I

CHAPTER XI

THE FLORENTINE, THE TRIDENTINE, AND

THE VATICAN COUNCILS

HAVE reserved for this last chapter an

objection to my doctrine which, from the Roman standpoint, is capital indeed. You are attacking (Roman divines will say) the constitution of the Church, which, according to the whole Catholic Church, is monarchical. The Councils of Florence and of the Vatican, and indirectly that of Trent, have declared that the Catholic Church is a monarchy, at the head of which is the Bishop of Rome. Those three Councils were Ecumenical, and have settled the matter once for all. They represented the whole Church, and the whole Church is bound to submit and accept their definitions as dogmas of faith.

I purpose in this chapter to discuss this difficulty fully; to inquire, namely, whether

the three Councils of Florence, of Trent, and the Vatican were really such as to command the interior assent of all Christians. Not that I believe that even a General Council can oblige the Christian absolutely; for only God is Lord of the conscience, and only God is infallible. Councils have erred; hence the position of Athanasius: contra mundum. There will always be the appeal from the Council to God, speaking in His Word, and the question will always be of the true sense of Scripture. But if the Council persuades me that the truth is other than I had thought, the Council becomes to me the minister of truth; yet, even so, I bow not to the decrees of the Council as such, but to the truth of which the Council has convinced me, i.e. to God alone.

However, to pave the way to my discussion, I ask the reader's kind permission to introduce a few general remarks about the Councils of Constance and Basel, and about the various means by which the Papacy attained to that supremacy which was crowned in 1870 by the Vatican definition of the Pope's infallibility.

The constitution of the Roman Church is

now certainly monarchic; nay, more, it is a monarchy of an absolute type, tempered only by the good-will of the Pope; for the Pope does and undoes everything. The facility, for instance, with which he changes the bishops from one see to another is simply marvellous; yet, in ancient times, the bishops were deemed to be the husbands of their Churches, and as such bound to the same till death parted them. Now, in the Roman system, they are the mere servants of the Pope, especially in Italy, where he is absolute master. Assuredly, the Pope is the master, the cardinals, the bishops, and the priests are his most obedient servants, and all of them together (always excepted, amongst the bishops and priests, those who have an opinion of their own) make up the Church. The Catholic laity, and that part of the clergy who do not profess blind obedience towards the Pope, count for less than nothing.

A very different opinion, indeed, about the constitution of the Church was entertained by the Fathers of the two Councils of Constance and of Basel. In the eyes of those two Councils the Pope was far from being the absolute sovereign of an absolute mon

archy, but was rather esteemed to be the federal head of a great republic of Churches, bound together by the link of the same faith and the bond of the same love in our Lord. This doctrine about the constitution of the Church was maintained in a great number of scholarly papers and books by the most celebrated doctors of that time: some from the University of Paris, as the famous Chancellor Gerson, others from the Italian and German Universities.

"Those two Councils were revolutionary, and therefore have no authority at all," say the Roman divines; "the Church of Rome never accepted their decrees about the constitution of the Church and the power of her head, the Pope." My answer is: Those two councils were real, genuine, and honest Councils. That there was some fighting and disorderly behaviour on the part of a few I readily grant; that they were revolutionary Councils I simply deny. To be sure, some hot discussion and contest is hardly avoidable in a vast assembly of men who are really free to talk and act as they please. Now, the Councils of Constance and Basel were perfectly free, not under the thumb of the Papacy, as the later Councils,

chiefly the Florentine, the Tridentine, and the Vatican were. They represented the whole Church, at least the whole of the Latin Church, not one part only, because all Christian nations sent their envoys, and enjoyed the same number of votes, which were not by head, or personal ballot, but by nation; whereas at Florence, at Trent, and at Rome the "one man, one vote" rule was re-established, which immediately reversed the tables in favour of the Papacy. For, in the last-named Councils, the Fathers were mostly Italians, or otherwise dependent on the Pope, thus crushing with their votes the small protesting minority. Finally, the best scholars of Christendom were present at Basel and Constance, where likewise all, or almost all, the Universities of Europe were duly represented; whereas at Florence, at Trent, and in the Vatican, the Fathers who were really learned were a small minority, the less learned, nay, often the ignorant, formed the overwhelming majority. The Church of France and all other Churches of the Christian world respected and venerated the Councils of Basel and Constance and immediately accepted their decisions; whereas the acceptance, by all Churches, of the