Chapter III: Front Matter (3)

This historical sketch will serve to give some idea of the difficulties the work of the council had to encounter. Whatever may be said in the abstract of the union of church and state, their relations in the sixteenth century were very unsatisfactory. Popes Paul III., Julius, and Pius wanted a general council; but it was very difficult so to arrange matters as to obtain the necessary consent of all the Catholic powers, and this difficulty always afforded an excuse for delay when delay was really desired. Then there were courtiers at Rome "to whose ears the word reform sounded harsh," as Pallavicini says; and who were suddenly animated by the most ardent zeal in defence of the prerogatives of the holy see, which, they alleged, would be unduly curtailed by the council. But the firmness of the pontiffs, under the grace of God, which never abandons his church, brought these machinations to nought. They refused to interfere to save their dependents from a thorough reform; and Pius IV., especially, declared that he left full liberty to the fathers in the matter. And in a discourse in the Consistory of Cardinals, on December 30th, 1563, he expressly thanked the fathers "for the religious zeal and resolute freedom with which they had spared no labor, no care, to remove all heresies and corruptions." "We are also," he continued, "not a little indebted to them for having been so moderate and indulgent in the work of reformation, in regard to our own affairs, (that is, the papal court,) that, had we preferred to take this duty on ourselves, and not commit it to their discretion, we should certainly have been more severe. Wherefore, as salutary measures have been adopted, it is our firm determination forthwith to carry the reform into effect by the observance of the decrees of the sacred synod. We shall rather, when necessary, make up by our own diligence for the moderation and leniency of the fathers; so far are we from wishing to neglect or diminish one iota."[8] And he appointed Cardinals Morone and Simonetta, both legates to the council, to see that nothing was done by any of the papal officials in contravention of the so lately approved decrees. The courtiers had to submit, and the court of Rome since that day has given little or no occasion for serious complaint, and certainly no pretext for a schism under the name of reform. Another difficulty arose from the multitude of counsellors, and the liberty left in discussion. Now that the council has passed into history, it is pleasant to see that such ample freedom was allowed; but it must have been sometimes a sore task for the legates to keep order. They well deserved the encomium of Ragazzoni, "You have been our excellent leaders and directors in action. You have used incredible patience and diligence in guarding against any violation of our liberty, either in speaking or in legislating. You have spared no bodily labor, no mental exertion, to bring the undertaking to its desired end." But the principal difficulty arose from the Protestants themselves. They had asked for the council, but when it was assembled they would have nothing to do with it. Three different safe conducts were issued for them--one under Paul III., another under Julius III., and the last under Pius IV.--all of them as ample as could be desired; but to no purpose. They did not really want a council, but an ecclesiastical mob without a head; in other words, they wanted the main question of church authority to be decided in advance in their favor. Their course was substantially that of all former heretics; first, to appeal to the council, to gain time and cause trouble; then, after their condemnation, to abuse the council as much as they had formerly abused the pope. It would be difficult to determine which is to-day the greater bugbear of the average Protestant, the Council of Trent or the holy see.

Few, if any, assemblages have received such praise for learning, moderation, and zeal--not only from friends, but from candid opponents--as that of Trent. We will give as a sample the judgment of Hallam, himself not at all well disposed toward Catholic dogma. His testimony is the more valuable that he acknowledges to have taken his facts from the disingenuous account of the more than half Protestant, Fra Paolo Sarpi,[9] and never to have read the able and exhaustive history of Pallavicini:

"It is usual for Protestant writers to inveigh against the
Tridentine fathers. I do not assent to their decisions, which
is not to the purpose, nor vindicate the intrigues of the papal
party. But I must presume to say that, reading their proceedings
in the pages of that very able and not very lenient historian to
whom we have generally recourse, an adversary as decided as any
that could have come from the reformed churches, I find proofs of
much ability, considering the embarrassments with which they had
to struggle, and of an honest desire of reformation, among a large
body, as to those matters which, in their judgment, ought to be
reformed."[10]

Again:

"It will appear, by reading the accounts of the sessions of
the council, either in Father Paul, or in any more favorable
historian, that, even in certain points, such as justification,
which had not been clearly laid down before, the Tridentine
decrees were mostly conformable with the sense of the majority
of those doctors who had obtained the highest reputation; and
that upon what are more usually reckoned the distinctive
characteristics of the Church of Rome, namely, transubstantiation,
purgatory, and invocation of the saints and the Virgin, they
assert nothing but what had been so engrafted into the faith of
this part of Europe as to have been rejected by no one without
suspicion or imputation of heresy. Perhaps Erasmus would not have
acquiesced with good-will in _all_ the decrees of the council; but
was Erasmus deemed orthodox?... No general council ever contained
so many persons of eminent learning and ability as that of Trent;
nor is there ground for believing that any other ever investigated
the questions before it with so much patience, acuteness, temper,
and desire of truth. The early councils, unless they are greatly
belied, would not bear comparison in these characteristics.
Impartiality and freedom from prejudice, no Protestant will
attribute to the fathers of Trent; but where will he produce these
qualities in an ecclesiastical synod? But it may be said that they
had only one leading prejudice, that of determining theological
faith according to the tradition of the Catholic Church, as handed
down to their age. This one point of authority conceded, I am
not aware that they can be proved to have decided wrong, or at
least against all reasonable evidence. Let those who have imbibed
a different opinion ask themselves whether they have read Sarpi
through with any attention, especially as to those sessions of the
Tridentine Council which preceded its suspension in 1549."[11]

To the praise of ability, industry, and fairness, all of the highest order from a natural point of view, Hallam unconsciously adds a still greater, in the eyes of any true Catholic, namely, that the council, on controverted dogmatic points, adhered to the tradition of the Catholic Church. And this on the authority of the carping Sarpi! What more could the greatest admirer say? Right in its view of dogma from the traditional--the true Catholic--stand-point, honest and unswerving in reforming abuses, patient in discussion, diligent in research, calm in decision--such is the substantial verdict of a Protestant writer, in the nineteenth century, on the great council of the sixteenth.

If we consider the variety of matters treated of in the council, its work will appear immense. The following accurate synopsis is taken from the oration of Ragazzoni, at the last session, which we have quoted before. In matters of faith, after the adoption of the venerable creed sanctioned by antiquity, the council drew up a catalogue of the inspired books of the Old and New Testament, and approved the old received Latin version of the Hebrew and Greek originals. It then passed to decide the questions that had been raised concerning the fall of man. Next, with admirable wisdom and order, it laid down the true Catholic doctrine on justification. The sacraments then claimed attention, and their number, their life-giving power through grace, and the nature of each one were accurately defined. The great dogma of the blessed eucharist was fully laid down; the real dignity of the Christian altar and sacrifice was vindicated; and the moot question of communion under one or two kinds settled both in theory and practice. Lastly, the false accusations of opponents were dispelled, and Catholic consciences gladdened by the enunciations on indulgences, purgatory, the invocation and veneration of saints, and the respect to be paid to their relics and images. The decision on so many important and difficult questions was no light task, and of the utmost importance. A "hard and fast line" was drawn between heresy and truth; and if the wayward were not all converted, the little ones of Christ were saved from the danger of being led astray. In her greatest trial, the church gave no uncertain sound. Nations might rage, and the rulers of the earth meditate rash things; but the truth of God did not abandon her, and she fearlessly proclaimed it in her council. In regard to some abuses in practical matters, dependent on dogma, from which the innovators had seized a pretext to impugn the true faith, a thorough reform was decreed. Measures were taken to prevent any impropriety or irreverence in the celebration of the divine sacrifice, whether from superstitious observances, greed of filthy lucre, unworthy celebrants, profane places, or worldly concomitants. The different orders of ecclesiastics were accurately distinguished, and the exclusive rights and duties of each one clearly defined; some impediments of matrimony, which had been productive of evil rather than good, were removed, and most stringent regulations adopted to prevent the crying wrongs to which confiding innocence and virtue had been subjected under the pretext of clandestine marriages. All the abuses connected with indulgences, the veneration of the saints, and intercession for the souls of purgatory, were fully and finally extirpated. Nor was less care taken in regard to purely disciplinary matters. Measures were taken to insure, as far at least as human frailty would permit, the elevation of only worthy persons to ecclesiastical dignities; and stated times were appointed for the frequent and efficient preaching of the word of God, too much hitherto neglected, the necessity of which was insisted on with earnestness and practical force. The sacred duty of residence among their flocks was impressed on bishops and all inferiors having the care of souls; proper provision was made for the support of needy clergymen, and all privileges which might protect heresy or crime were swept away. To prevent all suspicion of avarice in the house of God, the gratuitous administration of the sacraments was made compulsory; and measures were taken to put an effectual stop to the career of the questor, by abolishing the office. Young men destined for the priesthood were to be trained in ecclesiastical seminaries; provincial synods were restored, and regular diocesan visitations ordered; many new and extended faculties were granted to the local authorities, for the sake of better order and prompter decision; the sacred duty of hospitality was inculcated in all clerics; wise regulations were passed to secure proper promotions to ecclesiastical benefices; all hereditary possession of God's sanctuary prohibited; moderation prescribed in the use of the power of excommunication; luxury, cupidity, and license, as far as possible, exiled from the sanctuary; most holy and wise provisions adopted for the better regulation of the religious of both sexes, who were judiciously shorn of many of their privileges, to the proper development of episcopal authority; the great ones of the world were warned of their duties and responsibilities. These, and many other similar measures, were the salutary, efficient, and lasting reforms with which God, at last taking mercy on his people, inspired the fathers of Trent, legitimately congregated under the presidency and guidance of the apostolic see. Such was the great work done by the council--so great that even this summary review makes our wonder at the length of its duration cease. One remark seems worthy of special notice. The usual complaint of Protestants against the council was, and is, that it was too much under papal influence. Now, one of the most notable features of its legislation is the great increase of the power of bishops. Not only was their _ordinary_ authority confirmed and extended, but they were made in many cases, some of them of no little importance, perpetual delegates of the apostolic see, so that Philip II. of Spain is reported to have said of his bishops, that "they went to Trent as parish priests, and returned like so many popes."[12] So groundless is the statement that the papal jealousy of episcopal power prevented any really salutary reforms.

Such was the great work of the Council of Trent. But a tree is best judged by its fruits, and this test will give us even a better idea of its importance and magnitude. Perhaps the best encomium of the council is that the Catholic of to-day reads with astonishment of abuses and measures of reform in the sixteenth century. The prophecy of Ragazzoni, in his often-quoted oration, has been literally fulfilled--the names of many of the evils of that period have been forgotten. Thank God! to understand the work of Trent, we have to study the internal troubles of the church of those days in the pages of history, for we do not find them in our own time. They have utterly disappeared. We have already quoted Hallam on the revival of faith and piety in the church that was the immediate effect of the council. All historians agree that the triumphs of Protestantism closed with the first fifty years of its existence. After that it gradually declined. "We see," says Macaulay in his famous _Edinburgh Review_ article on the papacy, "that during two hundred and fifty years Protestantism has made no conquests worth speaking of. Nay, we believe that as far as there has been a change, that change has been in favor of the Church of Rome." Hallam has noticed the same fact, and assigned its real causes; we shall give his words, as, with a few obvious exceptions, they might have been written by a Catholic: "The prodigious increase of the Protestant party in Europe, after the middle of the (sixteenth) century, did not continue more than a few years. It was checked and fell back, not quite so rapidly or completely as it came on, but so as to leave the antagonist church in perfect security." He goes on to give the causes of the reaction. The influence of the Council of Trent in its reform of the clergy, both secular and regular, (we have already given his words,) is mentioned as the principal cause; and, "far above all the rest," he says, "the Jesuits were the instruments of regaining France and Germany to the church they served." "They conquered us," says Ranke, "on our own ground, in our own homes, and stripped us of a part of our country." The following passages will give some idea of the extent and causes of the change:

"Protestantism, as late as 1578, might be deemed preponderant
in all the Austrian dominions, except the Tyrol. In the Polish
diets, the dissidents, as they were called, met their opponents
with vigor and success. The ecclesiastical principalities were
full of Protestants; and even in the chapters some of them might
be found. But the contention was unequal, from the different
characters of the parties; religious zeal and devotion, which,
fifty years before, had overthrown the ancient rites in northern
Germany, were now more invigorating sentiments in those who
rescued them from further innovation. In religious struggles,
where there is any thing like an equality of forces, the question
soon comes to be, which party will make the greatest sacrifice for
its own faith? And, while the Catholic self-devotion had grown
far stronger, there was much more secular cupidity, lukewarmness,
and formality in the Lutheran Church. In a very few years the
effects of this were distinctly seen. The Protestants of the
Catholic principalities went back into the bosom of Rome. In the
bishopric of Wurtzburg alone, sixty-two thousand converts are
said to have been received in the year 1586. The Emperor Rodolph
and his brother archdukes, by a long series of persecution and
banishment, finally, though not within this century, almost
outrooted Protestantism from the hereditary provinces of Austria.
It is true that these violent measures were the proximate cause
of so many conversions; but if the reformed had been ardent
and united, they were much too strong to be thus subdued. In
Bohemia, accordingly, and in Hungary, where there was a more
steady spirit, they kept their ground. The reaction was not less
conspicuous in other countries. It is asserted that the Huguenots
had already lost more than two thirds of their number in 1580;[13]
comparatively, I presume, with twenty years before; and the change
in their relative position is manifest from all the histories
of this period. In the Netherlands, though the seven united
provinces were slowly winning their civil and religious liberties
at the sword's point, yet West Flanders, once in great measure
Protestant, became Catholic before the end of the century; while
the Walloon provinces were kept from swerving by some bishops of
great eloquence and excellent lives, as well as by the influence
of the Jesuits planted at St. Omer and Douay. At the close of this
period of fifty years, the mischief done to the old church in its
first decennium was very nearly repaired; the proportion of the
two religions in Germany coincided with those which had existed
at the pacification of Passau. The Jesuits, however, had begun to
encroach a little on the proper domain of the Lutheran church.

"This great revival of the papal religion, after the shock it had
sustained in the first part of the sixteenth century, ought for
ever to restrain that temerity of prediction so frequent in our
ears.... In the year 1560, every Protestant in Europe doubtless
anticipated the overthrow of popery; the Catholics could have
found little else to warrant hope than their trust in heaven. The
late rush of many nations toward democratical opinions has not
been so rapid and so general as the change of religion about that
period. It is important and interesting to inquire what stemmed
this current. We readily acknowledge the prudence, firmness,
and unity of purpose that for the most part distinguished the
court of Rome, the obedience of its hierarchy, the severity of
intolerant laws, and the searching rigor of the Inquisition, the
resolute adherence of great princes to the Catholic faith, the
influence of the Jesuits over education; but these either existed
before, or would at least not have been sufficient to withstand
an overwhelming force of opinion. It must be acknowledged that
there was a principle of vitality in that religion, independent
of its external strength. By the side of its secular pomp, its
relaxation of morality, there had always been an intense flame
of zeal and devotion. Superstition, it might be, in the many,
fanaticism in a few; but both of these imply the qualities which,
while they subsist, render a religion indestructible. That revival
of an ardent zeal, through which the Franciscans had, in the
thirteenth century, with some good and much more evil effect,
spread a popular enthusiasm over Europe, was once more displayed
in counteraction of those new doctrines that themselves had drawn
their life from a similar development of moral emotion."[14]

In the Council of Trent were again fulfilled the words of the prophet concerning the Messiah: "Behold, he cometh ... like a refining fire, and like the fuller's herb; and he shall sit refining and cleansing the silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold, and as silver; and they shall offer sacrifices to the Lord in justice; and the sacrifice shall please the Lord, as in the days of old, and in the ancient years."[15]

The zeal of the fathers did not, it is true, succeed in bringing back all the Protestants; but neither did the Council of Nice succeed with the Arians, or that of Ephesus with the Nestorians, or that of Chalcedon with the followers of Eutyches. But they kept the Catholic faith pure; they sternly applied the pruning-hook to the numerous excrescences which had been allowed to accumulate. God blessed their work; and the tree of life, planted by running waters, again produced new flowers and fruits of holiness.

Though from the moment the decrees were solemnly approved by the holy see, with the exception of that on clandestine marriages, for which special provision had been made, they commenced to be obligatory on the whole church; yet it was thought well to obtain a special promulgation in the different Catholic countries of Europe. The republic of Venice and the king of Portugal first gave the example; Philip II. of Spain followed, and was imitated, after some little delay in the hope of reconciling the Protestants, by the German emperor. France, then governed by Catharine of Medici, alone, of Catholic countries, refused. The excuse given was, principally, the turbulence of the Huguenots; the real reason, the desire to preserve certain royal prerogatives in church matters,[16] with which the reforms of the council interfered. So, in the name of Gallican liberties and royal privileges, the disciplinary portion was not published in France. Most of the measures were actually adopted by the bishops in provincial councils; but the seed of great evils was sown. These same liberties, so called, rendered possible the chicanery by which the Jansenists subsequently sought to elude the solemn condemnations of the holy see; and at the revolution gave the idea of the civil constitution of the clergy, rather than accept which so many noble bishops and priests gladly met death. But the French Church has tired of them; a terrible experience has taught her that the only true safeguard of her liberty is, in a close union with the see of him to whom Christ confided the duty of strengthening his brethren. In regard to the decrees on faith, there was never any hesitancy in France; and we owe some of our very best apologetic or controversial works against Protestantism to zealous and learned writers of that nation.

One remarkable consequence of the council was a great outpouring of the spirit of sanctity. St. Charles Borromeo, as prime minister of his uncle, Pius IV., contributed greatly to its successful termination. Afterward, as archbishop of Milan, he set an example of enforcing its decrees which has ever since served as a rule for zealous bishops. He changed the face of affairs in Lombardy, and may be said to have led the way in practically carrying the reforms into effect. Numbers of holy bishops aided him, or imitated his example; and before he died the new discipline was well established. At Rome, St. Philip Neri excited in a wonderful way the spirit of zeal in the clergy, and of piety in the laity; and his work and example remain to this day. It is impossible not to be struck with the new spirit that had seized the papal court. The popes themselves were men not only of blameless lives, but zealous and active for the good of religion. A glance at Ranke's history--especially the notes at the end--will satisfy the reader of this; while Catholic works abound in edifying accounts. Such men as Baronius and Bellarmine were ornaments of the Sacred College, not only for their learning, but for their solid, extraordinary piety, which has barely failed of obtaining the honors of the altar. The Society of Jesus, and other religious orders, were seminaries of virtues, of zeal, of missionary spirit; and the heralds of the cross went to the very ends of the earth to bring the glad tidings of salvation to those sitting in darkness. Every state and condition of life has its saints of this period. St. Mary Magdalen di Pazzi, the nun; St. Francis Borgia, the rich man who gave up all for Christ; St. Felix of Cantalice, the unlettered lay brother; St. Aloysius, the pattern of youth; St. Francis Xavier, the apostle; St. Charles, the model bishop; St. Philip Neri, the perfect secular priest; St. Pius V., the pope who added to his triple crown the fourth, and greatest, of sanctity; and many others, whose names are not so well known to the world. It was emphatically the age of saints: war always produces heroes.

There have been shortcomings since Trent, because the church has her human as well as her divine element, and heresies and scandals, it was foretold by her divine Founder, must come; but, by far, not so many as before it. The contrast between the ease with which Pius IX. convokes a general council and the difficulties with which his predecessors had to contend in the sixteenth century, is so plain as to require no comment, and, at the same time, affords striking evidence of the efficacy of the work done at Trent. It was a great work, in every sense of the word. It met from the beginning with great difficulties, which were overcome by equal constancy; it was devised and executed by men great in learning, prudence, and zeal; it effected a reaction in favor of Catholicity than which there never occurred "one on a larger scale in the annals of mankind;"[17] it thoroughly purified the church from wretched and inveterate abuses; it revived a spirit of sanctity that emulated the palmiest days of the church; and it has handed down to us the boon of pure faith and strict observance which our unfortunate opponents cannot but admire, even though they attempt to decry it. While Protestantism was pulling down, the council built up on a sure foundation; and its work has been lasting.

Through the lapse of three centuries the grateful church has ever re-echoed, as she re-echoes at this day, the acclamation of the Cardinal of Lorraine, "The sacred ecumenical Council of Trent--let us profess its faith; let us always observe its decrees. _Semper confiteamur, semper servemus._"

FOOTNOTES:

[2] Pallavicini. _Historia Conc. Trid. Apparatus._ Chap. 1, § 4. We quote from the Latin translation of F. Giattini, S.J.

[3] _Sermons on the Failure of Protestantism._ Sermon v.

[4] Introd. to _The Literature of Europe_. Part ii. ch. 2, §§ 7, 8.

[5] Pallav. Lib. v. c. 17, § 8.

[6] Lib. xi. c. 6, § 4.

[7] Lib. xiv. c. 9, § 5.

[8] Pallav. Lib. xxiv. c. 9, § 5.

[9] We append the estimate which Hallam himself forms of the Catholicity of this unfortunate friar: "Dupin observes that the long list of errors imputed by Pallavicini, which are chiefly in dates and such trifling matters, make little or no difference as to the substance of Sarpi's history; but that its author is more blamable for a malicious disposition to impute political motives to the members of the council, and idle reasonings which they did not employ. Ranke, who has given this a more minute scrutiny than Dupin could have done, comes nearly to the same result. Sarpi is not a fair, but he is, for those times, a tolerably exact historian.... Much has been disputed about the religious tenets of Father Paul: it appears to me quite out of doubt, both by the tenor of his history, and still more unequivocally, if possible, by some of his letters that he was entirely hostile to the church, in the usual sense, as well as to the court of Rome; sympathizing in affection, and concurring generally in opinion, with the reformed denomination." (_Lit. of Europe_, Part iii. ch. 2, § 3.) "This confirms the principal points in Pallavicini's main charge, that Sarpi was hostile to the church, and substituted his own malicious conjectures for the truth of history." (See _Apparatus_, ch. 1.)

[10] _Literature of Eur._ Part i. ch. 6, § 25.

[11] _Literature of Europe_, Part ii. ch. 2, § 18, note.

[12] Pallav. _Hist. Appar._ ch. 9, § 4.

[13] In a note, quoting Ranke as authority, he adds, "The number is rather startling."

[14] _Lit. of Europe_, Part ii. c. 2, §§ 14, 15.

[15] Mal. iii. 2-4.

[16] One of these was the power of giving regular benefices _in commendam_, that is, conferring the style, title, rank, and revenues of abbot, or other religious superior, on some one not a member of the religious community, who enjoyed the advantages but never performed the duties of his office. Two evils followed: 1. An ecclesiastical benefice was a mere matter of political patronage, and liable to be conferred on unworthy persons. 2. Owing to the absence of the chief superior, discipline became very relaxed in religious communities so afflicted. At least one regular congregation, in France, entirely died out on this account.

[17] Hallam. _Lit. of Eur._ Part ii. ch. 2, § 6.

MATTHEW XXVII.

"And He answered them nothing."

O mighty Nothing! unto thee,
Nothing, we owe all things that be.
God spake once when He all things made,
He saved all when He nothing said.
The world was made of nothing then;
'Tis made by nothing now again.

CRASHAW.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF CONRAD VON BOLANDEN.

ANGELA.