XVI. SECT. III. PART I. their most zealous endeavours to reform the bar- CENT, barous philosophy of the times. But the exces sive attachment of the scholastic doctors to the Aristotelian philosophy on the one hand, and, on the other, the timorous prudence of many weak minds, who were apprehensive that the liberty of striking out new discoveries and ways of thinking might be prejudicial to the church, and open a new source of division and discord, crushed all these generous endeavours, and rendered them ineffectual. The throne of the subtile Stagirite remained therefore unshaken; and his philosophy, whose very obscurity afforded a certain gloomy kind of pleasure, and flattered the pride of those who were implicitly supposed to understand it, reigned unrivalled in the schools and monasteries. It even acquired new credit and authority from the Jesuits, who taught it in their colleges, and made use of it in their writings and disputes. By this, however, these artful ecclesiastics shewed evidently, that the captious jargon and subtilties of that intricate philosophy were much more. adapted to puzzle heretics, and to give the popish doctors at least the appearance of carrying on the controversy with success, than the plain and obvious method of disputing, which is pointed out by the genuine and unbiassed dictates of right reason. cal writers of the Ro XXI. The church of Rome, produced in this Theologicentury, a prodigious number of theological writers. The most eminent of these, both in point man perof reputation and merit, are as follow: Thomas suasion. de Vio, otherwise named Cardinal Cajetan,Eckius, Cochlæus,-Emser,-Surius,-Hosius, -Faber,-Sadolet,--Pighius,Vatable,-Canus,-D'EspenceCaranza,-Maldonat, Catharinus, Turrianus,Arias Montanus,- -Cassan der, CENT. der,-Paya d'Andrada,-Baius,-Pamelius, and XVI. others [c]. SECT. 111. PART I. the Roman XXII. The religion of Rome, which the pontiffs are so desirous of imposing upon the faith of The prin- all that bear the Christian name, is derived, acciples of cording to the unanimous accounts of its doctors, Catholic from two sources, the written word of God, and faith. the unwritten; or, in other words from scripture aud tradition. But as the most eminent divines of that church are far from being agreed concerning the person or persons who are authorised to interpret the declarations of these two oracles, and to determine their sense; so it may be asserted, with truth, that there is, as yet, no possibility of knowing with certainty what are the real doctrines of the church of Rome, nor where, in that communion, the judge of religious controversies is to be found. It is true, in the court of Rome, and all those who favour the despotic pretensions of its pontiff, maintain, that he alone, who governs the church as Christ's vicegerent, is entitled to explain and determine the sense of scripture and tra dition in matters pertaining to salvation, and that, of consequence, a devout and unlimited obedience is due to his decisions. To give weight to this opinion, Pius IV. formed a plan of a council, which was afterwards instituted and confirmed by Sixtus V. and called the Congregation for interpreting the decrees of the Council of Trent. This congregation was authorised to examine and decide, in the name of the pope, all matters of small moment relating to ecclesiastical discipline, while every debate of any consequence, and particularly all disquisitions concerning points of faith and doctrine, were left to the decision of the pontiff alone, [c] For an ample account of the literary character, rank, and writings of these learned men, and of several others whose names are here omitted, see Louis Ell. Du Pin, Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, tom. xiv. and xvi. XVI. SECT. III. alone as the great oracle of the church [d]. But CENT. notwithstanding all this, it was impossible to persuade the wiser part of the Roman-catholic body PART I. to acknowledge this exclusive authority in their head. And accordingly, the greatest part of the Gallican church, and a considerable number of very learned men of the popish religion in other countries, think very differently from the court of Rome on this subject. They maintain, that all bishops and doctors have a right to consult the sacred fountains of scripture and tradition, and to draw from thence the rules of faith and manners for themselves and their flock; and that all difficult points and debates of consequence are to be referred to the cognizance and decision of general councils. Such is the difference of opinion (with respect to the determination of doctrine and controversies) that still divides the church of Rome; and as no judge has been, nor perhaps can be, found to compose it, we may therefore reasonably despair of seeing the religion of Rome acquire a permanent, stable, and determined form. of Trent. XXIII. The council of Trent was assembled, Thecouncil as was pretended, to correct, illustrate, and fix with perspicuity, the doctrine of the church, to restore the vigour of its discipline, and to reform the lives of its ministers. But in the opinion of those who examine things with impartiality, this assembly, instead of reforming ancient abuses, rather gave rise to new enormities; and many transactions of this council have excited the just complaints of the wisest men in both communions. They iv. VOL. IV. P [d] See Aymoe, Tableau de la Cour de Rome, part V. ch. p. 282. Hence it was, that the approbation of Innocent XI. was refused to the artful and insidious work of Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, entitled, An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church,' until the author had suppressed entirely the first edition of that work, and made corrections and alterations in the second. CENT. They complain that many of the opinions of the XVI. scholastic doctors on intricate points (that had PART 1. formerly been left undecided, and had been wisely SECT. III. permitted as subjects of free debate) were, by this council, absurdly adopted as articles of faith, and recommended as such, nay, imposed, with violence, upon the consciences of the people, under pain of excommunication. They complain of the ambiguity that reigns in the decrees and declarations of that council, by which the disputes and dissensions that had formerly rent the church, instead of being removed by clear definitions and wise and charitable decisions, were rendered, on the contrary, more perplexed and intricate, and were, in reality, propagated and multiplied instead of being suppressed or diminished. Nor were these the only reasons of complaint; for it must have been afflicting to those that had the cause of true religion and Christian liberty at heart, to see all things decided, in that assembly, according to the despotic will of the Roman pontiff, without any regard to the dictates of truth, or the autho rity of scripture, its genuine and authentic source, and to see the assembled fathers reduced to silence by the Roman legates, and deprived, by these insolent representatives of the papacy, of that influence and credit, that might have rendered them capable of healing the wounds of the church. It was moreover a grievance justly to be com plained of, that the few wise and pious regulations that were made in that council, were never supported by the authority of the church, but were suffered to degenerate into a mere lifeless form, or shadow of law, which was treated with indiffer ence, and transgressed with impunity. To sum up all in one word, the most candid and impartial observers of things consider the council of Trent as an assembly that was more attentive to what might maintain the despotic authority of the pontiff, than XVI. SECT. III. PART I. than solicitous about entering into the measures CENT. that were necessary to promote the good of the church. It will not therefore appear surprising, that there are certain doctors of the Romish church, who, instead of submitting to the decisions of the council of Trent as an ultimate rule of faith, maintain, on the contrary, that these decisions are to be explained by the dictates of scripture and the language of tradition. Nor, when all these things were duly considered, shall we have reason to wonder, that this council has not throughout the same degree of credit and authority, even in those countries that profess the Roman Catholic religion [e]. Some countries, indeed, such as Germany, Poland, and Italy, have adopted implicitly and absolutely the decrees of this council, without the smallest restriction of any kind. But in other places it has been received and acknowledged on certain conditions, which modify not a little its pretended authority. Among these latter we may reckon the Spanish dominions, which disputed, during many years, the authority of this council, and acknowledged it at length only so far as it could be adopted without any prejudice to the rights and prerogatives of the kings of Spain [ƒ], In other countries, such as France [g] and Hungary [h], it never has been solemnly received, or publicly P 2 [e] The translator has here inserted in the text the note (h) of the original, and has thrown the citations it contains into different notes. [f] See Giannone, Histoire Civile du Royaume de Naples, tom. iv. p. 235. [g] See Hect. Godofr. Masii Diss. de Contemptu Concilii Tridentini in Gallia, which is published among his other dissertations, collected into one volume. See also the excellent discourse which Dr. Courreyer has subjoined to the second volume of his French translation of Paul Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent, entitled, "Discours sur la Reception du "Concile de Trent, particulierement en France," p. 775, 789. [h] See Lorandi Samuelof, Vita Andr. Dudithii, p. 56. › |