Greeks, and teaches the doctrine of seven sacraments, the character impressed by three of them, the necessity of the intention of the minister, transubstantiation, and auricular confession. This decree is held by many Roman authors not to possess much authority, as it was not approved by the oriental bishops'. 3. The synod of Lateran assembled by Leo X. in 1512, and attended by 114 Italian bishops, made no definitions in matters of faith; and though the ultramontanes call it œcumenical, Bellarmine says that it remained in his days a question among catholics, whether it were truly so'. CHAPTER XII. THE SYNOD OF TRENT. IN reviewing the clear and undoubted decisions of the western synods previously to the reformation, we do not observe any which compelled the Latin churches to receive doctrines at variance with those taught by our catholic and apostolic churches. The synod of Florence alone, in the year 1439, made a definition of faith, in which the doctrine of purgatory and the papal supremacy appeared; but as I have shown, the œcumenicity of this synod was doubtful even in the western church. The synod of Trent, however, in its various sessions from 1545 to 1563, defined several doctrines as matters This is the opinion of Natalis Alexander, and many others.See Fleury, liv. c. viii. s. 103. Bellarminus, lib. ii. de Conc. c. 13. of faith, which we cannot approve; and although many of its judgments are laudable, and others admit of a catholic interpretation; still there are some which render all accommodation impossible, while this synod is acknowledged by the members of the Roman obedience, as œcumenical and infallible. It is admitted generally now by Roman theologians, that the only final proof of the œcumenicity and infallibility of any synod is its reception by the universal church. On this ground Bossuet concludes that whoever does not acknowledge these qualities in the synod of Trent is to be accounted a heretic, because all the bishops, and the whole catholic church, approve and receive it. Denying the conclusion, I most fully admit the principle of Bossuet, properly understood; and on this principle proceed to prove, First, that the decrees of the synod of Trent were not judgments of the catholic church. Secondly, that they were not judgments of the Roman obedience. If these points are established, it will appear evidently that the decrees of the synod of Trent are not obligatory as matters of faith on any part of the catholic church, except in those points where they are supported by scripture, by the decrees of oecumenical synods, or by catholic tradition. I. The synod of Trent was not oecumenical and infallible, because it was not received or approved by the catholic church: for although it was acknowledged by the christian churches in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Flanders, part of Germany, Poland, Hungary, a See above, Chapter VII. Bossuet, in the works of Leibnitz by Dutens. Austria, Dalmatia, and by the Maronites in Syria, and by some few in South America; it was rejected or not approved by the churches and brethren throughout England, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, part of Germany, Russia, Siberia, part of Poland, Moldavia, Wallachia, Servia, Turkey, Greece, the Archipelago, Crete, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Georgia, Mingrelia, Circassia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt; nor has it yet been received by any of these churches. Hence the synod of Trent cannot possibly have the authority of an œcumenical synod. If a Romanist reply to this, that the churches of Britain, and of the east, and the Lutherans, were schismatics and heretics; I deny the fact, for they never separated from the communion of the rest of the catholic church, nor did they ever dispute any decrees of the catholic church and if it be alleged, that they were separated from the Roman see, the centre of unity, I reply that it was not their fault; and if communion with the Roman pontiff be simply and absolutely necessary under all circumstances, then he must be not only infallible, but impeccable, which Romanists themselves do not admit. Therefore as these brethren always constituted a great portion of the catholic church, their approbation was essentially necessary in order to render the decrees of any synod truly binding on the church. с II. The reception of the synod of Trent and its decrees by the churches of the Roman obedience, affords no evidence of the judgment of those churches on the questions then in controversy: for it is certain that theological opinions were universally prevalent at that time in the Roman churches, which obliged them to accept See Part I. ch. ix, x. and Part II. ch. ii. vi. without any examination or judgment, the decrees of the synod of Trent. The synod of Trent possessed all the essentials of a general synod according to Roman theologians. It was summoned by a pope: all the bishops of the Roman obedience (which, according to the opinion then beyond all doubt universal in the Roman churches, comprised the whole catholic church), were summoned to attend. The papal legates presided: the council proceeded conciliariter, examining and discussing the various controversies, and deciding by the plurality of votes: if in most of the sessions the number of bishops was not large, the latter sessions in which the former were approved, comprised nearly two hundred bishops. In fine, the decrees of this synod were formally approved by the Roman pontiff. Assuming then, what every member of the Roman obedience believed, that the catholic church was limited to the papal communion; the synod of Trent was apparently œcumenical, according to all the received opinions. Now it is certain that, during the whole of the sixteenth century, and till long afterwards, it was the doctrine maintained by all members of the Roman churches, that a general council confirmed by a pope was infallible; that its decrees could not be submitted to examination, or disputed without heresy. It was taught by the most leading theologians, without any hesitation, that whoever denied the infallibility of such a synod was a heretic. I might be content to appeal in proof of this, to the well known and indisputable fact, that in the sixteenth century the whole Roman obedience was divided into two parties; one of which, the Ultramontane, held the infallibility of the pope and denied that of general councils independently of the pope; while the other, the Gallican, maintained the infallibility of general councils even without papal confirmation, and denied the infallibility of papal judgments except when they were approved by the universal church. But, whatever were the differences of these parties, both were bound by their principles to acknowledge the infallibility of a general council confirmed by a pope; and thus all members of the Roman obedience were obliged to receive the synod of Trent as indisputable and infallible. They could not, consistently with their belief, doubt whether its decrees were really conformable to scripture and tradition: they could not examine them, except under an invincible prejudice. Therefore their reception of the synod of Trent was neither an approbation nor a judgment, properly speaking; it was a mere implicit submission to the synod, a silent registration of its decrees. Every bishop and theologian of the Roman obedience during the sixteenth century, whose opinions I have been able to ascertain, held either that the pope or a general council was infallible. Not a single instance of a contrary opinion amongst them have I ever seen even alluded to by writers of any party whatever. 1. The infallibility of a general synod confirmed by a pope was held at that time to be a matter of faith, so that he who denied it was accounted a heretic. Bellarmine says: "All catholics agree in two things, not indeed with heretics, but among themselves; the first, that the pope with a general council cannot err in making decrees of faith "." In speaking of various d "Catholici omnes in aliis duobus conveniunt, non quidem cum hæreticis, sed solum inter VOL. II. se. Primo, pontificem cum generali concilio non posse errare in condendis fidei decretis, vel R |