Some time before the work in question was written, Brück, the Chancellor, had written to the Elector that, if the Council convened by the Pope “were to resume and continue its knavery” it would be necessary for Luther “to put the axe to the root of the tree, which by the Grace of God he is better able to do than other men”; this he wrote on Jan. 20, 1545.[1541]
At that same time a calmer scene was being enacted in Saxony. On Jan. 14, the Wittenberg theologians, headed by Luther, presented to the Elector the so-called Wittenberg Reformation, drawn up at the sovereign’s request. This work had a close connection with the Œcumenical Council. It is true it was merely written in view of the approaching negotiations at the Diet, to facilitate one of those “religious compromises” which had now become so common. It was, however, at the same time, so to speak, a theological manifesto of the Protestants called forth by the Council. Hence it had been drawn up by Melanchthon (and not by Luther) in terms cautious and moderate. “The theologians,” wrote Brück, “have drawn up their ‘Reformation’ very courteously, nor is there any trace of Dr. Martin’s boisterousness” in it.[1542]
The “Reformation” treats successively of “doctrine true and undefiled,” which it asserts is to be found in the Confession of Augsburg, “of the right use of the sacraments,” of the preaching office and episcopal government, of the ecclesiastical courts and spiritual jurisdiction, of learning and the schools, and of the defence and support of the churches. Many useful elements which meet the actual needs of the time are found scattered through the document. Stress is laid on the need of some direction and supervision of the preachers in such a way as to suggest the recognition of episcopal authority; the German episcopate is to be retained ... provided it accepts Luther’s doctrine![1543]
It would in many respects be instructive to draw a parallel between the “Wittenberg Reformation” and the Catholic reformation proclaimed by the Council of Trent in the course of its successive sessions. We shall emphasise only one point. In the case of proceedings against “false doctrine” the Wittenbergers go much further than the Council in their demands for submission on the part of the individual. According to them the ecclesiastical courts (Consistories) were to lend their firm support to Luther’s own doctrine and interpretation of the Bible—for which, as a matter of fact, his name offered the sole guarantee—these courts were moreover to comprise “God-fearing men, chosen from among the laity of high standing in the Church.” The question of any deviation from the faith, was, with their assistance, “first to be examined into and then judgment pronounced in the ordinary way.” So painful a subordination of the individual to private opinions concerning faith, and so uncalled-for an introduction of the lay element into the spiritual courts, never entered the mind of any member of the Council.
Conscious of its divine right the Council of Trent, even during Luther’s lifetime, solemnly laid the foundations of those decisions on doctrine which are now, and for ever will be, binding on the Catholic Church. It rose far above the quarrels of the day and the personal attacks on the successor of Peter and the venerable hierarchy; in what it laid down it was careful ever to preserve intact the great bond with the past.
It was but a few days before Luther departed this life that the “Holy Œcumenical and General Synod legitimately called together in the Holy Ghost,” as in accordance with ancient usage it styles itself, declared in its third session, that its highest task was to oppose the heresies of the day and to reform the morals of the people. During this session, on Feb. 4, 1546, the Council renewed the creed of the Roman Church as the “basis on which all who confess the faith of Christ are agreed and as the one firm foundation against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.”
As the opposing camp had the habit of constantly appealing to Holy Writ so the Council, in its next session, held after Luther’s death on April 8, 1546, solemnly declared Holy Scripture to be the “Spring of wholesome truth and discipline of morals,” though at the same time, agreeably to the ancient and uninterrupted teaching of the Church, it also included tradition: “Which truth is contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which the Apostles received from the lips of Christ ... and which, having been as it were handed down, have survived to our own day”; it, on the one hand, declared the sacred books of both Old and New Testament, the Canon of which it fixed anew, to have God for their author (“Deus auctor”) and to be worthy of equal affection and reverence; on the other, it reasserted the rights of the teaching office of the Church and of the tradition handed down from ages past, both of which Protestantism had questioned. To prevent any abuse of the Word of God, it also enacted that no member of the Church, relying on his own prudence, should, in matters of faith and morals, twist Holy Writ so as to make it mean anything else “than Holy Mother Church held and holds, seeing that it is hers to interpret Scripture” in accordance “with the unanimous consensus of the Fathers.” The Council’s first reforming decree also seeks to safeguard the treasure of Holy Scripture by forbidding any profanation of it or its use for superstitious purposes.
After long adjournments, necessitated by the state of public affairs and after the ground had been prepared by careful study of the Bible, the Fathers and the Schoolmen, there followed, in 1546 and 1547, the weighty discussions on original sin and justification. In the final Canon on the justification of the sinner by grace (vol. iii., p. 185), the point on which all the questions raised by the innovations turned, the Synod pronounces an anathema on any man who shall declare that the Catholic doctrine it has just laid down “detracts from the glory of God or the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord, and does not rather enhance the truth of our faith and the glory of God and of Jesus Christ.” There followed resolutions concerning the sacraments in general, then, in 1551, on the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrament of Penance; and finally, to pass over other points, in 1562 and 1563, the decrees on Communion, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrament of priestly ordination, and on Marriage. The 25th and last session, on Dec. 4, 1563, was devoted to the doctrine of Purgatory, of the veneration of the saints and relics, indulgences, fast-days and festivals, and also to the drawing up of various far-reaching regulations on discipline.
The Synod had striven throughout to make its disciplinary decrees keep pace with its doctrinal promulgations. Thereby it provided a lasting and effectual foundation for the reform of the Church. This, taken in connection with so clear a statement of the unanimity of the Church’s teaching throughout the ages, deprived the separatists of every pretext for remaining estranged from the unity of the faith. The main point was that the Church, purified from the many abuses to which human frailty had given rise, or at least earnestly resolved to remove those still remaining, stood forth again as the city on the hill, visible afar off in her splendour and calling all to her in order to make them sharers in the hope of life. She was confident that He Who had said: “I will be with you all days, even to the consummation of the world,” had extended His protecting Hand over the assembly, and had spoken through it for the instruction of the faithful and also of the erring brethren. The infallibility of such general Councils was never questioned by any Catholic.
A fresh outburst of zeal was the result, and the ancient Church soon showed that she had within her unsuspected powers for self-improvement.