for the Catholic clergy by order of the Council of Trent declares that in the Eucharistic Christ there are the bones, the sinews, and even the foreskin!

It is also affirmed that before the coming of Christ penance was not a sacrament. When it became one, the Fathers themselves do not precisely know. They believed that this happened "chiefly at that time (tunc præcipue) when the Lord breathed on His disciples, and said, "Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven." Of the sacrament of penance it is said in scholastic words that "its essence comes to being through matter and form," but its power lies "especially" in the form, namely, in the words of absolution by the priest. This view was that of the Thomists, but it was resolutely opposed by the better part of the scholastics. It was maintained in the same arbitrary way that the perfect enumeration of single sins was enjoined by the Lord Himself. Nevertheless it is determinedthough it is an action so universally Christian, and arising necessarily out of the idea of priesthood—that every absolution is entirely null which has not been expressly commissioned by the superior, because it is a question of "a sentence concerning them that are subject" (sententia in subditos). Herein lies the whole idea of the Papal Church, and its direct antithesis to the Christian. This is a matter which relates to the innermost life of the souls and consciences of the faithful, that they may be under the domination of the hierarchy, and especially of the Pope, from whom all bishops receive their jurisdiction.

To the Church is expressly ascribed the right to arrange all that relates to the sacraments which does not change their substance; but what the substance is no one knows even to this day. As for the mass, not only is the opinion condemned that it was not ordained by Christ Himself, but it is even said that masses for the dead are a tradition from the Apostles. The canon was declared to be so free from error that it contained nothing which did not breathe the greatest holiness and piety, and which did not raise the hearts of the worshippers to God. And yet it could not elevate the clergy who said masses every day, often even several times in a day. It only made them more earthly, more proud, more

from the English)—" Five words out of Mary's lips (namely, Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum,—the first three, ecce ancilla Domini, go for nothing) are enough for the Divine activity, that God may become man. So is the holy sacrament the continuation of the incarnation. It is the work of a moment. One moment, and Jesus is not there; five words from the mouth of a priest, and He is there." (Faber's book represents what English Ultramontanes call "the life of the Church." Faber was a 'vert whose extravagances shocked the old-fashioned Catholics, especially those of Germany, among whom Dr. Pichler was educated for the priesthood. This extraordinary idea of the Eucharist being an extension of the incarnation, is received in England by some of Dr. Pusey's eccentric disciples.-Tr.)

intolerant, more desirous of power, and more blind towards all good which did not grow on their own barren territory. The last is clearly seen in the self-righteousness of the Tridentine Fathers, and their love for pronouncing anathemas.

How hard must be the hearts of priests! It appears from the evidence of history that "the indelible character" of the clergy, of which the Bible and all Christian antiquity knew nothing, consisted in an altogether peculiar incapacity for improvement. The Council agreeing with the absolute Church idea, and its degradation of the entire laity, pronounced all clergymen to be "thieves and robbers" who had obtained their appointments from the people or the civil government. This embraces all the Protestant clergy as they have now existed for three hundred years. How useful and necessary would have been, merely on this cardinal question, a scientific agreement with the Reformers, instead of the defiant anathemas against them! It is only within the last twenty years. that this question of patronage has been thoroughly treated by eminent theologians, and in that time difficulties have appeared of which the Council of Trent did not even dream.

We might accumulate evidence that the Bible and the Fathers were treated at the Council of Trent as mere playthings. It was even said to be in the Bible that the souls in purgatory are specially assisted by the sacrifice of the mass. This was evidently false, unless they adopted the interpretation of the Catholic student, who in his examination explained the twelve thousand drachms of silver, which Judas Maccabæus sent to Jerusalem as an offering for the dead, to be a payment for masses. For the invocation of saints and the worship of relics they allege the "consent of the Fathers." But in the first three centuries there is scarcely to be found a trace even of an invocation to Mary. This was first introduced into the West by Augustine, and later by Gregory the Great, as it had been introduced into the East by Chrysostom. The power to grant indulgences is said to have been given to the Church by Christ Himself; and it is maintained that this divine power was exercised by the Church in the remotest times. But the Papal indulgences of the present day are altogether different from that old discipline of repentance. Where, in Holy Scripture, is there any foundation for the doctrine of the "treasure of the Church," by which Christians, because of the merits of Christ and the saints, obtain grace from God? Celebrated theologians, as Durandus and the author of the "Summa Angelica," say that God had already sufficiently rewarded the "merits of the saints." But the Council of Trent adopted the view of the Thomists, that the "merita sanctorum" were of service to the faithful, and profitable to their salvation. This act

of the Council was out of a pure spirit of opposition to the Protestants, who had entirely rejected the doctrine of the Thomists.

The same arbitrariness in the use of the Scripture and the Fathers is manifest in the Roman Catechism. Whilst it was in use, it had greater influence than the Council of Trent, of which it might be considered the official interpretation. It never had, however, any symbolical character specially ascribed to it, as many Protestant theologians erroneously maintain.* Yet, certainly, there never has been any other work so well recommended by popes, bishops, and orthodox theologians. The celebrated Jesuit Possevin says that the Roman Catechism contains all the theology which a preacher requires to know. The Jesuits, however, in the controversy concerning grace, declared it to be a mere party manufacture of their enemies the Dominicans, and strove to bring into general circulation the catechism by members of their own order, Cansius and Bellarmine.

In the Council, the whole of Protestantism was declared to be the work of the devil. This was proved by no less than four hundred and thirty anathemas. In like manner, the Roman Catechism intended for the instruction of the priests and the edification of the people denied to all Protestants the character of Christians; defining them as "emissaries of the devil, sitting in the chair of pestilence." They are excluded even more rigidly than Heathens or Jews from the place of sponsors, because their chief object is "to overthrow all Christian truth and piety."t

And thus religious fanaticism was nourished among the German people. Catholics were taught to regard their Protestant brethren as deceived by the devil, and as destroyers of faith and morality. The Papacy, in its anxiety to establish its dominion, has misled the German people, who are not naturally disposed to fanaticism; and, in consequence of this, it has entailed untold misery on the German nation. Had the German Church with its episcopate been left to itself, and had it broken entirely with Romanism, as Luther wished, there would have been for Catholics a much better reformation than that which proceeded from Trent. Heinrich Leo called this Council a "rapiécetage," a piece of patchwork; but this is a judgment far more lenient than just. If a true, thorough reform had really been desired, it would have been made in the beginning of the Council, and by the head of the Church. The German nation had already justly asked this at the Council of Constance. But even then they were

* As, for example, Planck, then Marheinecke, Clausen, Köllner, Baer, Baier, Guericke, W. Böhmer, R. Hoffman, Hahn, in their writings about the points of discussion between Catholics and Protestants.

"Hæretici imprimis Christianam pietatem evertant."

ut fidei veritatem mendaciis obscurent atque omnem

opposed by the Roman party. The Pope expressly instructed the legates sent to the Council of Trent that the first resolutions should be those which concerned doctrine, that all heresies might be "rooted out." After that they were to pass on to the reformation of discipline and morals. As to the Roman Curia, concerning the state of which many complaints were made, the legates were to listen willingly to the advice of the prelates, not, however, that it was "the business of the Council to interfere in this, but only that the Pope, after he had learned the evils complained of, might provide proper remedies." It was also forbidden the bishops to bring forward anything against the cardinals.

The first business of the Council ought to have been the limitation of the power of the Pope, which had risen beyond all bounds of natural or positive right. An examination of the Holy Scriptures and the history of the Church constitutions, in a Christian spirit, would have shown the same result to which thoughtful men had come before the time of the Reformers-namely, that the Papacy is not founded on the Bible, but that it is merely a form of government which arose out of certain conditions of the world, and that it then served as a powerful and proper check on barbarous nations. But soon after its sole effort was to keep the people in their minority, and to give itself out as an authority established by God for all ages. Yea, even the very men who lived in the immediate neighbourhood of the Curia had a century before recognised, in the centralization of all Church power in the Roman chair, a chief source of the decay of the Church, and had rejected this divine right of the Papal Primate. In an institution whose object, as in Christianity, is internal freedom, spiritual liberty only comes in the process of development. It was otherwise in a mere earthly government like that of Pagan Rome, with whose extension kept equal pace slavery and despotism, the destruction of nationalities, and the national characters arising out of them, even to their languages. What Pagan Rome did in this respect, Papal Rome, especially since the thirteenth century, has been striving to do. The opposition on the other hand necessarily became stronger with the development of the nations, especially of the German nation. In the order of things it must end in entirely breaking the unnatural fetters.

Had the Council of Trent placed itself on this Christian and historical stand-point, there might have been a true and genuine reformation. But, unfortunately, this was not done. To find out what was good for the necessities of the Church, and for the essence of Christian progress, there was wanting not only the capacity, but, we must say, the will. There is not, then, the most remote reason for speaking of the Council as guided by the Holy Spirit which the

Lord sent to His Church. There was no spirit but that of selfishness, the dread of a thorough reform, the fear of exposing imperfections before the masses, and of losing anything of the already claimed infallibility, and the former desire to maintain their authority at any price, even should all Germany, after the example of the East, apostatize from the Church. The Council thought of the masses, while it ignored the existence of an educated class, which was rapidly increasing every day. This unchristian spirit animated the chief members of the Council, and frustrated the entire work of reformation. It even made things worse than they had been before, for the reins of external power were more firmly held; the fetters were made heavier, and more closely bound.

In the most exalted expressions sometimes, and by the most naïve comparisons, the various orators set forth the divine power of the Pope. In the first session of the Council, an Episcopal orator pronounced Rome to be "the touch-stone of true Christian doctrine." Dominicus Soto, in his speech to the legates, glorified the Roman chair as the most brilliant and resplendent sun. The preacher on Ascension Day, 1551, put Pope Julius III. on the same level as St. Peter. "Is Julius," he exclaimed, “less than Peter in dignity and plenitude of power? No; not if all the Antichrists and all the phalanx of the devil were to say so!" After fumigating with incense the legates and presidents, addressing the Protestants, this inspired orator cried out, "Do you not see as many stars as there are prelates? Take care that the deceitfulness of your sins does not make you fools!" With Pharisaic arrogance he continued, "Has your countenance become like the face of a harlot? Awake from your sleep! Arise from the dead! despair not of the possibility of conversion : that which is impossible with men is possible with God." After recommending the sanctifying power of the Papacy, he exclaimed, "Oh, Luther! oh, Ecolampadius! oh, Bucer! oh, mud and filth! why do ye appear before the Lord like Theudas and Judas? Are ye not, according to the sentence of the Lord, thieves and robbers? Do ye not fear the chastisement of the leprous sister of Moses, or the judgment of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram? By what furies are ye infected that ye trouble and persecute the Church of God and the vicar of Christ ?" He concludes by exhorting the Fathers of the Council to abhor Luther, and all the other disciples of Lucifer, as they would abhor Cain, Simon Magus, and Arius.”

66

A less vehement, but a more ingenious speech was delivered by Professor Paul Passota in 1551. The professor was proving the natural necessity for both Papal and Imperial power. He wished to show that the number two was expressed in the whole order of the world, especially of the Christian world. God, he said, had created