which asserts that as ‘much is not contained under one species as under both, Was condemned, as being directed against the entireness of the sacrament under one kind; but some contended that the second clause, which denies that as much is. received under one kind as under both, was not heretical; in as much they held, that as much grace is not received under one as under both species; though this opinion avas opposed by the majority.

The first and third parts of the tenth article were unanimously condemned; though Giovanni d’Ortega thought ‘that, as regards the obligation to communicate at Easter, ‘there was need of some explanatory clause, as that precept lis ecclesiastical and not divine; whilst the Elector of ‘Treves was of opinion, that the denial of that obligation was indeed schismatical, but not heretical; but, at length, all agreed, that as the proposition went to deny the authowity of the Church to impose that obligation, it was really theretical. With regard to the second clause, which denies

CXXXV1 COUNCIL OF TRENT: [1551.

the necessity,—where there is a consciousness of mortal sin,—of confession previous to communion, some were of opinion, that contrition, with the purpose of confession in due time, suffices; others contended that the proposition. was indeed scandalous and erroneous, but not heretical; whilst others condemned it as absolutely heretical; except in the case where communion has to be received, and a confessor cannot be had. |

A digest of the opinions of the Theologians was placed before the Fathers, on the 17th of September, and, on the 2Ist, the bishops began to deliver their sentiments on the subjects proposed, Their remarks were of the same nature as those recorded above as having been made by the Consultors. Nine of the most learned and eminent prelates were deputed to draw up the judgments given, in the form of canons and decrees, The result of their labours was placed before a general congregation, on the Ist of October, and on the 6th, another congregation met to take the proposed draught into consideration.

The tenth canon, which is in opposition to the tenth article given above, alone created any considerable discussion. It was originally drawn up in the following words: “If any one shall say, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the most excellent sacrament of the holy Eucharist, let him be anathema. And, that this sacrament may not be taken unworthily, and therefore unto death and condemnation, the Council ordains and declares, that, for those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, it is necessary to premise sacramental confession. And if any one shall presume to teach, preach, obstinately to affirm, or publicly to dispute to the contrary, let him be ipso facto excommunicated.” The word publicly, in the above form, was objected to; but was defended by the Bishop of Bitonto, as having been deliberately placed there; in order to avoid condemning any merely private discussion of the question. Some Fathers recommended the insertion of the words, ‘when a priest can be had,” others, ‘“‘when a confessor can be

1551.] SESSION XIII. CXXXVii

aad,” and similar clauses,(") which resulted in the framing of the canon, by the deputies previously chosen, in the ‘orm in which we now read it.

There was also another alteration, made in the original lraught, which deserves notice. In the third canon, the words “after a separation has been made,” (separatione acta,) were added at the suggestion of Emiliano, bishop of Tuy, who directed the attention of the Fathers to the >pinion of Theologians, that, before any division of the sonsecrated species, the body of our Lord is not under ach particle of the host, but only under the entire host. This recommendation was followed, notwithstanding the lesire of the bishops of Castelamare and of Constance, that the word even should be placed before the clause “when a separation has been made;” lest, as they convended, the opinion, held by other Catholic Theologians, shat the whole Christ is under each particle of the entire aost, should seem to be condemned. But, no such intenlion existed; neither did it seem, to the Fathers, necessary; again to alter the decree in order to avoid the supposed anger.

_ It was also resolved, that, as on the subject of justification, so also here, the doctrine of the Church should be ileclared, at the same time that the errors of the innovators were condemned. The former was accordingly done in sight chapters; the latter in eleven canons.

Tn addition to the doctrines enunciated in the chapters named, there were four other points which, for a considerable time occupied the attention of the Fathers, and which were, later, again and again debated in the congregations. Those points regarded various questions on communion in one kind, and the communion of infants;

(*) Such as, ‘‘ when there is no urgent necessity,” recommended by the Archishop of Cagliari; ‘‘ when the fear of scandal does not hinder,’’ proposed by the ‘Bishop of Castelamare. The word confessor was used instead of priest, at the recommendation of the Bishop of Chioggia, who observed that every priest has not aculties to act as confessor; a suggestion which was acted upon in spite of the “emark made by Musso, that the Council of Constance used the word priest.

but, at the suggestion of the Count di Montfort, they were, for the present, postponed, for the reasons assigned in the decree, which may be seen, near the end of the Session, after the chapters on Reformation. It was at the same time, and for similar reasons, resolved also to postpone the consideration of the sacrifice of the mass, and to proceed, in the next Session, to the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction. It may also be remarked, that the safe-conduct, given at the close of the Session, was granted at the solicitation of the same imperial ambassador.

The decrees on Reformation relate to the duties of bishops towards those under their charge, and limit and regulate appeals from their sentences; they also treat of the summary degradation of criminal clerics; the cognizance by bishops of absolutions from crime, or remissions of punishment, limitations on the personal citation of bishops to Rome; the qualifications of witnesses against them; and the reservation, to the Sovereign Pontiff, of the graver accusations against them. All which may be seen in detail, in the eight chapters on Reformation, given in the thirteenth Session.

On the 1lith of October the public Session was held; at which the mass was celebrated by Giambattista Campeggio, bishop of Majorca, and a sermon on the: holy Eucharist was preached by the Archbishop of Sassari. The decrees on faith and discipline were read by the celebrant, and unanimously approved of, as were also the chapters on Reformation. There were present at the Council, besides the presidents, one cardinal, three archbishop-electors; six archbishops, forty-four bishops, three abbots, and the general of the Augustinians.

The Elector of Cologne had arrived the day before the Session; and there also came an ambassador from another Elector, who was of the Confession of Augsburg, the Marquis of Brandenburg, who promised, by his agent, to submit to the decisions that might be come to by the Council, the ecumenicity of which he seemed to recognize.

The last act of the Session was to read the reply prepared

1551.] SESSION XIV. CXXNIX

ito the protest of the French King. The Fathers expressed their regret at the misunderstanding which had arisen between Henry and the Pontiff on the subject of Parma; ‘but observed, that it was not their business to interfere in isuch questions; that the passage to the Council was as free, and the right of speaking as uncontrolled, for his ‘bishops, as it had been for his ambassador. They concluded by exhorting him to act as became a Catholic ‘king; reminded the French bishops to obey the summons of the Pontiff, and to repair at once to the Council.

SESSION XIV.

Heretical articles on Penance and Extreme Unction.— Referred to the Theologians.—Their opinions.—Alterations made in the draft of the Decrees.—Decrees on Refor- ‘mation.—Session.—Prelates present.

On the day after the preceding Session, a general conigregation was held, in which the heretical articles, on the ‘sacraments of Penance and of Extreme Unction, were sdelivered to the Fathers. Those articles were the following.

1. That Penance is not properly a sacrament, instituted

‘by Christ for the reconciliation of those who have fallen after baptism; neither is it rightly termed, by the Fathers, -a second plank after shipwreck; but that baptism is in ‘truth one and the same sacrament as Penance. _ 2. The parts of Penance are not three,—to wit, con- “trition, confession, and satisfaction,—but two only; the ‘terrors, that is, impressed upon the conscience when con- -vinced of sin; and faith conceived by the Gospel, or by absolution; by which faith one believes that his sins are, ‘through Christ, forgiven him.

3. The contrition which is excited by the examination, the collecting together, and the detestation of sins, neither prepares us for the grace of God, nor remits sin; but rather makes a man a hypocrite and a greater sinner; and | such contrition is a sorrow extorted, and not free.

4. Secret sacramental confession is not of divine right ; there is no mention of it by the Fathers previous to the Council of Lateran, but only of public penance.

5, The enumeration of sins in confession is not necessary for their forgiveness, but is a matter of choice ; in this age it is simply useful for instructing and consoling the penitent; and anciently it was but imposed as a canonical penance ; neither is it necessary to confess all mortal sins, such as secret sins, and those against the two last commandments ; nor need the circumstances which change the nature of sin be specified, as these are but the inventions of idle men; and that to wish that all such sins be confessed, is not to leave anything to be pardoned by the mercy of God. As to venial sins, it is not even lawful to confess them.

6. The injunction of the Church, which requires the confession of all sins, is an impossibility, and a human tradition which ought to be done away with by the godly. Neither ought confession to be made during Lent.

7. Absolution by a priest is not a judicial act, but the mere ministerial act of pronouncing and declaring, to him who confesses, that his sins are forgiven, provided he believes himself absolved; and this even though he be not contrite, or the priest absolve him, not in a serious manner, but in joke. The priest may even absolve the penitent without first hearing his confession.

8. Priests, who have not the grace and charity of the Holy Ghost, have not power to bind and to loose; and not they alone are the ministers of absolution, but to all and every Christian it is said, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven ; in virtue of which words all Christians can absolve from

1551.] | SESSION XIV. exli

sins; from public sins by correction, if he who is corrected shall assent thereunto; and from secret sins by confession.

9. Even though the minister of absolution absolve in opposition to the prohibition of his superior, he really absolves from sin, in the sight of God: so that the reservation of cases does not hinder absolution ; and bishops have no right to reserve such cases to themselves, except ‘in so far as external government is concerned.

10. Together with the whole guilt, the whole pain is always remitted by the Almighty; and the satisfaction performed by penitents is nothing but that faith whereby they account that Christ has made satisfaction for them ; and, therefore, the canonical satisfactions were begun at the Council of Nice, and instituted by the Fathers, for the sake of example, or of discipline, or to try the faithful, out not for the remission of the punishment due to sin.

11. The best penance is a new life; and, by the pains sent us of God, we do not make satisfaction unto Him ; aeither do we, by means of those which may be undervaken voluntarily, such as fastings, prayers, alms, and other good works not commanded by Almighty God, which are valled works of supererogation.

12. Satisfactions are not a true worship of God, but traditions of men; they obscure the doctrine of grace, of the true worship of God, and the benefit of the death of 'Christ ; and it is a mere figment, that, by the power of ithe keys, eternal punishments are changed into temporary ; the office of the keys being to loose from punishments, not to impose them.

The four following articles regard the sacrament of ‘Extreme Unction.

1. Extreme Unction is not a sacrament of the New ‘Law instituted by Christ, but is only a rite derived from ithe Fathers, or a mere human figment.

2. It neither bestows grace, nor the remission of sins, mor relieves the. sick, who, of old, were cured by the igift of healing ; and it, therefore, ceased with the primi- ‘tive church, as did the gift of healing.

3. The right and usage of Extreme Unction are not observed in the Roman Church, according to the mind of the apostle St. James ; and may, therefore, be changed, and be despised without sin by Christians.

_ 4. A priest is not the only minister of Extreme Unction; and the presbyters whom St. James exhorts us to bring in to the sick, are not priests ordained by a bishop, but the Elders of each community.

The Theologians were again directed to confirm their opinions, by citations from the same authorities as had been used in the preceding Session.

- The doctrinal portion of the Session, on the sacrament of Penance, is comprised in nine chapters, to which correspond fifteen canons.

The debates in the congregations do not present any thing that tends to illustrate the two first chapters. In the third chapter, where the parts of Penance are declared, there was considerable study and care to avoid condemning the opinion of Scotus and his followers,—that in the absolution alone consists the essence of the sacrament, whilst contrition and confession are, in that system, necessary to the effect of the sacrament, not as being essential parts thereof, but as being conditional, and without which the sacrament would be null-and void. The decree was accordingly framed in the same manner as, for the same cause; it had been worded by the Council of Florence.

As regards the fourth chapter, and that part of it which treats of imperfect contrition, or, as it is called, attrition, it may be noticed, that the decree was originally drawn up in the following words: “As to that contrition which Theologians call attrition, because it is imperfect, and solely conceived through the turpitude of sin, or through fear of hell or of punishment—which fear is called servile— the Council ordains and declares, that, when that attrition excludes the disposition to sin, and expresses some kind of sorrow for the sins committed, it not only does not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner,—as some do not hesitate to blaspheme,—but is sufficient for con-

1551.] SESSION XIV. exh

stituting this sacrament, and is a gift of God, and a most true impulse of the Holy Ghost, not indeed as already dwelling in, but as moving (the penitent) : with which the penitent being assisted (which cah scarcely be without some motion of love towards God) he advances towards justice; and thereby disposes himself to obtain more easily the grace of God.” The Bishop of Tuy remarked that iit was not the fact that there could hardly be fear of God without love; and that, as to attrition being sufficient with ithe sacrament, there were various well-known opinions of ithe schools on that point, which it could not be intended ito touch. The decree was accordingly altered to its present form.

The doctrine of the church on Extreme Unction is contained in three chapters; and the errors of the innovators are condemned in four canons. There was one alteration, made in the first chapter, which deserves notice. Instead of the word instituted, there was substituted the word insinuated (insinuatum), for a very iobvious reason.

The decrees on Reformation, which occupy thirteen ‘chapters, are chiefly employed in removing such obstacles ‘as hindered bishops from effectually punishing the vices or irregularities of ecclesiastics. Some of the decrees, previously passed on this subject, are explained and secured against a vicious interpretation; and others are added relative to the jurisdiction of judges.conservatory; the dress of beneficed clergymen; the ordination of those guilty of homicide; the union of benefices; the ‘possession of benefices by Regulars; and the. rights of patronage -and of presentation.

The fourteenth Session was held on the appointed day, the 25th of November, 1551. Manrique, bishop of -Orense, celebrated the mass, and the Bishop of San Marco preached the sermon. We do not read of any opposition offered, in public Session, to any of the decrees, whether on faith or reformation. The 25th of January, 1552, was appointed for the next Session; the subjects named to be

there promulgated, were the sacrifice of the mass, and the sacrament of order; and the reformation of discipline was to be continued. ‘The prelates present were the same as those that assisted at the preceding Session.

SESSION XV.

The four reserved Articles.—Arrival of Protestant Ambassadors and Envoys.—Their dispositions.—Instructions from Rome in their regard.—Received publicly.—Their demands.— Replied to.— Safe-conduct promised.— Constance and Sienna derogated from.— Reason thereof.— The Session.

Immediately after the Session, the congregations of Theologians and Prelates were engaged in preparing the decree on the four articles already named as reserved for a future opportunity, and at the same time also on the other subjects agreed upon for the ensuing Session. But there was evidently little expectation of promulgating those

decrees, on the day appointed, in consequence of the arrival of several ambassadors from the Protestant princes of Germany, and the expectations entertained that others also would soon repair to the Council.

Before the last Session, the ambassadors of the Duke of Wittemberg had arrived at Trent; as also enyoys from several of the free cities; who were shortly afterwards followed, by the representatives of Maurice, elector of Saxony.

It was evident, from the first, that little was to be expected, in the way of reconciliation, from their presence; as they even declined to visit the Presidents of the Council, lest such a mere act of civility on their parts might be construed into a recognition of the authority of the Pope.

1551.) SESSION XV. exlv

The Legates had, however, instructions from Rome, not ‘0 manifest any displeasure whatever, at any such acts of liscourtesy; but to bear with them in everything that did tot trench on their duty to religion and to the Church: ‘S$ it was desirable, that even the most ignorant and pre- - udiced should see, that whatever obstacles to peace and — econciliation might arise, they were not at all events the vork of the Pontiff; or even to be ascribed to the violence nd imprudence of his ministers.

It was, therefore, agreed to give the ambassadors a ublic audience, in a general congregation to be held on ne 24th of January. The envoys from Wittemberg, as caving arrived first, were received in the morning of that | say; those of the Elector of Saxony, in the evening. - “heir demands were nearly of the same character.

Having placed their confession of faith in the hands of ‘ne Secretary, Massarelli, they required a safe-conduct imilar to that granted by the Council of Basil; wherein, s they pretended, a deliberative voice was conceded to ne dissidents of that day; and the Scripture, together ‘ith such authorities as were regulated solely by the Scripare, were admitted as the sole guides; assertions which 1e words of that Council disprove clearly as regards the irst statement; and, as to the second, the meaning of the Youncil is misrepresented. They further demanded, that my decision on the matters before the Council should be sostponed until the arrival of the Protestant divines, who © vould soon be deputed to Trent; that the doctrines ready defined, especially on the subject of justification, hould be again debated; that the decrees of the Councils f Basil and of Constance, limiting the authority of the “ope, should be approved of and put in execution; that~ ne bishops should be absolved from their oaths to the Jovereign Pontiff; and finally, that the Council should ‘ct independently of the papal authority.

To these demands, some heretical, others schismatical, _ was replied that an answer should be given in due time.

When the Protestant ambassadors had withdrawn, it was 5 : it

agreed, that, as regards the safe-conduct, every possible security should be given; and, it will be seen, by com-~ paring that of Basil with the one promulgated, in public Session, on the following day, that, with the exception of a clause or two, which had been interpreted in an erroneous manner by the ambassadors, the two forms are very nearly the same. The Councils of Constance and of Sienna are expressly derogated from, in regard of a decree which the Protestants had asserted to be contained therein agains! keeping faith with heretics where religion is concerned: though, as Pallavicini justly remarks,(*) no such decree emanated from either of those Councils.

In the public Session, which was held on the day appointed, the 25th of January, 1551, Niccolo Maric Caraccioli, bishop of Catanea, celebrated the mass, anc _ the sermon was preached by Giambattista Campeggio, th bishop of Majorca. Nothing, however, was done, but t assign the reasons for the prorogation of the Council, an: to propose and accept the safe-conduct, as explained an: extended. The next Session was appointed to be held o1 the 19th of March, 1552; and in the mean time, th Fathers were to proceed with the sacrament of matrimony and with reformation.

There were present, besides the presidents, one cardinal eight archbishops, thirty-two bishops, three abbots, an: three generals of orders.

(552. | SESSION XVI. exlyii

SESSION XVI.

The Safe-conduct objected to.—Arrival of Protestant Deputies—They object to the Congregations.—Which are suspended.—But negotiations are continued.—Protestant League with France-—The Protestants leave the Council. —Prorogation of the Session. War between the Emperor md the King of France-—Suspension of the Council._— Death of the Legate Crescenzio.—Convention of Passau.— Death of Edward VI., and accession of Mary.—Embassy ‘rom England to Rome.—Death of Julius.—Is succeeded y Marcellus II,—His death—Is succeeded by Paul IV. —Proposes to assemble a Lateran Council—His death.— Pius IV.—Accession of Elizabeth—Pius resolves to re- -ume the Council at Trent.—Despatches Nuncios to the Jatholic and Protestant States—Represents his difficulvies.— Bull of Convocation.—Commendone.—Reply of the ‘Protestant Princes.—Hopes of reconciliation. ;

_ As the safe-conduct was not, as. has been said, in every ee the same as that of Basil, the Protestant ambassadors expressed themselves discontented with it; but this lid not prevent deputies from Wittemberg and Strasburgh uppearing at Trent to enter upon the proposed discussions. They also remonstrated against the sitting of the congregations to prepare the canons on matrimony for the ensuing Session; and, by the intrigues of the Imperial ambassadors, those preparations were eventually susvended.

But, in the midst of all these signs of disagreement, the ‘Electot of Saxony sent orders to his ambassadors to consinue their negotiations with the Council; and informed the Fathers, that he would himself soon confer with the ‘Emperor on the best means of bringing matters to a satisfactory conclusion: a hope which was soon destined “o be destroyed, by the intelligence that the Protestant L 2 :

princes had leagued themselves, with the King of France, against their lawful sovereign. This event caused the Flector of Treves to hasten to his own province; an example which was soon followed by two other Electors, and gradually by all the Protestant ambassadors. |

In consequence of these and other hindrances, in a congregation, held on the 18th of March, the Session, which was to have been held on the following day, was prorogued to the Ist of May. On the 25th of March, the Legate began to exhibit signs of that illness which in a short time carried him to his grave.

The war between the Protestant princes and the Emperor had now commenced. After taking Augsburg, the Lutherans threatened Inspruck, a city not far from Trent. Many Italian, and some Spanish, bishops fled from Trent; and Madrucci informed the Pontiff that that city was not safe from the assault of the confederates. In a consistory, held on the 15th of April, it was resolved to suspend the Council; and Julius forwarded the necessary Breve to the presidents. But they, in consequence of the opposition of the Imperialists, felt it expedient, not to promulgate the Breve without further instructions from Rome; informing the Pontiff that, it would be their endeavour, in the mean time, to secure the concurrence of the Fathers in the proposed suspension. Julius, however, renewed his orders, in anote dated May Ist; but, prior to its arrival, the danger of an attack upon Trent became so imminent and clear, that it was determined, in a congregation held on the 24th of April, to proceed at once to suspend the Council, without waiting for the appointed day of Session.

Accordingly, a Session was held on the 28th of April, 1552, in which mass having been celebrated by Michel della Torre, bishop of Ceneda, the decree for the conditional suspension of the Council, during two years, was read and approved of by all present, except twelve Spanish bishops, who entered their protest against it; one, Giambernardo Diaz, bishop of Calaorra, being opposed even to a prorogation, the rest to the suspension, of the Council.

1552. | SESSION XVI. exlix

These prelates, however, when they saw Charles obliged ito fly precipitately from Inspruck, soon acknowledged the prudence of the majority, and hurriedly followed their example in abandoning Trent. ‘The Legate, though dying, caused himself to be conveyed by the Adige to Verona, where, three days after his arrival, he expired. His body was conveyed to Rome. We have now to pass wapidly over the ten years which intervened between the - ‘suspension of the Council and its resumption.

The war between the Protestant princes and the Em- (peror was terminated in August, 1552, by the convention of Passau; but, as this did not put an end to the war ‘between the King of France and the Emperor, it was found impossible, or inexpedient, to resume the Council at the expiration of the two years provisionally fixed upon.

Meanwhile, by the death of Edward VI. of England, ‘the hopes of the Pontiff, that England would return to her former faith, were soon destined to be realised, upon ithe accession of Mary to the throne; after the discomifiture of the intrigues of Northumberland, backed by the Protestant party, to exclude her from the throne on ‘account of her religion. An embassy was sent from England ito Rome, consisting of persons of the three estates, the ‘Church, the peerage, and the people; but, a few days lbefore its arrival, Pope Julius died, on the 23rd of March 1555, in the sixty-eighth year of his age, and the sixth ot his pontificate. He was succeeded, on the 9th of April, ‘by Marcello Cervini, who, retaining his own name, was called Marcellus II. The great expectations entertained of his pontificate were doomed to a speedy disappoint- ‘ment; for, after reigning only twenty-two days, he expired ‘on the last day of April, in the year 1555. On the 23rd ‘of May, Cardinal Caraffa was chosen to succeed him, and ‘took the name of Paul IV. During his troubled and un- )popular pontificate, no attempt was made, from the nature of the times, to restore the Council at Trent; though he ‘had at one time the intention of summoning a Council, ‘to be held in the Lateran church; an intention, however, —

which he soon found it difficult, or impossible, to carry into effect. His death took place in the eighty-fourth year of his age on the 18th of August, 1559. But, before his own death, he had to lament that of Cardinal Pole, | and of Queen Mary; the accession of Elizabeth, and | another change of religion in England, resulting, it would seem, as a matter of course, from the varying interests, or caprice, or convictions of the ruling monarch. |

On the 26th of December, 1559, the Cardinal De’ Medici was chosen his successor, and took the name of Pius IV. Under him the Council of Trent was resumed.

Almost immediately after his accession to the pontifical throne, Pius expressed his desire to continue the interrupted Council; in which wish he was confirmed by the ambassadors of Ferdinand, and also in a special manner by those of the King of France, who now, in his turn, was involved in a fierce war with the Hugonots. The Pontiff replied to their requests, that he would at once take measures to renew the Council; and that, though Constance had been named as a desirable place for that assembly, it seemed to him that less difficulty would arise, on many grounds, to the re-establishment of the Council at Trent. In pursuance of this promise, he despatched a Nuncio to Spain to secure the co-operation of the monarch of that country; even though the usual ambassadors had not been sent thénce, to congratulate with him on his accession to the Popedom; and, after some delay, this effort was crowned with success. Other ambassadors were likewise sent to the other Catholic princes; and, finally, to the Protestant states, to give them notice of the proposed renewal of the Council, and to obtain from them promises, that their bishops and divines should not be hindered from attending.

But events soon showed that he would have to experience the same difficulties as his predecessors : that those very princes, who, so long as the summoning of the Council was uncertain, were most urgent for its convocation, would, when that same Council was offered, create

1560. ] SESSION XVI.—SUSPENSION. chi

jifficulties, each according to his own wants and interests, and put forward demands and expectations which could not be complied with or realised.

On the 3rd of June, the Pontiff publicly represented the difficulties which he had to encounter, to the ambassadors from the various courts; declared to them that his earnest desire was that the Council should be resumed, as speedily as possible, at Trent, and that he proclaimed this ibefore them that the blame of delay might not attach to him; requesting them to communicate his wishes to their warious sovereigns, and to use their endeavours to remove the obstacles which had been raised.

After various negotiations, which there is not space to detail here, the Pontiff at length succeeded in obtaining the concurrence of the leading princes to the city of Trent as the place of meeting. This consent was communicated ‘to the cardinals, in a consistory held on the 15th of November, 1560 ; in thanksgiving, a jubilee was ordered to be proclaimed throughout Christendom; and three cardi- ‘nals were appointed to prepare the Bull convoking the Council. On the 29th of November, the Bull was pub- Jished in another consistory, and on the following day, a

Breve was sent to the prelates and bishops of France informing them of the indiction of the Council ; and thus they were prevented from turning their attention any

‘longer to a contemplated national assembly. The day

fixed for resuming the Council was the festival of Easter,

1561. That no plea of ignorance might be urged, Commendone was despatched as special Nuncio into Germany ; and, accompanied by the resident Nuncio, Delfino, repre-

- sented to the assembled Protestant princes at Naumberg, that the Pontiff was desirous of their presence, or of their proxies, at the Council ; and was prepared to furnish them with the most extensive safe-conduct that ever had been, or could be, granted. The reply of that assembly was bold and uncompromising ; but, from secret sources, it was known to the Nuncios, and communicated to the Pope, that the princes, united and resolute as they seemed, were in reality

at variance with each other on points of faith; undecided as to what step was best to be taken; reduced by the late wars to great poverty; and, in fact, held together by that rope of sand—the Confession of Augsburg. Commendone also repaired, for the same object, to Denmark; whilst other officers were sent from Rome to various other courts, and even to that of England. But as the details of these embassies are of little importance to the direct history of | the Council, it will suffice to mention the fact; and to remark, that whilst Commendone was engaged in Lower Germany, his colleague Delfino was equally active in Upper Germany, not only with the Catholic, but also with the Protestant, princes and cities, and had reason to entertain favourable hopes of the return to the unity of the Church, of some of the most eminent of the Reformers, as Sturmius, Zanchius, and Virgerius.

SESSION XVII.

Legates appointed. Assistants and Presidents.— Bishops directed to repair to Trent.—Arrival of three of the Presidents.—Of Bishops.—French Bishops expected.—Subjects to be discussed.—Index proposed.—A bandoned.—The choice to be left to the Fathers.—Opening of the Couneil postponed.—Demand that the Council be declared a continuation of the preceding assembly.—Opposed.—First General _Congregation.—Ezhortation to the Fathers.— Session.— Business transacted.—Prelates present.

In a Consistory, held on the fourteenth of February, 1561, Ercole Gonzaga, cardinal of Mantua, and Cardinal Puteo were appointed Legates to the Council ; and, on the 10th of March, Seripando, Simonetta, and Osio,(*) men of

(t) Better known by his Latin name, Hosius.

1561.] SESSION XVII. chili

distinguished learning and prudence, and who had been ‘raised to the cardinalate subsequently to the appointment of the first Legates, were united to them as assistants and oresidents. On the 17th of March the Legatine cross was given to Seripando; and, in the same Consistory, all the bishops present at Rome were directed to repair co Trent. By the 16th of April, three of the presidents, aad arrived at Trent; but, though they made their public entry into the city on that day, they found that only nine orelates had arrived, and that none of the ambassadors aad asyet appeared. But, shortly afterwards, several bishops wrived from Venice and the other Italian states; from Portugal, Fra Bartholomeo de’ Martiri, archbishop of Braga; Thomas Godwell, bishop of St. Asaph, from’ 4ingland; and, from other parts of Christendom, many llaily came, or were known to have begun, or to be preyaring for their journey. Hosius, at the desire of the Pontiff, left Germany, and arrived privately at Trent on he 20th of August, and Simonetta early in December. To the five presidents already named another was added im the person of Marco Sitico Altemps, who reached Trent i few weeks after the opening of the Council.

There were now present, in Trent, bishops representing lhe various Catholic states, except that of France, which, it was expected, would soon send her representatives; and, as the time fixed for the resuming of the Council was ilrawing near, the Legates turned their attention to the subjects to be proposed in the approaching Session, and.o the manner of proposing them. They were at first ‘lisposed to begin with the Index of prohibited books, in oreparing which some progress had been made; but they abandoned the idea, upon reflecting that such a procedure, entailing the condemnation of the writers as heretical, would be to close with their own hands the door of the Council against them. They next communicated to the ‘Pontiff their wish, that the Fathers present might themselves decide on the subjects to be examined and defined; ‘t being certain, onthe one hand, that they would resolve YY 2

to continue where the late Council had suspended its proceedings, and on the other, it was desirable that any such step should not seem to be by the direction of the Pontiff, or of his Legates; as this might furnish the Protestants with a plea for not coming to a Council, which, by adopting the subjects proposed to it by the Pontiff's Legates, would seem to proclaim itself under his immediate guidance and jurisdiction; and by resuming the subjects, as left at the suspension of the Council, would practically declare itself but a continuation of the Council of Trent; at once ratify all the past decisions; and preclude that re-examination which they professed to hope, though vainly, would be entered upon in their presence. Pius, accordingly, left this - matter to their judgment; and, at their request, the open- | ing of the Council which had, in a Consistory held on

the 19th of December, 1560, been deferred to the feast of the Epiphany, was further postponed to the 18th of

January, 1562.

But, before the Session, and even before the holding of the first preparatory General Congregation, a great difficulty was occasioned by Guerrero, archbishop of Granada, who, supported by the Spanish prelates, demanded that, in the decree to be passed in the Session, the Council should be openly declared to be a continuation of the previous Council of Trent; and thus the ambiguity of the Papal Bull be avoided, and noted. At length, however, this matter was adjusted; upon its being proved to them, that such was really the meaning and purpose of the Pontiff, but that, in order not to offend- unnecessarily the minds and prejudices of the Protestants, any express declaration to that effect had been avoided, and ought still to be avoided, for a time at least, until it became manifest that no hopes were left of the arrival of the Protestants.

‘The first General Congregation was held on the 15th of January, 1562, in the house of the first Legate; at which meeting, in addition to the presidents, there were one hundred and two prelates present. After the usual prayers, the first Legate congratulated the Fathers on the resump::

ion of their labours; exhorted them to comply, in their ‘ives and manners, with the directions given at the first pening of the Council; and then directed the Secretary ‘© read the customary order for the ceremonial to be observed at the ensuing Session, and the draught of the lecrees that had been prepared for that occasion. These, which merely related to the opening of the Council, and the indiction of the ensuing Session, were unanimously approved of; and the congregation was concluded by the reading of certain Breves from the Pontiff, on the subject of precedence as regards primates and archbishops.

Sats on the morning of the day fixed for the Session, all the Fathers repaired to the Church of St. Peter, and aaving robed, proceeded in procession to the cathedral. This ceremony was observed, on this occasion, to give solemnity to the renewal of the Council; but, in the folsowing Sessions, the prelates went direct to the cathedral. Whe first Legate sang the mass, which was his first solemn and public mass, since his ordination to the priesthood; and the sermon was preached by Del Fosso, archbishop of Reggio. The usual ceremonial of the Pontifical having veen complied with, the Secretary read the Bull indicting the Council, and the Breve deputing the Legates; then the prelate who had preached—though this was, as a general rule, the office of the celebrant—kneeling before she Legates, received the decrees and read them from the yarchment; adding, “ Most Illustrious and reverend ‘Lords, and most noble Fathers, does the above meet your oleasure?” To which the cardinals having given their Placet, the Secretary, with the Notaries, proceeded to secord the vote of each of the Fathers as given either by svord of mouth, or in writing, and the votes of those prevented from attending by illness were made known, provided they had been present at the previous examination and preparation of the decrees. After this, the Secretary ‘faving communicated the result to the Legates, the first of that body declared, “the decree to be approved of syithout any dissent, for which we return thanks to God;”

or, when there was any opposition, as in the present instance there was, the above words of the Legate were changed for the following; “The decree is approved of by all, save and except by some who would desire some | alteration.”

The Promoter of the Council then denounced the contumacy of the absent prelates; and required of the Notaries present that a record of the proceedings should be duly drawn up; the Te Dewm was sung, and the assembly dismissed with the usual blessing. Such was the regular form of proceeding.

In this instance, all agreed to the decrees except the following. The Archbishop of Granada and the Bishop | of Orense entered their protest against the words, “ the | Legates and presidents proposing;” whilst the Bishops of Leon and of Almeria agreed to the words, provided the Legates proposed only such things as the Council should judge suitable to be proposed. All agreed to the second decree, which intimated the next Session for the 26th of February.

There were present, besides the cardinals, one hundred ae six bishops, four mitred abbots, and four generals of orders.

562. | SESSION XVIII. clvii

SESSION XVIII.

Subjects proposed.—The Index and Safe-Conduct.— Minions on the Index.— Deputies appointed to prepare it. —And the Decrees.—Safe-Conduct deferred.—Alteration a the proposed Decrees.—Reception of Ambassadors.— “heir demands.—The Session.—Decrees.—Four Prelates — wepare the Safe-Conduct.—Extension of to all countries there Protestantism was tolerated.—Promulgation of the -afe-Conduct.

In a Congregation, held on the 25th of January, 1562, ae Legates proposed three subjects for the consideration ~ the Fathers. 1. To prepare an Index of prohibited doks. 2. To invite to the Council those concerned in ach books, that they might not complain of being conemned unheard. 3. To prepare such a safe-conduct as light meet the demands of the Protestants. Accordingly, in the Congregation held on the Ist of ebruary, these subjects were considered at great length; at, as the Council eventually resolved not to charge itself ‘th the formation of an Index, but to leave the matter

the Sovereign Pontiff, it will be enough to give a mmary of the various opinions of the Prelates on this ‘bject.

The Patriarch of Jerusalem advised that the - work ould be undertaken, and be at once referred to a number ‘deputies chosen from the members of the Council. His inion was followed by the Coadjutor Bishop of Aquileia; no further recommended that the Index formed under ‘aul IV., should be taken as the basis of their labours. ‘his opinion, with slight modifications, was received with wour by the majority of the Fathers. But, the Archshop of Granada opposed the undertaking, as being one aich would involye the Council in a most protracted

labour, and withdraw it from subjects of much greater

consequence. The Archbishop of Braga agreed with him,

and proposed that the matter should be entrusted to one,

or several, of the Catholic universities. Other prelates ' supported this view, but not in equal numbers to those

who advocated the former opinion.

The second and third proposals were almost unanimously acceded to; and the Legates requested of the Fathers to nominate deputies to prepare the Index, and to appoint others to draw up the proposed decrees. Eighteen of the Fathers were selected for the former of these objects, with power to use the services of the Theologians, and with directions to attend to such recommendations as any of the Fathers might suggest. | - In a subsequent Congregation, in consequence of the representation of the Archbishop of Granada, that the safe-conduct, as prepared, would interfere with the operation of the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal, it was resolved, not to propose that document in the approaching Session, but to defer it to a General Congregation, which should be empowered to promulgate it with Conciliar authority. Some slight verbal alterations were also suggested, by Cardinal Madrucci, in that part of the decree which treats of the Index; as that, instead of bad books, the words suspected and pernicious should be substituted; which was agreed.to. The Archbishop of Granada renewed the old request for the introduction of the representing clause; but. was opposed, especially by the Archbishop of Rossano.

During these preparations, the ambassadors of various powers were publicly received by the Council, and then precedence debated and adjusted. The Imperial Ambassadors, when presented, recommended, on the part of the Emperor, that, in order not to give unnecessary offence t the Protestants the word continuation of the Council shoul be avoided; that the condemnation of the Confession o Augsburg should not be inserted in the Index; that th: decisions on articles of faith should be deferred until th: arrival of the representatives of the Protestant party; an¢

1562. | SESSION XVIII. clix

inally that the safe-conduct should be of the most ample ind satisfactory form: to all which requests favourable uswers were returned.

On the morning of the 26th of February, 1562, the *athers assembled in the cathedral, to hold the appointed Session. After much confusion, in consequence of a dispute on the subject of precedency between the Ambasiadors of the Kings of Portugal and Hungary; various Pontifical Breves were read, relative to the Index, the iisual Indulgences, and certain claims of precedence. The Jelebrant then read the first decree, as it is found in the vody of this work. It was agreed to by all, but the Bishop Granada, who again demanded the insertion of the sepresenting clause. The second decree, which fixed the aext Session for the 14th of May, was approved of by all; though twelve prelates wished that it should contain a ‘urther clause, declaring that, in the mean time, the Jouncil would employ itself in preparing matters for the nsuing Session. ,

Immediately after the Session, the task of preparing the sromised safe-conduct was assigned to four of the prelates; when, after much deliberation, and many discussions in vublic Congregations, it was agreed, that the form emoloyed under Julius IIT., in 1552, should be again adopted, with an extension of its provisions and security to those sountries in which the Protestant religion was tolerated, These documents, which will be found at the close of the sighteenth Session, were published at Trent on the 8th of March, affixed to the doors of the cathedral, and promulsated, throughout the various countries of Christendom, y means of the Papal nuncios.

SESSION XIX.

Seripando proposes a scheme of Reformation.—Referred | to Simonetta.—Twelve articles selected, and submitted to the Fathers.—Articles on Clandestine Marriages referred to the Theologians. —Delays.—Arrival of Ambassadors.— French Prelates expected.—Debates on the origin of the law of residence.—Instructions from Rome.— Violent discussions. —Heads of debate.—Arguments on each side.— Reference to the Pontiff advised.—Pendasio seni to Rome. —Difficulty in ascertaining the opinion of the Fathers on residence.—Method adopted.—Result of the scrutiny.— Difficulty in which the Pontiff is placed.—Deputies prepare a draught of the decrees.—The articles on Clandestine Marriages deferred.—Arrival of Ambassadors.—Promul- | gation of the decrees delayed.—Instructions from Rome.— Session.

The safe-conduct having been satisfactorily completed, the Legates proceeded to the subject of Reformation, to which they were impelled by the representations of the Imperial ambassadors. Seripando, who was especially urgent that a searching and an extensive reformation of discipline should be undertaken, was commissioned to draw up such a scheme as the circumstances of the church and of the times, might seem to him to require; and to take, for this purpose, the advice of such prelates as he might choose to consult secretly and confidentially. Ina short time he presented to the other Legates and presidents, the model required; concealing the names of his advisers and associates.

“The draught was confided for examination to Simonetta, on account of his intimate acquaintance with canon law, and the practice of the Roman courts; but he, unwilling to take the whole burthen and responsibility on himself, chose, as his assistants, Castagna, Boncompagno, Paleotto, and the promoter of the Council, Castelli. At their meet-

362. | SESSION XIX. clxi

igs, Seripando urged that the reformation should begin ‘ith the tribunals of Rome; representing, that the Pontiff ad several times expressed, to Paleotto, his willingness at the Council should freely correct whatsoever abuses ad crept into his court. He was, however, overruled by xe majority, who wished to commence with matters of less mnsequence indeed, but of more general application; ‘ith reforms, that is, which would affect not one country aly, but all the nations of Christendom. The selection * the specific subjects of reform having been committed specially to Simonetta, he, in conjunction with his colgues, proposed the following twelve articles, by way of quiry, in order to elicit, as fully as possible, the opinions the Fathers.

1. How may it be best effected, that all patriarchs, chbishops, and bishops, shall reside in their own churches, ‘nd not be absent thence except for good and necessary wuses, and such as may be for the benefit of the Catholic thurch ?

2. Is it advisable, that no one, who has not an actual ile to a benefice, be promoted to sacred orders; it being -éll known that many frauds are committed under the ‘ea of patrimonial titles ? 3

8. Is it also advisable, that neither those who confer ders, nor their officers, be allowed to receive any paysent on account of the collation of orders ?

4. Ought bishops to be empowered to establish daily istributions, in those churches where they either do not “ready exist, or are so slight as to be neglected, and to ‘rive the revenues for that purpose from prebends to thich there is no actual service attached ?

5. Ought parishes, which, from their extent, require the rvices of a greater number of priests, to be divided by ne Ordinary into the requisite number of titles ?

6. And such cures, on the other hand, as have not a syenue sufficient for the maintenance of the actual num- -er of incumbents, ought they to be united, in such manner

‘ad number, as to furnish a competent provision? RE M

7. There being many parish priests, and especially many curates, whose ignorance and evil lives tend rather to destroy, than to edify, their flocks, was it desirable that the Ordinaries should be empowered to appoint them assistants, assigning them a suitable portion of the fruits | for their support ?

8. Ought power to be granted to bishops to transfer to the Mother Churches, such benefices or chapels as have fallen into ruin, and are too poor to be restored ?

9. Ought it to be ordained, that benefices i commendam, even those belonging to Regulars, should be visited, and all necessary reforms be therein introduced, by the Ordinaries ? |

10. Ought clandestine marriages to be declared, henceforth, null and void ? |

11. What conditions are to be declared essential, for a marriage not to be regarded as clandestine, but as lawfully contracted in the face of the Church ? |

12. Serious attention is directed to the speedy application of suitable remedies to the grave abuses of the queestors.

The two articles on clandestine marriages were referred to the Theologians. Simonetta, who foresaw the discussion and discord to which the first article would give rise, advised that it should be postponed; a suggestion which, by the direction of Ferdinand, was violently opposed by the Imperial prelates and ambassadors. It was, therefore, judged advisable to propose it; together with the rest of the articles, to the assembled Fathers; which was accordingly done by the Cardinal of Mantua, in a General Congregation, held on the 11th of March.

The examination, however, of the proposed articles was not at once proceeded with, for various reasons. The arrival of D’Avilos, as ambassador from Spain; of Melchior Lussi from the Catholic cantons of Switzerland, and from one of the mixed cantons; of Giovanni Strozzi, from Florence; the usual disputes about precedence between the representatives of the two latter powers; the delays

terposed by Ferdinand, caused continued interruptions. or must it be omitted, that it was the anxious desire of e Pontiff, that representatives of the French nation and surch should be present at the Council; a wish which a iter, addressed by the King of France to his ambassador Rome, seemed to show was not unlikely to be realised. that monarch declared that he did not in any way object the resumed Council being called a continuation of the revious assembly at Trent; and that he would, further, ave it to the Council then sitting, to decide on the existig religious controversies; a declaration and reeognition aich filled the mind of the Pontiff with joy. The Legates, ‘deed, to whom that letter was communicated, entertained subts of that monarch’s sincerity; which were soon agreealy dispelled by the appearance, towards the middle of ipril, of Lanzac, accompanied by Du Ferrier, and De ibrac, as ambassadors from France, and the almost multaneous presence of Bellai, bishop of Paris, who wived at Trent on the 14th of April, 1562. . Another source of pleasure was the arrival of John oloswarin,' bishop of Chonad, and Dudiz, bishop of iniana, to represent the clergy of Hungary; and to proaim their readiness to accept and put in execution whatsever might be decreed by the Council. But, during these delays, the minds of the prelates were ‘olently and continually. agitated by private conversations ad debates on the first article. Was the residence of velates, and of those charged with the cure of souls, oligatory, as enjoined by the law of God, or that of ‘the burch? Each opinion had numerous and powerful suporters, who seemed resolved that this question, as to its sing of divine or ecclesiastical right, should now be finally ittled; and any prelate, who hesitated to give in his adsion to one opinion or the other, was put down as either ‘morant or obstinate. Simonetta informed the Pontiff of the excitement pre-, diling on this subject, which alone, he declared, occupied je thoughts and conversation of the whole body of pre- F M 2

lates; and requested instructions as to the manner in which the Presidents, as his representatives, would be expected to act in the coming emergency.

They were directed to avoid altogether, if possible, all controversy on the mere question of right, as being a matter of dogma, on which it had been agreed that no decision of any kind should, for a time, be promulgated; and to confine themselves to the practical reformation of discipline. Later, however, he informed them, that, if the question could not be avoided without grave inconvenience, _he left the whole to their judgment and prudence.

It was with this prospect before them of angry and protracted debate, that the Presidents held, at length, a General Congregation on the 7th of April. The first four articles were proposed for deliberation, but, as was expected, such was the diversity of opinion, and such the length at which those opinions were delivered and maintained, that: but few of the Fathers could deliver their sentiments on that day.

The first article was naturally the one which engaged most attention; and the whole question of ecclesiastical or divine law, as to the origin of the necessity of residence, was opened by the Archbishop of Granada. That prelate recommended that the subject should be at once consigned to the consulting Theologians, to be by them discussed, and reported on to the congregation of bishops; and remarked that, after all, as the precept, even if declared to be of divine origin, was an affirmative, and not a negative, ordinance, it would still, by a well-known rule, be subject to such limitations and exceptions as circumstances might justify. The subject once propounded was eagerly, if not fiercely debated, day after day, and was gradually considered under the following five heads. The evils arising from non-residence, and the consequent necessity of residing; the impediments to residence, and the means o! removing them; the penalties that should be inflicted

the rewards that should be proposed; and finally, the method of ensuring the execution of any decree that might

2 passed, in regard of this important subject. On each

‘these points, the prelates entered into numerous details, mmprising and opening up nearly the whole government ‘the church, in all its multiplied parts, which were exmined, and, wherever abuses existed, denounced, with a shemence and plainness that made the ensuing congreations a scene of much confusion and discord.

On the first article especially, as has been said, were the ‘inds of the Fathers most completely and violently agi- ‘ted and divided, in so much so, that scarcely did eleven’ ngregations suffice to enable the prelates to deliver their _ oinions. It will be well to give a brief statement of the - ‘incipal arguments used by the two contending parties,

favour of, and against, declaring residence to be of vine right. For the affirmative sentence, it was argued, that the aief, if not the only, source of the disorders which were estroying their flocks, was to be traced to the absence of

‘er appointed pastors, who left their folds unguarded gainst the attacks of wolves in sheep’s clothing. To pect to secure the residence of pastors, by the renewal “the laws passed in previous Councils, was to remain taught by experience, which had proved those laws to 2 ineffectual; restraints only for the poor and powerless, _ even for them, but of no manner of use to coerce the rich nd the powerful. The mere increase of canonical penales might indeed add to the grievousness of the contusacy on the part of transgressions, but would be of little fect in remedying an evil, which required that residence nould be secured, not by merely attempting to disgrace ad punish the guilty, but by forcing all, by an absolute vecessity, to reside. Punishment being comparatively sseless; rewards being by many uncared for; it behoved ‘nem to bind the consciences of all pastors, by a tie which ‘one but the most’ unworthy would dare to break—the ond of conscience, and conscience agitated with a conction, that, in violating the law of residence, they were Jolating the law of God, and made amenable not merely

to a human, but to a divine and supreme, tribunal, Human laws are often despised as foolish, or broken, as too weak to bind the strong; whereas, were it declared that residence is obligatory, as being the command of God, none would dare despise, few be hardy enough to attempt to violate it. Thus, and thus only, are men restrained from evil; or moved to the performance of the more painful duties of religion, such as confession and fasting; by a conviction, that is, that God, being the author of the prohibition, or precept, he is also the punisher and avenger of neglect and prevarication. The number of prelates who demanded that the question should now, once for all, be debated and settled, rendered it impossible to avoid coming to some decision; nor should they be deterred by imagining that, should residence bé declared of divine right, all necessary exceptions to th¢ general law would be henceforth sinful, or impossible seeing that even some of the commandments, and thé precept of confession, were subject to such exceptions an¢ limitations, as are necessarily involved in all affirmativ: precepts. Nor need they fear any undue limitation of th: pontifical power and jurisdiction. That power being © divine origin could not be essentially in opposition to an; ordinance of God. It might indeed be. practically re strained, or be exercised with greater moderation; but i this were for the good of the Church, and in obedience t what is really a law of God; this restoration, or regulation of discipline, instead of degrading or weakening, woul: only serve to add fresh glory and firmness, to the real ani due rights of the Pontiff.

On the other hand it was urged, that to attempt to de cide on the nature of the law which requires the residenc of pastors, would be to assume, or to exercise, a powel which every previous Council had sedulously abstaine: from; nay, which even this very Council, in its earlic Sessions, had wisely refrained from using. Would it nc be to countenance one of the errors of the Innovators, wh had laid down the position, that nothing is to be enforee

562. | SESSION XIX. elxvii

s necessary and obligatory, which is not clearly taught by ae law of God; a doctrine which had been already conemned in words by the Council, but which would seem be now approved of, or favoured, by their actions, should aey declare it necessary, for the enforcement of residence, abandon the law of the Church as ineffectual for that ject; and to fall back upon the law of God, as alone qual to the emergency. What evils would speedily realt from such a declaration. If God requires residence s His own binding law, how easy to pass to the conclu- ‘on, that all hindrances to that law are opposed to the ill and ordinance of God; and thus, at one stroke, the ccognised privileges of the Roman Pontifi; his tribunals; te privileges of princes; the rights and immunities of sxe Regulars; in a word the whole actual government of se Church, be, under the name of reform, destroyed revolutionized; and the wise provisions of antiquity swept away as opposed to residence, and conseaently as detrimental to the good, if not to the very arity and character, of the Church. What an occasion juld be offered to the discontented, to reproach an ab- ‘mt prelate, as contravening the divine law, and to enounce the Pontiff, who might require that absence, as qually guilty in God’s sight. Neither did it seem that ay great benefit would result from declaring residence of wine right; since experience showed, that the majority *men feel less shame, and perhaps less remorse, in vioting certain known laws of God, as for example His smmands in regard of chastity, than in breaking the smmandments of the Church, such as abstinence, or the aring mass on festivals, and other such ecclesiastical sgulations. Not the origin of the precept, but the hin- *ances and encouragements to its observance, should agage the study and the zeal of the Fathers; who, by warding residence, and punishing ‘non-residence, would ‘ore effectually secure compliance, than by any decision a speculative question; especially as, after all, excepns and limitations being necessarily to be admitted, any

such decision would only be a snare to the timid, and a flimsy web to oppose against the more resolute, or unscruyulous. It could not be pretended, that residence, even if declared of divine right, required the actual presence of the body, and not merely the supervision of the mind and of the energies, of prelates and pastors. In some exten-.

ident prelate is further removed from

sive dioceses, a resi some portions of his flock, than in a diocese of narrower limits, many prelates would be, if living even at some distance from any portion of their dioceses. Neither did experience confirm the assertion, that the absence of prelates had occasioned the present evils; for, in Germany, France, Scotland, and England, those evils were far greater than in Italy, though actual residence had been there less strictly observed, than in any of the above-namei| countries,

Such were the arguments used on this subject; but, ii addition to those who affirmed, or denied, the divin origin of the law of residence, there were others wh¢ steered a middle course, declining to give any decisivé opinion, or to come to any definite conclusion, without first consulting the Sovereign Pontiff.

Meanwhile the Legates had despatched Pendasio, a: early “as the 11th of April, to inform the Pontiff of th¢ actual state of opinions and parties, not so much on th¢ subject of residence, as in general on the extensive natur of the reformation required by the Council. They repre: sented that the reforms made in the previous Session: were regarded as unequal to the requirements of the times and of the Church; and that an almost unanimous opinion prevailed amongst the Fathers, that, as the heretic: had shown no disposition to receive the dogmatical decision: of the Council, the only means left to secure the Churel against further losses and evils, was a full and unsparing reform of all abuses of whatever character, and in what. soever quarter, or tribunal; without, however, interferins with those things immediately under the direction of th Sovereign Pontiff, They noticed, that the reforms recom

aended, under Paul III., by a congregation of cardinals, vere much desired; and they further sent a list of ninetyive articles, recommended by various prelates to the conideration of the Council.

But, before any answer could be returned from Rome, he violent debates already noticed had taken place in the Yongregations; and as, from the character of the votes siven, and the numerous limitations required by many of. lhe Fathers, as the conditions of their concurrence in ‘ither of the two opinions on the origin of the law of esidence, and in the advisability of determining this in Session, the Legates were unable to decide clearly to vhich side the majority leant; they resolved to propose, a the next General Congregation, that the prelates should leclare their wishes, by the simple words, placet, or non slacet. Madrucci refused to submit to this method, and leclined giving any other answer than that contained in ais previous vote. Others imitated his example; but, aotwithstanding this hindrance and opposition, the Legates vesolutely persevered in their determination to ascertain ihe exact sentiments of the Fathers. For this end, be- ‘ides the usual Secretary, there were chosen two others, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the Archbishop -of Granada, to assist him in collecting and registering the votes. Whe result is thus recorded by the Secretary, Massarelli: “The yotes were all read aloud by me, the Secretary, and approved of, as correct, by each prelate. ‘They are as ‘ollows: For the affirmative, sixty-six; for the negative, simply, or with some addition, or with a reference to the Sovereign Pontiff, seventy-nine. The above does not comprise the votes of the Cardinal Madrucci, or of the vishops of Lerida, and of Budoa, or of the abbots;(”) but

_ (®) The Cardinal and the Bishop of Lerida referred to their previous speeches

‘and yotes; the Bishop of Budoa voted that residence should be proclaimed, but not

Wefined, as of divine right. The votes of the three Abbots of Monte Cassino were,

+ has been noticed, to count as one; but, on this occasion, two were in fayour of, nd one against, defining residence to be of divine right.

the bishop of Lerida has since desired his vote to be | placed on the affirmative side, which, therefore, reckons | sixty-seven votes.” It was now evident that, according to the votes, no resolution could be come to without first consulting the Pontiff; who was thereby placed, as he. declared, in a very odious and painful position. Tor, | whatsoever advice he might give was sure to offend a| powerful party. To decide against the solution of the) question, would be open to the reproach of placing an obstacle in the way of that particular reform, which was. by many proclaimed to be the only efficacious remedy for the evils of the times; whilst, to recommend that a de-) cision should be come to would not only offend many | friends, but would be to urge on the promulgation of an) article of faith, in opposition to a minority indeed, but one | powerful, numerous, and eminent for learning; and would | also be to deviate from what had hitherto been a fixed | rule,—the avoidance of any determination of questions | previously held, without reproach, in the Schools. f

This business ended, or prorogued, the Legates caused | certain delegates to be selected, from the prelates of} various nations, to prepare a draught of the proposed decrees, on the three other articles of reformation already discussed; and it was also resolved to reserve the two. articles on clandestine marriages to a more fitting occasion; | when the sacrament of matrimony would, in its tun, come under the consideration of the Council.

On the day previous to that on which the above-named scrutiny was made, there arrived, as ambassadors from Venice, Niccolo da Ponte, and Matteo Dandolo, who were received, by the Fathers, in the General Congrega-_ tion held on the 25th of April, 1562. Frequent meetings

were now held in order to have the proposed decrees ready for the day of Session, the 14th of May. But a letter which reached Trent, on the 15th of April, from | Lanssac, who was appointed ambassador from the French | court, delayed the proceedings, and finally occasioned | that, on the day of Session, the appointed decrees were —

562. | SESSION XIX. clxxi

iot promulgated. That ambassador represented that he vould make all possible haste to appear at Trent, accomvanied by Ferrier and Pibrac; and requested that the wroceedings might be delayed for a few days, should he ve unable to arrive at Trent by the day fixed for the Session.

The Archbishop of Granada opposed this request; ‘eclaring the Fathers incompetent to prorogue the day of Session, without being authorized to do so by a decree in Session: an opinion, which, though it was not adopted by the majority, led to the resolution to hold the Session on lhe day named, but without promulgating any decree, eyond appointing an early day for the despatch of susiness.

The Legates were now anxiously expecting the return if Pendasio from Rome; but an accident, which detained im near Mantua, rendered it necessary to send a special nessenger to receive his despatches and instructions. “he Pontiff’s directions were, to defer, if possible, the setermination of the question, until the ehrtt s of the preates had calmed down, so as to approach the subject with sreater clearness and deliberation; and accordingly the residents resolved, that the decision should be postponed intil the sacrament of Order, under which this question aaturally ranged itself, should come under examination.

On the first of May, Paungatner arrived as ambassador vom the Duke of Bavaria.

On the 14th of May, 1562, was held the nineteenth Session, at which the Patriarch of Venice celebrated the imass, and Bervaldo, Bishop of Saint Agatha, preached. The decree, proroguing the Session to the 4th of June uaving been read, the credentials of the ambassadors from Spain, and Florence, and those of the Bishops of Chonad wnd 'Tiniana as representatives of the clergy of Hungary, were formally received; and thus closed the troubled and ‘nxious proceedings of this Session.

SESSION XX.

Directions of the Legates in regard of residence.—Coun- | termanded.—Letters from the Pope.—Offend two of the. Presidents.—Seripando defends himself.—The French Ambassadors.—Perplexity of the Legates.—Resolve merely to prorogue the Session.—Prepare to send an agent to) Rome.—_Rendered wnnecessary.—The Session.— Business | transacted.—Prelates present.

As the next Session was to be held in a few days, the / Presidents, whilst waiting for the reply of the Pontiff to the reference made to him by the Council, had directed | the eight deputies, selected to prepare the decrees, to introduce also the first article on residence, declaring it to be of divine right, but allowing to each prelate an absence of two months in each year; and to the Pontiff a wide latitude of dispensation; a privilege which was also, in countries remote from Rome, to be enjoyed by _the metropolitans, in cases of sudden emergency. But, scarcely had the decrees been completed, and placed for revision in the hands of four eminent jurists, when letters and instructions arrived from Rome, which caused them to determine to postpone, if possible, the promulgation of the decrees till another Session. In his reply, the Pontiff gave his opinion on each of the ninety-five articles of reformation; all of which he left to be decided by the Council, except eleven points which immediately affected his own tribunals, and to which he declared it to be his intention to apply a remedy, of his own authority. As to the article of residence, he wished that it should either, once for all, be resolved not to discuss it, or that -the discussion should be deferred, as has been said, till men’s minds had recovered that calm and clear state which so important a question required. |

562. ] SESSION XX. elxxiil

There were other parts of the letters from the Pontiff ‘hich wounded severely the Presidents, especially the ardinal of Mantua, and Seripando, who were known to ® favourable to the divine right of residence. They ere also aware, that it was proposed to send three other ‘egates to the Council; that a congregation of six car- ‘hals was sitting at Rome, to watch the proceedings at rent; that their colleague Simonetta, who differed ‘om them on the origin of residence, was in secret cor- ‘spondence with Cardinal Borromeo and the Pope; in a wd they felt their present position painful and prewious. Seripando resolved to justify himself at Rome, ad so effectually did he succeed, that the additional ‘egates were not sent; though Visconti was deputed-to rent, to maintain a continual and minute correspondénce th the Pontiff, on the proceedings of the Council. ; Other anxieties and vexations awaited the Presidents, 1 the arrival of Lanssac, on the 18th of May, and of his leagues who appeared shortly afterwards. These amsssadors were more than suspected of heterodoxy, or difference to religion; and their speeches in Congregaom served to confirm that suspicion. Amidst a multi- ‘icity of other demands, they required that the present suncil at Trent should be declared entirely distinct from ve assembly held there previously; the Spaniards were urgent that it should be declared a continuation of it; nilst the Imperialists were ordered to withdraw from all ‘rticipation in the proceedings should any such deeision introduced into the decrees. To add to these embarsssments, the Presidents had received orders from the ‘pe, to propose, at all hazards, a clause declaratory of se continuation; for such, he represented, had been his *m view when he assembled the Council; and he had, _ reover, distinctly promised to the King of Spain, that—— declaration to that effect should be passed in the puncil. : ‘The Legates, foreseeing that to obey this mandate, puld be to dissolve the Council, determined to act on

their own responsibility, and to defer, at least, any such | attempt, to a more fitting occasion; to abstain from any | decree whatever, beyond the mere prorogation of the | Session, in the public assembly which was so soon to be | held. | To justify their conduct, they had agreed to despatch. | the Cardinal Altemps, to Rome; when, on the very eve) of the Session, fresh directions arrived from the Pontiff, | leaving it to their judgment to omit the obnoxious clause, if the good of the Council seemed to require the omission 5 but to. make the continuation practically evident to the) world, by the connexion of the subjects treated of. Upon receiving this letter, Seripando, in the absence of} the first Legate, cheerfully presided over the General Congregation, held on the 3rd of June, in which the reply to) the speech of the French ambassador was read and ap-) proved of; the proxies of the Archbishop of Salzburg were) received; and the decree, prepared for the Session of the) following day, was proposed to the consideration of the’ Fathers. Its contents were approved of by all, but the) Archbishop of Lanciano, who objected to the power given, to anticipate, by order of a General Congregation, the day of Session. The omission of the article on residence, and. of the continuation clause, was also objected to, the former by about twenty-five prelates, principally Spaniards, and the latter by about ten prelates, from Italy and Spain, On the following day, the 4th of June, 1562, was held the twentieth Session, at which the mass was celebrated by th Bishop of Salamanca, and the Sermon preached by Ragaz zone, bishop of Nazianzum, and elect of Famagosta. The credentials of the Swiss and French ambassadors, and of the proctors of the Archbishop of Salzburg, having bee received; and the discourse of the French ambassado read and replied to; the decree of prorogation was pro posed by the Celebrant, and approved of by all, but thirtysix bishops, who gave in their protests in writing, referring to their votes given in the previous congregation, whic! required either the insertion of the clauses, defining th

gin of residence, or the continuation of the Council. jae next Session was appointed to be held on the 16th July, of the same year. There were present, the four ‘gates, one other cardinal, two patriarchs, seventeen thbishops, one hundred and thirty-eight bishops, two ‘bots, and four generals of religious orders.(")

SESSION XXI.

The four Articles proposed to be placed before the Theodans.— Opposed by the Archbishop of Granada.— Violent vate on Residence.—The Legate’s promise.—Proposal eed to.— Question of continuation resumed.—Agent sent Rome.—His Instructions.—The Cardinal of Mantua ds in his Resignation. Which is dectined.— Arrival of warian Ambassador.—Opinions of Theologians on the Nicles.—Opinions of the Bishops.—Alterations in the vaught of Canons of Iaith and Decrees on Reformation. Whe Archbishop of Lanciano returns from Rome.—His itructions.—Salmeron and Torres-—The Session.— umber of Prelates present.

Jn the 6th of June, two days, that is, after the pre- ‘as Session, the Legates proposed, in General Congregaa, to place in the hands of the Theologians, the articles ‘the Eucharist which had been postponed under Julius. ey regarded the use of the Eucharist, and were the owing:

|. Is it obligatory, by the ordinance of God, on every wristian, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under lh species? ;

\4) SoLe Plat. Servanzio’s list is somewhat different. According to him | were the four Legates, one other cardinal, five patriarchs, two archbishops, or and twenty-eight bishops, two abbots, and four generals of orders.

COUNCIL OF TRENT: [1562. | 9. Are the reasons, which have induced the Catholic t Church, to communicate, under the species of bread only, | laymen and priests when not celebrating, to be adhered to | so strictly, as that the use of the chalice is not to be) allowed, to any of the above-named persons, under any | circumstances whatsoever? i 3, In case that, for reasons beseeming and consonant) with Christian charity, it should be thought fit to conceal the use of the chalice to any nation or kingdom, is this to) be granted under certain conditions, and what should these}

conditions be? Does he who partakes of this sacrament} received it under}

clxxvi

under one species receive less than if he both? | 4. Is it required, by the law of God, that this angudt sacrament be administered to children before they have attained to the use of reason? |

The Theologians were directed to discriminate clearly, between what was of faith, and what merely matter of opinion, or actual heresy, on the above subjects. |

Many of the Fathers agreed to this proposal; but the Archbishop of Granada objected against any such discus sion, or reference. The first article, he contended, h been already decided in the Council of Constance, and)

could not therefore be re-opened; whilst the remainin articles flowed so directly from that first proposition, thal they could not offer any difficulty which could render il needful to refer them to the Theologians. Better far woul¢ it be to proceed at once to the sacrament of Order, and s¢ decide, according to agreement, the vexed question ¢ residence. The arguments against the divine right ¢ residence were in his -judgment so futile, that they ha‘ but the more confirmed his conviction of the divine origi of the law, a belief in defence of which he was ready ti lay down his life; and the assertion of which could alon remedy the evils of a relaxed discipline.

These remarks renewed all the violence which had cha racterised the debates on this subject in the previous cor gregations. The Archbishop of Rossano denounced thi

62. | SESSION XXI. c1xxvil

scussion of the question as unsuited both to the temper ‘the times and of the Council; adding other remarks uich so roused and excited the supporters of the divine ght of residence, that the first Legate felt compelled to iterfere between the contending parties. With some diffi- Ity he succeeded in calming their indignation; by omising that the subject should be fully argued, accord- 2 to promise, when the sacrament of Order should come uder their~ consideration: a promise which caused him ach trouble both at Trent and Rome, as having been ven without the concurrence of his colleagues, and as iding the Pontiff to keep open a question which he ally wished might either be suppressed altogether, or iferred to a later period. It served, however, to bring ck the attention of the congregation to the proposal fore them, which was at length acceded to; and the four ‘ticles were accordingly consigned to the Theologians. ‘On the following day, another difficulty no less embarssing awaited the Legates. The Imperialists, by the ders of Ferdinand, besides presenting a long list of ‘icles of reformation, urged the avoidance of any decla- ‘ion that the present Council was a continuation of the ‘eceding; whilst, on the other hand, the Spaniards in- ‘ited on the fulfilment of the pledge, given by the Pontiff their King, that a clause asserting that continuation ould be at once introduced into the decrees.

‘In this emergency, the Legates resolved to send’ an ent to Rome, to lay before the Pontiff the actual state parties, and the difficulties of their position. They chose | this purpose Leonardo Marini, archbishop of Lanciano; ‘d though his commission had relation to the general ‘ite of the Council, he was directed to obtain precise in- ‘uctions especially on two points—the dissolution or mslation of the Council, and the question of residence. ‘They earnestly dissuaded the Pontiff from attempting, “present, to dissolve the Council, a measure which would \suredly occasion great scandal, and probably a grievous aism; and expressed their hope and belief, that the 5 N

9. Are the reasons, which have induced the Catholic | Church, to communicate, under the species of bread only, | laymen and priests when not celebrating, to be adhered to so strictly, as that the use of the chalice is not to be) allowed, to any of the above-named persons, under any| circumstances whatsoever ? {| _ 3. In case that, for reasons beseeming and consonant] with Christian charity, it should be thought fit to concede), the use of the chalice to any nation or kingdom, is this to) be granted under certain conditions, and what should these) conditions be? Does he who partakes of this sacrament under one species receive less than if he re¢eived it under both ? A. Is it required, by the law of God, that this augus sacrament be administered to children before they hav attained to the use of reason ?

The Theologians were directed to discriminate clearly between what was of faith, and what merely matter al opinion, or actual heresy, on the above subjects. |

Many of the Fathers agreed to this proposal; but the Archbishop of Granada objected against any such discussion, or reference. The first article, he contended, h been already decided in the Council of Constance, and could not therefore be re-opened;_ whilst the on,