A history of the council of Trent...

Front matter

Clas S _

BO* :

A

Preface

In bringing before the public a new sketch of the history of the Council of Trent, I feel that, although the increased study of the fathers and councils of late years has enlarged our opportunities of entering fairly into the merits of theological questions, and has, in many instances, substituted fair deductions for prejudged assertion, still, in the case of this Council, we cannot hope to arrive at new conclusion s. Nevertheless, a greater acquaintance with scholastic technology, a more complete system of critical canons, and a stricter appliance of that system to particular instances, will doubtless help us to discern more safely between truth and error, and, while doing away with conventional prejudices and traditional exaggerations, will make us, if not perfect reasoners on our own side, at least more lenient in considering the views of our opponents. If the pursuit of such literature has been perverted by some into a reason for a reunion with error, we have, at the same time, the assurance that a far greater number have been led to very different conclusions ; and that, whilst we have learned the real nature of Romanism from its own sources, we have often found the confutation of its tenets in the very writings to which it appeals as the main-spring of their existence — writings which it would fain elevate to the rank of inspired Scripture.

But this revival of a more extended system of theological study, while it has led to a clearer and less prejudged understanding of the errors of Home, has had less inviii

PREFACE.

fluence with regard to the history of her Church, Less has been done in this respect, simply because less remained to be done. The leading features of the history of that Church are too recent in their development, to require the sagacity of a Boileau or a Niebuhr to extricate them from the dark chaos of an unphilosophical and fragmentary narrative. Moreover, the constitution of the Roman Church is too artificial, too presumptive in its character, to admit of being brought within the range of speculative criticism. It is an anomaly in its very existence, and yet a splendidly consistent one. Its history must be documentary, not metaphysical. It is to a long series of martyrologies, acts, and annals, that we must appeal, if we would form the smallest conception of Romanism, not to the broad principles upon which the rest of the world's history is traced. In reviewing the history of the Roman Church, we must not consider mankind as a free agent, yet living under the dispensation of God ; but as fettered in their enjoyment of that dispensation by trustees, whom they have preferred to the Divine Author of the covenant itself.

And such a condition of a Church must of necessity influence its writers to an extent of which we can scarcely form an adequate notion. A claim of infallibility presupposes the necessity of denying whatever may tend to invalidate that claim ; and an assumed credibility is thus too often supported at the expense of a positive falsehood. Again, the assumption of a perfect consistency, even in a creed that has modelled its articles to suit the differences of contending, but faithful adherents, gives occasion for many clumsy subterfuges in explaining away or suppressing facts or principles which militate against that consistency. In a word, the axiom that "the Church cannot err" becomes the cause of her going astray, the quicksand upon which the best hopes of her followers are wrecked and wasted.

PREFACE.

ix

Another difficulty with which we have to contend is the mixture of temporal with spiritual matters, the subservience of the gifts of the Church as means of worldly aggrandizement and profit, and the under-current of secular influence which runs through almost every detail of Roman Catholic history. Not that I would deny the existence of the same evil in our own Church. Far from it — it must be deplored as one of the evils which are the necessary consequences of an artificial scheme of society; but in the history of the Roman Church it assumes a far greater and more dangerous position. What is, in our Church, the excess of an exception, is, in Romanism, only a partial realization of the grand axiom of infallibility, the supremacy of the Roman pontiff.

Thus, writers on a subject like the Council of Trent are almost inevitably reduced to two classes, — opponents and apologists. At least, to one or other of these classes contemporary writings must belong ; and the truth, perhaps hanging equally balanced between the accuser and the apologist, is thus left to the judgment of some third party, who has comparatively nothing to gain by abuse or panegyric. Ajid yet it is difficult to find any writer capable, or, if capable, willing to exercise impartiality. We are too much influenced by what we read to be perfectly fair in our conclusions. Even the style of an author may bias our judgment as to the value of his facts, and a specious cleverness may become little else than an attractive screen for untruth or exaggeration. Still, the road to a true history must lie between the aggressive and the defensive.

The leading writers on the history of the Council of Trent present a contrast of this description, which can scarcely be surpassed; and, often as the subject has been discussed by more able critics than myself, it seems almost necessary to state briefly the results to which my own reading of these historians has led.

X

PREFACE.

A recent author a complains that, both in Father Paul and Pallavicino, " we find diffuseness and dryness ; no plan, do philosophy ; an absence, in fine, of all that is now looked for in an historian." This is a bold criticism— indeed, too bold to be correct. Both writers possess excellences which will always be worthy of imitation ; both present faults which detract not only from their interest, but their value.

Father Paul Sarpi was a man whose mind was considerably in advance of the age he lived in. b His inquiring spirit, which led him to penetrate deeply into the mysteries of natural science, if not to anticipate many subsequent discoveries, had no small influence upon his religious views. Although he seems to have always lived in communion with the Church of Rome, his sympathies were directed elsewhere. This is not the place to enter into an account of his life, or it might be shown that the history written by this great man was the clear reflection of his own thoughts. A long habit of dissecting the system of Romanism had laid open to his searching eye all those minute seeds of corruption, which had gradually infected the whole body. Deep learning — though often desultory — had given him a right to decide on points concerning the origin and progress of error ; worldly tact and an unrivalled skill in tracing acts to their motives, taught him to look with a suspicious eye upon the partisans of the scheme whose fallacies he had detected. He had, in short, probed the wounds of the Church, knew the malady by its symptoms, and traced that malady to its right origin.

But Father Paul was no reformer. He looked upon Romanism as a surgeon regards the corpse he has been dissecting. It was not as a living patient, diseased, yet capable

a M. Bungener, preface to his History of the Council of Trent.

b "II ne pouvait se borner aux e'tudes scolastiques de son convent ; le Grec, l'Hebreu, les mathe'matiques, il voulut tout savoir." — Bibl. Univ. v. xl. p. 426.

PREFACE.

xi of cure, that he contem plated the erring body of the Church \ but with the bitterness of one who had abandoned hope and lost faith in its power to rally. He was not a constructive satirist ; he cared little for partial schemes of reform, but struck at the whole head and front of offence. In this respect he resembled Luther ; but his sympathy with the Protestants was insufficient to rank him among their numbers.

In eveiy page of his history, this desire for the overthrow of the papal court — if not of the whole scheme of Romanism — is prominently set forth. Yet he never degenerates into abuse ; and if his censure is more than usually pointed, it is generally given as the opinion of others, rather than his own. His talent for innuendo is surprising ; even the juxtaposition of facts is frequently contrived to assist the under current of satire ; and, how animated soever his description may be, however bold and picturesque his language, it is impossible not to perceive the sneering tone of one, who has little sympathy with the subjects of his narrative. Perhaps, if we knew more of his private life and that of his contemporaries, we should perceive not a little sly reference to affairs transpiring at the very time he was engaged in the work.

Many attempts have been made to rescue our author from the charge of unfairness ; but although willing to accept his defence, as far as general authenticity goes, and although myself generally coinciding with his views, I cannot deceive myself as to the fact that Father Paul is always a satirist, and that he was nearly incapable of telling a story without,

c "On convient que ce livre est e'crit avec beaucoup d'art : l'auteur, evitant avec soin d'exposer ses propres sentiments, se borne le plus souvent a citer les passages ou les paroles de ceux qui ont combattu les decrets qui ne lui plaisent pas ; mais il s'y prend de maniere, qu'a Yen croire, les Protestants ont toujours eu raison, et les papes toujours tort." — Biog. Univ. p. 433.

xii

PREFACE.

at the same time, letting people know what he thought of every one and every thing concerned. When Mr. Hallam says, " Sarpi is not a fair, but he is, for those times, a tolerably exact historian," he does full justice both to the excellences and the defects of our historian.

But there is a more serious charge brought against this writer, namely, wholesale inaccuracy in historical details. Cardinal Pallavicino, whose history will presently claim our attention, has collected an " ater index " of alleged errors and falsifications in Father Paul's history, which, at a first view, would seem to leave it scarcely any claims to credibility. But, on a careful examination, these errors are substantially diminished in number. d While it must be admitted that Father Paul's arrangement is unconnected and careless, that he repeatedly mistakes the dates, and misplaces the dis-

d The following criticism is valuable, both on account of the writer from whom it proceeds and the honesty by which it is dictated : — " Ora ritornando al Pallavicino e alia Storia del Concilio di Trento, egli nell' atto medesimo che forma la Storia di quel gran Concilio, ribatte il Sarpi, ove il trova contrario a cib ch' ei vede fondato in autentici documenti, e ove gli sembra che egli combatte le opinioni de' piu accreditati teologi, o i dogmi della Chiesa Cattolica. Con qual forza e con qual evidenza il faccia, nol pub conoscere se non chi prende a confrontare 1' uno coll' altro storico. Io dire solo che il Pallavicino ha confutato il Sarpi, e finora non e stato confutato da alcuno ; per ciocche per confutazione io non intendo qualche declamazione contro di esso scritta, e contro le dottrine da lui o insegnate, o difese ; ma intendo un' opera in cui si prenda a mostrare che il Pallavicino a torto ha confutato il Sarpi nella maggior parte de' passi in cui lo combatte, e che i piu autentici monumenti son a favor e del Sarpi, e non del Pallavicino. Lo stile di questo scrittore h grave, elegante, e fiorito, e talvolta forse piu ancor del dovere ; perciocche meglio piacerebbe per avventura, se fosse piu facile e men sentenzioso." — Tiraboschi, Storia della Letteratura Italiana, v. viii. pt. i. p. 138. Another writer, Beccheti, Istoria degli Ultimi Quattro Secoli della Chiesa, vol. x. p. 79, is very bitter upon Father Paul ; but, from the general style of his history, he seems to be merely echoing the abuse of Pallavicino. Among older writings on the subject, the reader may compare the two following : — " Scipionis Henrici in Messanensi Academia Doctoris Theologi censura theologica et historica adversus Petri Soave Polani de Concilio Tridentino Pseudo-historiam," Dilugae, in typ. Acad, mdcliv.; and "De tribus Historicis Concilii Tridentini, auctore Caesare Aquilinio," Amst. cioioclxii.

PREFACE. xiii

cussions, of the different congregations, it is equally certain that his good faith, if we consider his history as a whole, stands acquitted. Numberless instances, in which his statements have been taxed with unfairness, have received a corroboration from contemporary documents ; which proves that, however the works of the two Tridentine historians vary in detail, they agree in all substantial points. e I shall return to this subject, when I speak of the letters of Yargas, and the Acta of Paleotto.

If the Roman court had a bitter and a clever enemy in the Venetian historian, it was fortunate in finding a defender in Cardinal Pallavicino — such a defender at least, as, however unconvincing to those, who had abandoned it as undeserving of confidence, was possessed of too deep a knowledge of every item in the scheme of Romanism, to fail in pleasing the taste of Roman Catholics. Born of a noble family, and enjoying high honours and influence, Conservatism was evidently the course marked out for him ; and his history is accordingly not merely a chronical of events, but a continued commentary on every point in which a word can be said in favour of Rome. But he is not only passively conservative, but actively aggressive. His work is a grand Philippic against Protestantism, coupled with a running commentary on the alleged misstatements of his predecessor. If Father Paul is at times uncharitable to particular persons, or harsh in his views of proceedings, Pallavicino is never the reverse. Utterly destitute of the power of appreciating anything founded on high and generous principles, he measures everything by its relation to the fortunes of the Vatican. He is a sort of ecclesiastical court jour-

e The author of the life of Pallavicino, in the Biographie Universelle, v. xxxii. p. 451, observes : — "II s'opposa a ceile de Era Paolo, avec lequel il est pourtant d' accord dans l'essentiel des faits ; mais il en tire des consequences diame'tralement oppose'es."

xiv

PREFACE.

nalist, and seldom betrays the bad taste to acknowledge honour or uprightness in an opponent. His history is far inferior in style to that of Father Paul ; his narrative is prosy and tedious ; his descriptive powers limited, and his observations on men and things savour more of scholastic rhetoric than natural eloquence or readiness of perception^ To counterbalance these disadvantages, he certainly brings a minute acquaintance with documents, and an equally minute accuracy in chronological arrangement, which is often the means of calling his predecessor to order. His materials were undoubtedly better ; but it may be doubted whether he was capable of using them fairly ; whilst, as regards the tone of his writings, if Bossuet's remark be true on the one hand, that "Sarpi n'est partant l'historien que l'ennemi declare s du concile de Trent," Pallavicino has sunk the historian in the apologist ; has suppressed, if not falsified, matters making against his own views. He is as essentially a party- writer as his antagonist; but he has none of his honest desire for reformation, none of his generous sympathies with the struggles of men seeking the path from dogmatism to conviction.

The discrepancy between the writings of these historians has been diligently and, for the most part, fairly sifted by the Abbe le Courayer, who, in his" translation of Father Paul,

f This is never so well seen as when we compare him with the lively and acute Paleotto, when both are writing on Jie same subject. Take, for example, their respective accounts of the death of Seripando. His character of Luther, given in bk. v. ch. 7, of my own history, may be quoted as an example of strained attempt at eloquence, in which false antithesis and misapplied metaphor are the leading features.

s Mr. Hallam seems fully of this opinion. "Much," he observes, " 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." — Literature of Europe, v. iii. p. 43.

PREFACE.

XV has noticed every variation of importance, and has shown that Sarpi too often has the best of the evidence in his favour. At the same time, by his careful examination of every document and history he could meet with, he has furnished a valuable stock of materials, and greatly lightened the labours of succeeding historians of the council. But the researches of Mendham and Ranke, as well as the massive collection of documents published by Le Plat, have brought forward so much that is new and valuable, that the means of information, upon which the present little work has been based, are largely increased.

In mentioning the labours of the Rev. Joseph Mendham, I have the pleasing task of acknowledging the great kindness I have received from so honoured a veteran in the study of a kindred subject. For his advice, and for the liberal presents of his own publications on the History of the Council — kindnesses the more to be esteemed as they were conferred upon a personal stranger — I must ever feel myself gratefully indebted. Without trenching on the minute and satisfactory account of his invaluable documents, given in the preface to his own history, h I will merely observe, that, as they are all from the pens of persons contemporary with, and personally engaged in, the transactions of the council, they furnish an insight into its inward policy, and into the feelings which directed and swayed its various movements, of which their learned and judicious collector has amply availed himself. My own obligations to the work of Mr. Mendham will be as readily perceived by my readers, as they have been, and must be, on all occasions freely acknowledged by myself.

But there is another work which we also owe to the

h 8vo. London, mdcccxxxiv. Mr. Mendham's library is well known for its remarkable completeness in literature appertaining to these subjects. The greater portion of the MSS. referred to in his preface were purchased at Mr. Thorpe's sale in 1832. They were originally in the possession of the earl of Guilford.

xvi

PREFACE.

diligence of this well-known author, — I allude to his edition of the Acta of Paleotto, the deputy-secretary and auditor of the council. Of these Pallavicino and Paynaldus had made frequent use ; but, as he observes, and, it is to be feared, with too good reason, " the selected extracts from his Acts by the apologist and by the annalist, are indisputably to be ascribed to the necessity, under which they both felt themselves placed by the history of Paolo Sarpi, of fabricating a counteractor, not in the usual style of straightforward and palpable falsification, but with as much verisimilitude, and therefore with as much authentic and honest statement of fact, as their cause could afford, and turn to its own benefit. Unsupported opposition or point-blank denial would hardly prosper, even with the most prejudiced of their own communion ; and positive dishonesty, which could never be secure against detection, would be stark impolicy — an indiscretion not likely to be incurred by, or chargeable upon, anything papal." 1

A minute comparison of this work with those of the two great historians, seems to me fully to justify what I have above asserted, respecting the excellence of Pallavicino in details and minute matters appertaining to the progress of the debates, and his inferiority as to a general insight into the broad principles of history. Every now and then, we feel surprised at the freedom of Paleotto's expressions. As far as the external history of the council is concerned, he gives us the highest idea both of Father Paul's truthfulness, and of his own impartial honesty. His abstracts of the debates — too long to receive adequate justice in a work of such dimensions as the present — are well deserving the attention of those who would go more deeply into the subject. Indeed,

* Mendham, Preface, p. xiii. to his Acta Concilii Tridentini, a Gabriele Cardinale Paleotto descripta. Lond. mdcccxlii. 8vo.

PREFACE.

XVII as regards the latter sessions (to which his memoirs are, unfortunately, confined), his work is a better historical study than the massive volumes of Pallavicino can furnish.

I have made so much use of the clear-headed and laborious researches of Eanke, that he fairly claims a leading place in my preface ; and I am the more anxious to place his estimate of the two rival historians before my readers, as my own views, throughout my labour of compilation, have been much influenced by his opinions.

" It has been asserted that the truth may be distinctly gathered from these two works combined. This mayferhaps be the case in a very large and general sense ; it is by no means so in particulars.

" They both swerve from the truth, which certainly lies in the midst between them ; but it cannot be come at by conjecture : truth is positive, original, and is not to be conceived by any accommodation of partial statements, but by a direct review of facts.

"As we have seen, Sarpi says that a treaty had been concluded at Bologna ; Pallavicino denies this ; no conjecture in the world could hit upon the fact that the treaty was not made by word of mouth, but by writing, a fact which really reconciles the discrepancy.

" They both distort Contarinis instruction ; there is no harmonizing their contradictions ; it is only when we refer to the original, that the truth strikes us.

" Their minds were of the most opposite cast. Sarpi is keen, penetrating, caustic ; his arrangement is eminently skilful ; his style pure and unaffected, and although the Crusca will not admit him into the list of classic authors, probably on account of some provincialisms he exhibits, his work is really refreshing after all the pompous array of words through which we are forced to toil in other authors. His

PREFACE.

style coincides with his subject ; in point of graphic power he is certainly second among the modern historians of Italy : I rank him immediately after Machiavelli.

"Nor is Pallavicino void of talent ; he draws many pointed and forcible parallels, and he often displays no little skill as the pleader for a party. But his talent is somewhat of a heavy and cumbrous cast : it is one that chiefly delights in turning phrases and devising subterfuges ; his style is overloaded with words. Sarpi is clear and transparent to the very bottom ; Pallavicino is not wanting in continuous flow, but he is muddy, diffuse, and shallow.

"Both are heart-and-soul partisans ; both lack the true spirit of the historian, that grasps its object in its full truth, and sets it in the broad light of day. Sarpi had certainly the talent requisite for this, but he will be an accuser and nothing more ; Pallavicino had it in a vastly lower degree, but he will be, by all means, the apologist of his party.

" Neither can we obtain a full view of the substance of the case from the works of those two writers combined. It is a very remarkable circumstance, that Sarpi contains much that Pallavicino was never able to hunt out, many as were the archives thrown open to him. I will only mention a memoir of the nuncio Chieregato, concerning the consultations at the court of Adrian VI., which is very important, and against which Pallavicino makes objection of no moment. Pallavicino also overlooks many things from a sort of incapacity. He cannot discover them to be of much consequence, and so he neglects them. On the other hand, Sarpi lacked a multitude of documents which Pallavicino possessed; the former saw but a small part of the correspondence of the Boman court with the legates. His errors spring for the most part from the want of original documents.

" But in many cases they both are ignorant of important records. A little report by Cardinal Morone, who executed

PREFACE.

xix the decisive embassy to Ferdinand I., is of the highest moment as regards the history of the whole latter part of the council. Neither of them has made use of it." k

The power and spirit which distinguish the views and the language of this author throughout his great work on the popes, render it an invaluable addition to our stock of political information ; whilst the stores of his learning, alike diffuse and recherche, compel the present writer to confess, that, had Professor Ranke devoted anything like an adequate volume to the subject, he must have contented himself with the task of translator. He may, however, claim the lesser merit of having been the first 1 to combine Hanke's remarks on the progress of this council with something like a regular history.

To return once more to Pallavicino. Dr. Waterworth, a writer well known in the field of Roman Catholic theology, has appended to his translation of the " Decrees and Canons" two " Essays on the Internal and External History of the Council of Trent." In these he avowedly professes to forsake " the skilful but unfair history of Fra Paolo," and to make " continued use of the noble work of Pallavicino." His work is, in fact, little else than an abridgment of Pallavicino, and

k Ranke's Popes, pt. iii. p. 377. At p. 370, sqq., we have a masterlyreview, pointing out individual points of error in both authors, the result of which, as far as intentional suppression and dishonesty are concerned, is very unfavourable to Pallavicino, although Father Paul does not escape without censure. It must be recollected that Hanke's great acquaintance with the documents found in continental libraries gave him opportunities of sifting the truth, for which others must seek in vain.

1 M. Bungener — a translation of whose work was announced soon after I had made known my own intention of publishing an historical sketch of the council — takes little notice of Hanke's researches. Indeed, his whole performance does not seem to supply any of the deficiencies which I particularly had in view in the present volume. He seems totally unacquainted with the researches of Mendbam, and his work is rather a series of querulous declamations against Popery than a history of the Council of Trent.

b2

XX

PREFACE.

combines all that writer's accuracy in respect to dates, and the proceedings of the sessions, with an elegance of style and a brevity not to be found in the original. As a clever and lucid epitoinizer, especially in his capabilities for disentangling the real heads of a debate from a mass of verbiage, I have constantly found him an useful guide. But the very fact that his information is confessedly derived from one source, and that source an apologetical writer, with whom Protestants can have little sympathy, prevents his otherwise judicious labours from being useful to those, who would hear more than one side of a question. In making this statement, I do not deny his acquaintance with other writers on the subject. I merely lament the bias which has hindered him from giving greater breadth to the principles, greater impartial utility to the details of his historical essays. !NTor have his natural predilections allowed him to be always a fair representative of the author he avowedly follows. Many intrigues and sidepractices, to which Pallavicino confesses, are passed by or glossed over ; and . it may be doubted whether the cardinal and his English representative, viewed proportionately to the dimensions of their works, are not equally deserving of censure on this head. Dr. "Waterworth writes as a zealous Catholic ; his essays must be admired by every good Romanist — must dissatisfy those who do not look upon the interests of Rome and the whole well-being of mankind as identical.

Such writers as Heidigger, Jurieu, and a host of others of still less note, have not been altogether neglected by me, although I have, with a few exceptions, derived little advantage from any of them. Grounded wholly upon Sarpi, and indiscriminately copying his inaccuracies and defects, without being able to imitate his vigorous thoughts or his elegance of expression, they bear about the same relation to the great original, as Eutropius or Paul Diaconus do to Livy.

PREFACE.

xxi

Heicligger is sometimes sensible and shrewd ; but he is utterly uncritical, and unable to appreciate the finer qualities in the character of those whom be unsparingly abuses.

Of Massarelli, Servanzio, and several other fragmentary diarists, together with the writers of epistles, pamphlets, pasquinades, and other minor works connected with the council and its history, I have made use, more or less, throughout the whole work ; but a special notice of each would be beyond the reasonable limits of a preface. With the writings of Henke and Wessenberg I became acquainted at too late a period to make much use of them ; but as they appear to be based upon materials previously known, this is perhaps less to be regretted. The Italian history of Botta copies Pallavicino almost exclusively, and the same remark applies to the voluminous work of Angelico Becchetti.