last, with the exception of the Vatican Council of 1870, which, having proclaimed the Pope infallible, supersedes the necessity and use of any future councils, except for unmeaning formalities. It was called forth by the Protestant Reformation, and convened for the double purpose of settling the doctrinal controversies, which then agitated and divided Western Christendom, and of reforming discipline, which the more serious Catholics themselves, including even an exceptional Pope (Adrian VI.), desired and declared to be a crying necessity.' The Popes, jealous of deliberative assemblies, which might endanger their absolute authority, and afraid of reform movements, which might make concessions to heretics, pursued a policy of evasion and intrigue, and postponed the council again and again, until they were forced to yield to the pressure of public opinion. Pius IV. told the Venetian embassador that his predecessors had professed a wish for a council, but had not really desired it. In the early stages of the Reformation, Luther himself appealed to a general council, but he came to the conviction that even general councils had erred (e. g., the Council of Constance in condemning Hus), so that he had to trust exclusively to the Word of God and the Spirit of God in history. In deference to the special wish of the Emperor Charles V., the evangelical princes and divines were invited; but being refused a deliberative voice, they declined. They could not fail,' they replied, 'to appreciate the efforts of the Emperor, and they themselves were longing for an impartial council to be controlled by the supreme authority of the Scriptures, but they could not acknowledge nor attend a Roman council where their cause was to be judged after papal decrees and scholastic opinions, which had always found opposition in the of Prague). The Council of Ferrara and Florence (1439) is regarded as a continuation of, or a substitute for, the Council of Basle. There is also a dispute among Roman historians about the œcumenical character of the Council of Sardica (343), the Quinisexta (692), the Council of Vienne (1311), and the fifth Lateran (1512-17). See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vol. I. 50 sqq. 1 Adrian VI., from Holland, the teacher of Charles V., and the last non-Italian Pope, succeeded Leo X. in 1522, but ruled only one year. He died of the papacy.' He was a man of ascetic piety, and openly confessed, through his legate Chieregati, at the Diet of Nurnberg, that the Church was corrupt and diseased, from the Pope and the papal court to the members; but at the same time he demanded the sharpest measures against Luther as a second Mohammed. Twelve years later, Paul III. (1534-49) appointed a reform commission of nine pious Roman prelates, who in a memorial declared that the Pope's absolute dominion over the whole Church was the source of all this corruption; but he found it safer to introduce the Inquisition instead of a reformation. Church. The council promised by the Pope would be neither free nor Christian, nor œcumenical, nor ruled by the Word of God; it would only confirm the authority of the Pope, on whom it was depending, and prove a new compulsion of conscience.' The result shows that these apprehensions were well founded.1 After long delays the Council was opened by order of Pope Paul III., in the Austrian City of Trent (since 1917, belonging to Italy), on the 13th December, 1545, and lasted, with long interruptions, till the 4th of December, 1563. The attendance varied in the three periods: under Paul III. the number of prelates never exceeded 57, under Julius III. it rose to 62, under Pius IV. it was much larger, but never reached the number of the first œcumenical Council (318). The decrees were signed by 255 members, viz., 4 legates of the Pope, 2 Cardinals, 3 Patriarchs, 25 Archbishops, 168 Bishops, 39 representatives of absent prelates, 7 Abbots, and 7 Generals of different orders. Two thirds of them were Italians. From France and Poland only a few dignitaries were present; the greater part of the German Bishops were prevented from attendance by the war between the Emperor and the Protestants in Germany. The theologians who assisted the members of the Synod belonged to the monastic orders most devoted to the Holy See. The pontifical party controlled the preliminary deliberations as well as the final decisions, in spite of those who maintained the rights of an independent episcopacy.2 During a period of nearly twenty years twenty-five public sessions were held, of which about one half were spent in mere formalities. But the principal work was done in the committees or congregations. The articles of dispute were always fixed by the papal legates, who pre 'At the second period of the Council, 1552, a number of Protestant divines from Württemberg, Strasburg, and Saxony, arrived in Trent, or were on the way, but they demanded a revision of the previous decrees and free deliberation, which were refused. * The overruling influence of the papal court over the Council rests not only on the authority of Paolo Sarpi, but on many contemporary testimonies, e. g., the reports of Franciscus de Vargas, a zealous Catholic, who was used by Charles V. and Philip II. for the most important missions, who watched the proceedings of the Council at Trent from 1551 to '52. and gave minute information to Granvella. See Lettres et Mémoires de FR. DE VARGAS, de Pierre de Malvenda et des quelques evèques d'Espagne, trad. par Michel le Vassor, Amst. 1699; also in Latin, by Schramm, Brunswick, 1704. Le Plat pronounced this correspondence fictitious, but its authenticity has been sufficiently established (see Köllner, 1. c. pp. 40, 41). sided. They were then first discussed, often with considerable difference of opinion, in the private sessions of the 'Congregations,' and after being secretly reported to, and approved by, the court of Rome, the Synod, in public session, solemnly proclaimed the decisions. They are generally framed with consummate scholastic skill and prudence. The decisions of the Council relate partly to doctrine, partly to discipline. The former are divided again into Decrees (decreta), which contain the positive statement of the Roman dogma, and into short Canons (canones), which condemn the dissenting views with the concluding 'anathema sit.' The Protestant doctrines, however, are almost always stated in an exaggerated form, in which they would hardly be recognized by a discriminating evangelical divine, or they are mixed up with real heresies, which Protestants condemn as emphatically as the Church of Rome.1 The doctrinal sessions, which alone concern us here, are the following: III. Decretum de Symbolo Fidei (accepting the Niceno Constantinopolitan Creed as a basis of the following decrees (Febr. 4, 1546). IV. Decretum de Canonicis Scripturis (Apr. 8, 1546). V. De Peccato Originali (June 17, 1546). VI. De Justificatione (Jan. 13, 1547). VII. De Sacramentis in genere, and some Canones de Baptismo et Confirmatione (March 3, 1547). XIII. De Eucharistiæ Sacramento (Oct. 11, 1551). XIV. De S. Pœnitentiæ et Extreme Unctionis Sacramento (Nov. 25, 1551). 66 66 XXIII. Vera et Catholica de Sacramento Ordinis doctrina (July 15, 1563). 66 XXV. Decretum de Purgatorio, Doctrina de Invocatione, Veneratione et Reliquiis Sanctorum, et sacris Imaginibus. Decreta de Indulgentiis, de Delectu Ciborum, Jejuniis et Diebus Festis, de Indice Librorum, Catechismo, Breviario et Missali (Dec. 3 and 4, 1563). The last act of the Council was a double curse upon all heretics.2 The decrees, signed by 255 fathers, were solemnly confirmed by a bull of Pius IV. (Benedictus Deus et Pater Domini nostri, etc.) on the 26th January, 1564, with the reservation of the exclusive right of explanation to the Pope. Thus the Canones de Justificatione (Sess. VI.) reject Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, as well as Solifidianism and Antinomianism. The Cardinal of Lorraine said, 'Anathema cunctis hæreticis.' To this the fathers responded, 'Anathema, Anathema.' The Council was acknowledged in Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, the Low Countries, Poland, and the Roman Catholic portion of the German Empire; but mostly with a reservation of the royal prerogatives. In France it was never published in form. No attempt was made to introduce it into England. Pius IV. sent the acts to Queen Mary of Scots, with a letter, dated June 13, 1564, requesting her to publish them in Scotland, but without effect.1 The Council of Trent, far from being truly cecumenical, as it claimed to be, is simply a Roman Synod, where neither the Protestant nor the Greek Church was represented; the Greeks were never invited, and the Protestants were condemned without a hearing. But in the history of the Latin Church, it is by far the most important clerical assembly, unless the unfinished Vatican Council should dispute with it that honor, as it far exceeded it in numbers. It completed, with the exception of a few controverted articles, the doctrinal system of mediæval Catholicism, and stamped upon it the character of exclusive Romanisn. It settled its relation to Protestantism by thrusting it out of its bosom with the terrible solemnities of an anathema. Papal diplomacy and intrigue outmanaged all the more liberal elements. At the same time the Council abolished various crying abuses, and introduced wholesome disciplinary reforms, as regards the sale of indulgences, the education and morals of the clergy, the monastic orders, etc. Thus the Protestant Reformation, after all, had indirectly a wholesome effect upon the Church which condemned it. The original acts of the Council, as prepared by its general secretary, Bishop Angelo Massarelli, in six large folio volumes, are deposited in the Vatican, and have remained there unpublished for more than three hundred years. But most of the official documents and private reports bearing upon the Council were made known in the sixteenth century, and since. The most complete collection of them is that of Le Plat. New materials were brought to light by Mendham (from the manuscript history of Cardinal Paleotto), by Sickel, and by Döllinger. The genuine acts, but only in part, were edited by Theiner (1874). The history of the Council was written chiefly by two able and 1 On the reception, see the seventh volume of LE PLAT'S Collection of Documents, COURAYER'S Histoire de la reception du Concil de Trente, dans les differens états catholiques, Amst. 1756 (Paris, 1766), and KÖLLNER, 1. c. pp. 121–129. learned Catholics of very different spirit: the liberal, almost semi-Protestant monk Fra PAOLO SARPI, of Venice (first, 1619); and, in the interest of the papacy, by Cardinal SFORZA PALLAVICINI (1656), who had access to all the archives of Rome. Both accounts must be compared. The first learned and comprehensive criticism of the Tridentine doctrine, from a Protestant point of view, was prepared by an eminent Lutheran theologian, MARTIN CHEMNITZ (d. 1586), in his Examen Concilii Tridentini (1565–73, 4 Parts), best ed., Frankf.,1707; republished, Berlin, 1861.1 $ 25. THE PROFESSION OF THE TRIDENTINE FAITH, 1564. G. C. F. MOHNIKE: Urkundliche Geschichte der sogenannten Professio Fidei Tridentinæ und einiger andern röm, katholischen Glaubensbekenntnisse, Greifswald, 1822 (310 pp.). STREITWOLF et KLENER: Libri Symbolici Ecclesiæ Catholicæ, Gött. 1838, Tom. I. pp. xlv.-li. and 98-100. KÖLLNER: Symbolik der röm. Kirche, pp. 141-165. The older literature see in WALCH: Bibliotheca theol. sel., I. p. 410; and in KÖLLNER, 1. c. p. 141. Next in authority to the decrees of the Council of Trent, or virtually superior to it, stands the PROFESSIO FIDEI TRIDENTINÆ, or the CREED OF PIUS IV.2 It was suggested by the Synod of Trent, which in its last two sessions declared the necessity of a binding formula of faith (formula professionis et juramenti) for all dignitaries and teachers of the Catholic Church. It was prepared by order of Pope Pius IV., in 1564, by a college of Cardinals. 3 It consists of twelve articles: the first contains the Nicene Creed in full, the remaining eleven are a clear and precise summary of the spe 1 The editor, Ed. Preuss, has since become a Romanist at St. Louis (1871). * The original name was Forma juramenti professionis fidei. In the two papal bulls which published and enjoined the creed, it is called Forma professionis fidei catholicæ, or orthodoxæ fidei. The usual name is Professio fidei Tridentinæ (or P. f. Tridentina, which is properly a misnomer). See Mohnike, 1. c. p. 3, and Köllner, 1. c. p. 150. 'Sess. XXV. cap. 2 De Reformatione (p. 439, ed. Richter): 'Cogit temporum calamitas et invalescentium hæresum malitia, ut nihil sit prætermittendum, quod ad populorum ædificationem et catholicæ fidei præsidium videatur posse pertinere. Præcipit igitur sancta synodus patriarchis, primatibus, archiepiscopis, episcopis, et omnibus aliis, qui de jure vel consuetudine in concilio provinciali interesse debent, ut in ipsa prima synodo provinciali, post finem præsentis concilii habenda, ea omnia et singula, quæ ab hac sancta synodo definita et statuta sunt, palam recipiant, nec non veram obedientiam summo Romano Pontifici spondeant et profiteantur, simulque hæreses omnes, a sacris canonibus et generalibus conciliis, præsertimque ab hac eadme synodo damnatas, publice detestentur et anathematizent.' Comp. Sess. XXIV. De Reformatione, cap. 12, where an examination and profession (orthodoxæ fidei publica professio) is required from the clergy, together with a vow to remain obedient to the Roman Church (in ecclesiæ Romanæ obedientia se permansuros spondeant ac jurent). |