ter, in which respect the sacrament of orders resembles those of baptism and confirmation. Further, when the Saviour led the apostles out and blessed them, (Luke xxiv. 50.) he constituted them bishops, sending them to preach the gospel. These and similar sentiments, equally foreign to the true meaning of Scripture, he confirmed by the authority of the Apostolical Constitutions (a well known apocryphal work,) and various tra ditions and councils. Peter Soto spoke of the hierarchy. He maintained that in the government of the church, which is vested in the priesthood, there is a regular gradation, as in the angelic host, and that bishops, priests, and other ministers, are the rulers of the spiritual community, ordinary Christians being entirely excluded; although he admit ted that the latter have in certain cases the right of election, which had been denied by the preceding speak. er. In opposition to the Protestants, he asserted that so far from the office of priests being confined to preaching the gospel, that duty rather belongs to bishops, according to the saying of the apostle. "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Melchior Cornelio vindicated the use of unction and other ceremonies used in ordination. He also endeavoured to prove that bishops are superior to priests, and that the episcopacy is an order of peculiar dignity, principally because confirmation and ordination are confer red by them only. 17 The debates that arose on the last article (relating to the superiority of bishops to priests) excited a dispute that more than ever distracted and divided the council. When this subject was discussed in 1552, the question proposed was, " Whether bishops are superior to pres byters by divine right," and Crescentio, while he con ceded the affirmative, had contrived to evade its effects, and would have succeeded, had he not been detected and exposed. 18 The present legates had resolved to avoid if possible the revival of the controversy, chiefly on account of its connexion with the dispute respecting 17 Pallav. I. xviii. c. 12. Sarpi, 1. vii. s. 7-9. Le Plat, v. p. 508-516. 18 See p. 209. residence, which they intended should be quietly refer red to the Pope. With these views they erased from the article the words "jure divino," "by divine right," hoping that the subject would not be introduced. But they were mistaken. The Spaniards resolutely refused to be silent. A furious contest was the result, which, though the issue was favourable to the papal interests, necessarily prolonged the council much beyond the time which had been fixed for its continuance. When the deliberations of the divines were ended, a committee was appointed to prepare the decree and canons, copies of which were soon distributed among the fathers. In examining them the prelates were unusually critical, even to fastidiousness. At the close of the discussion, the archbishop of Granada remarked that there was a great defect in the decree, inasmuch as the declaration of the divine right of episcopal superiority was wanting. Such a declaration, he said, had been prepared and agreed to in 1552, as some who were then present could testify. In a long and studied address he laboured to defend his sentiments. The legate Osius interrupted the archbishop, and said that this was a point on which there was no dispute with the heretics, and therefore such a declaration as he demanded was totally unnecessary; even the confession of Augsburg did not deny the divine right of bishops, but only that those who were consecrated with Romish rites were not true prelates. "If it is confessed by the heretics themselves," replied the archbishop, "why should we hesitate to affirm it?" The legate still persisted that this was needless, evidently wishing to evade the question altogether. But this was impracticable; the assertion respecting the confession of Augsburg was shown to be incorrect, 19 and the archbishop and his friends persevered in their demand, greatly to the annoyance of the legates. A contentious debate followed, and continued several 19 The Augsburg confession has no reference whatever to the point debated at Trent: the divine right of bishops or pastors is indeed mentioned; but it is the right to preach the word, administer the sacraments, and exercise discipline. The Wirtemburg confession expressly asserts the equality of bishops and presbyters, on the authority of Jerome. Corpus et Syntagma, p. 43–47. 120. days. Each party put forth its full strength, and the importance of the question was universally felt and acknowledged. Should the divine right be declared, it was perceived that the consequences would be eininently disastrous to the power and pretensions of the papacy. The bishops would immediately assert their entire independence of the Pope, a fruitful source of revenue and influence would be entirely destroyed, and the court of Rome would sink into comparative insignificance.These considerations greatly alarmed the legates, and induced them to employ all the force of intrigue to procure the rejection of the disputed clause.2 At length a division took place, in which one hundred and eightyone votes were given. Fifty-four prelates voted for the divine right, and the number would have been greater had not many been restrained by the fear of incurring the displeasure of their patrons, the legates, or the Pope. But although the majority sided with the le2 i gates, they knew how it was obtained, and felt that it would be unsafe to treat their opponents with disrespect, since among them were found a large proportion of the most learned and influential prelates then at Trent. It was at least good policy to seek conciliation and agreement, even though the attempt failed of success. With this object an addition was made to the committee, who took immense pains to frame the decree in such a manner as might meet the views of both parties. Various 20 The Jesuit Lainez was employed to refute the advocates of the divine right. The historians have preserved a very full report of his speech. It contains the most extravagant assertions of pontifical power and authority. Lainez maintained that Jesus Christ is sole ruler of his church; that when he left the world he constituted Peter and his successors as his vicars; that in consequence the Pope is absolute Lord and Master, supreme and infallible; that bishops derive from him their power and jurisdiction, and that in fact there is no power whatever in the church but from him, so that even general councils have no authority, are not infallible, do not enjoy the influence of the Holy Spirit, unless they are summoned and controlled by papal authority Pallav. 1. xviii. s. 15. Sarpi, l. vii. s. 20.— Le Plat, v. p. 524. 21 It seems that many abstained from voting at all, for fear of giving offence. D'Andrada says that there were more than two hundred and thirty present when the question of communion in both kinds was discussed, and the number gradually increased till it reached nearly three hundred. Defensio Trident. Fidei, 1. i. p. 26, modes of expression were proposed, altered, modified, and rejected. Much time was wasted in these contentions, and no prospect of union appeared.22 The situation of the legates was sufficiently trying. They could neither please the Pope nor pacify the prelates. His Holiness anxiously desired the termination of the council; but this could only be accomplished by a forced decision of the question of divine right, which would be followed by an open rupture with the Spaniards and French, and probably with the Germans. The opposing bishops were thoroughly untractable: it was useless to attempt to overawe them-they were proof against seduction. The business of the council was at a stand, and nothing had been done for several days, when the legates proposed anew the subject of residence. They introduced a decree, enacting severe penalties against offenders, and offering a bounty on obedience by exempting residents from the payment of their tenths. This was inserted as some compensation to the bishops for the omission of the declaration of divine right. But various objections were raised against it, particularly by the Spanish and French ambassadors, who contended that it infringed on the rights of their Sovereigns. Even the bishops were not satisfied, for they foresaw that the promised immunities would be soon taken from them, and were unwilling to forego their claims for the prospect of an uncertain advantage. In consequence, the debate quickly closed, and was not resumed for some time,23 At the request of the French ambassadors the session was postponed, on account of the expected arrival of the cardinal of Lorraine. He entered Trent Nov. 13, accompanied by fourteen bishops, three abbots, and twenty-two divines, chiefly doctors of the Sorbonne. This was an event in which all parties felt deep interest.— The reforming members of the council, particularly the Spaniards, looked forward to it with much pleasure.— They had heard that the cardinal purposed to lay an unsparing hand on the abuses of the papacy, and to avow himself the warm and uncompromising advocate 22 Pallav. 1. xviii. c. 16. 23 Pallav, 1. xviii, c. 17. Sarpi, 1. vii. s. 25-29, of reform. On the other hand, the legates and their adherents could ill conceal their fears. They were much alarmed at the anticipated union between the French and the Spaniards; and the free spirit and bold measures that had been recently indulged in France seemed to justify the most anxious forebodings. But the Pope affected to treat the matter with indifference. He ridiculed the idea of the cardinal of Lorraine's setting up for a reformer. "This cardinal," said he, "is a second Pope. He has a revenue of three hundred thou sand crowns. A suitable persen, truly, to talk of reform, and inveigh against pluralities! As for me, I have but one benefice, and I am content with one!" Yet in fact his Holiness was as much afraid as his ministers. Reports were continually brought to him respecting the aims and intentions of the cardinal. It was not enough that he was described as the irreconcileable enemy of corruptions and abuses. Some affirmed that he wished to procure a decree for the performance of divine worship in the vernacular tongue, and that in his own diocese of Rheims baptism was already so celebrated. 24 Others said that he would plead for communion in both kinds, and the marriage of the clergy; and that he intended to propose that bishoprics should be bestowed only on those who were able to preach, and that unpreaching prelates should be compelled to expend onethird of their revenues in the support of a preacher.2 5 Whether these reports were well founded or not, the Pope deemed that there was sufficient ground for concern and fear. He immediately dispatched the bishop of Monte Falisci, to join the cardinal on his road and attend him to Trent, under colour of respect and honour, but in reality to act as a spy. With a similar object the legates had sent the bishop of Senegal.Orders were issued that every prelate then at Rome should repair to Trent forthwith. None were exempted: titulars, coadjutors, those who had resigned their benefices, and retained only the episcopal order, without jurisdiction—the aged and infirm, and even such as held official situations in the papal court, were compelled to 24 Pallav. ut sup. Le Plat, v. p. 519. |