!

There was also an entire unanimity in the condemnation of the reformers, for denying that the sacraments confer grace; but they were not united in their expositions of the manner in which this effect is produced. The divines generally maintained that grace is acquired in two ways: it may flow from the good disposition of the recipient—this is grace ex opere operantis; or it may be produced by a supposed virtue in the sacrament itself, as baptism bestows grace on infants and idiots, and extreme unction on the unconscious sick and dying—this is grace ex opere operato. Here the Dominicans and Franciscans differed widely in their explanations. The former asserted that the sacraments possess in themselves an efficacious power, producing in the soul a disposition to receive grace, and that they contain grace as the effect is contained in the cause. The latter denied this efficacious power, and held that the virtue of the sacraments consists solely in the promise of God to confer grace when they are administered, and consequently that grace does not flow from any actual energy in the sacrament itself, but from the promise of God, who has connected both together. Long and angry disputations resulted: each party charged the other with heresy, and the legates were compelled to seek the interference of the Pope, to curb the violence of the monks, and restrain their ungovernable fury.*

Baptism, confirmation, and orders, are supposed by the Romish church to produce a peculiar and indelible effect on the party, called the impression of a character. The divines at Trent were divided on this subject; whether to call it a spiritual power, a habit, a disposition, a relation, or a quality, they could not agree; nor were they unanimous respecting its seat, some placing it in the essence of the soul, some in the mind, others in the will, and a fourth class in the hands and tongue. Jerome Oleaster thought that the sacraments impart a twofold spiritual quality, the one termed a "character," and the other an "ornament;" the first being indelible, the second not; that the sacraments which confer the first are never to be repeated, but that the rest are to be resorted to again when the effect is lost, in order to its recovery.†

* Sarpi, ut sup. s. 85. Pal. 1. ix. c. 4.

† Sarpi, ut sup. s. 86.

Much was said respecting the intention of the minister from whom a sacrament is received. It was generally thought that the validity of the sacrament depends on that intention being rightly directed, in default of which the ceremony is null, and all its presumed benefits lost. Ambrose Catharin laboured hard to procure some modification of this sentiment. He dwelt on the pernicious consequences that must ensue if the decree were so constructed. A priest might be an infidel or a hypocrite; in such a corrupt age, it was to be feared there were many of that description. These individuals would mean nothing less in the administration of the sacraments than what the church intended, and would commonly administer them with secret derision and contempt. But if the inward intention of the priest were essential, how sad must be the condition of those who had received baptism, absolution, extreme unction, &c., from an ungodly administrator, and who must be deemed to be in an unchristianized state! He therefore thought it should be sufficient if the forms prescribed by the church were duly observed, whatever might be the intention of the priest; but the majority were of a different mind.*

As it was soon found impracticable to comprise the whole of the sacraments in one decree, it was decided that only baptism and confirmation should be then discussed. There was scarcely any division of sentiment on these topics.+ When the debates had finished, canons were prepared, backed with anathemas, as in the preceding session, and so dexterously formed, by the use of general and vague expressions, as to include the several varieties of Roman-catholic opinion, and condemn none but Protestants. All parties were satisfied with the manner in which this part of the decree was executed; but when a similar attempt was made in preparing explanatory chapters, as on justification, there was so much difficulty in

*Sarpi, ut sup. Pallav. 1. ix. c. 6. s. 4.

+ Cardinal Cajetan, writing on baptism, had supposed that infants dying in the birth might be saved, if a benediction in the name of the Trinity was pronounced upon them, baptism in such cases being plainly impossible. It was not thought necessary to condemn this notion. Nevertheless, the passage containing it was afterwards ordered to be expunged by Pope Pius V. The infallible Pope detected heresy where the infallible council had not discerned it!-Pallav. ut sup. c. 8. s. 1-3.

combining opposite sentiments that the project was abandoned, and canons only were published.

While the divines were employed in their theological discussions, the canonists were equally busy in preparing the decree of reformation. But it was impossible to meet the views and wishes of all the prelates, especially the Spaniards, who had determined to make a bold stand against the usurpations of the Pope, and to put a stop, if possible, to the aggrandizement of the regulars. In addition to their just complaints on this head, the scandalous intrigues and rapacious exactions of the court of Rome gave great and general offence. Almost anything could be accomplished by money and influence; and the decrees and canons of ancient councils were unceremoniously set aside, when some needy favourite or busy tool of the papacy was to be enriched.

These evils were attacked with much vigour. The prelates revived the discussion of the divine right of residence, which, if it were once determined and declared, would destroy most of the alleged abuses; but here they were treading on forbidden ground. They had touched the Pope's prerogative; and De Monte told them, with an angry and haughty air, that they must not presume to meddle with this subject; such was the will of the Pontiff, and he must be obeyed. Besides, too severe a reformation would not suit the times; they must consider what was possible, as well as what was proper.*

It was agreed that their attention should be principally confined to the abuses arising out of pluralities. The disease was universally acknowledged ;† every one was ready to prescribe for it, and each thought his own remedy the best. While some wished all pluralities to be declared unlawful, others thought it sufficient to quash such dispensations, commendams, and unions for life, as had been evidently granted on considerations of private emolument alone. The Bishop of Albenga deprecated the enactment of an ex post facto law, and recommended that they should only legislate forthe future. Those who held the divine right of residence maintained the unlawfulness of pluralities in the same sense; their opponents regarded it as a question of ecclesiastical right only. The

*Sarpi, s. 84. Pallav. 1. ix. c. 1. s. 10.

Thirty or forty benefices were sometimes enjoyed by one person!

Bishop of Astorga hoped that however they might differ on some points, they would at least agree in prohibiting commendams and unions for life, which he stigmatized as the fruits of avarice and ambition, and said that it would be shameful to preserve abuses so pernicious; but the Italian bishops, the Pope's devoted servants, would not consent to anything beyond a very partial and moderate reform.*

Perceiving that their wishes were either resisted or evaded, the Spanish prelates held a private meeting at the close of one of the congregations, and determined to present in writing a full and formal statement of all their demands. When the legates received the document,† they were greatly disconcerted. In a letter to the Pope, enclosing the paper, they told his holiness that the bishops were becoming bolder every day; that they spoke of the cardinals with little respect, and even dared to insinuate that he himself intended only to amuse the world with vain hopes, instead of accomplishing a thorough reform; and that it would soon be very difficult to restrain them, especially as they had begun to hold secret meetings. After consulting with the cardinals, the Pope replied, expressing entire satisfaction with the conduct of his representatives, and leaving it to them to decide according to circumstances, as they judged best for the interests of the holy see. Santa Croce would have made some concessions, but De Monte maintained the contrary opinion with so much warmth that his colleague yielded, and the decree was prepared accordingly.‡

The legates had inserted in the prologue the following clause "saving in all things the authority of the apostolic see." This plainly nullified the whole, since it would be worse than useless to issue enactments which the Pope might afterwards dispense with by a stroke of his pen. Nevertheless, though vigorously opposed by the reforming party, the clause was suffered to remain. Various attempts were made to procure a more extensive reform than the decree contemplated,

* Sarpi, s. 88.

The Spanish bishops demanded the unequivocal declaration of the divine right of residence, and that the same should be enforced on all ecclesiastics, from cardinals to the lowest ranks—the utter abolition of pluralities—and the revocation of all dispensations and unions for life.

Sarpi, s. 89, 93.

I

but they were entirely ineffectual. Some were afraid to speak their minds freely; some were gained by flattery, or cajoled by assurances that the Pope himself would remedy all evils ; and the decree was in consequence approved by a large majority.*

The seventh session was held March 3. No sermon was delivered, as the Bishop of St. Marc, who had been appointed to preach, was detained at his lodgings by a violent cold, and no one was able to ascend the pulpit at so short a notice. The doctrinal decree was divided into three parts, of which the first treated of the sacraments in general. It is as follows:

"In order to complete the exposition of the wholesome doctrine of justification, published in the last session by the unanimous consent of the fathers, it hath been deemed proper to treat of the holy sacraments of the church, by which all true righteousness is at first imparted, then increased, and afterwards restored, if lost. For which cause the sacred, holy œcumenical, and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled, &c., abiding by the doctrine of the sacred scriptures, the tradition of the apostles, and the uniform consent of other councils and of the fathers, hath resolved to frame and decree these following canons, in order to expel and extirpate the errors and heresies, respecting the most holy sacraments, which have appeared in these times-partly the revival of heresies long ago condemned by our ancestors, partly new inventions— and have proved highly detrimental to the purity of the Catholic church and the salvation of souls. The remaining canons necessary to the completion of the work will be published hereafter, by the help of God.

"Canon 1. Whoever shall affirm, that the sacraments of the new law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord,† or that they are more or fewer than seven, namely, baptism,

* Sarpi, s. 94.

"Justification comes from God; the sacraments are the wonderful instruments of justification; one and the same God in Christ must, therefore, be the author of justification, and of the sacraments. The sacraments, moreover, contain a power and efficacy which reach the inmost recesses of the soul; and as God alone has power to enter into the sanctuary of the heart, he alone, through Christ, is manifestly the author of the sacraments."-Catechism, p. 149.