Catholic Encyclopedia
Church Fathers
Classics Library
Church Documents
Prayer Requests
Ray of Hope
Social Doctrine

A Manual Of Councils Of The Holy Catholic Church -Rev. Edward H. Landon. M.A.

TARRAGONA (516). [Concilium Tarragonense]. Held on November 6th, 516, by John the archbishop, during the reign of Theodoric, King of Italy, and guardian of Amalric, King of Spain. Ten bishops were present, and thirteen canons published.

3. Forbids usury amongst clerks.

4. Forbids bishops, priests, and clerks to judge any cause on Sundays; allows them to do so on other days, provided they do not interfere in criminal cases.

7. Directs that the priest and deacon appointed to any country parish shall remain there during his week (i.e., that the priest shall remain there one week, and then the deacon shall succeed him and keep his week) in order to celebrate Divine service with the clerks; and that on Saturday all the clergy shall attend in order to begin the Sunday office. It also orders that matins and vespers shall be said daily.

11. Forbids monks to leave their convent in order to perform any clerical function, without leave from their superior.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1562.

TARRAGONA (1239). Held in 1239, by the Bishop of Sabine, Legate of the Apostolic See, assisted by the Bishops of Barcelona, Tortosa, Gerona, Urgel, Vich (Vicensis), Huesca and Lerida. Sixteen canons were published.

3. Orders the celebration of the Feast of St Thecla (with nine lessons) and of St Francis, St Dominic, and St Antony, throughout the Province.

5. Contains a list of Festivals to be observed.

6. Tolerates, under certain circumstances, the celebration of mass by any priest twice on the same day; entirely forbids it thrice unless on Christmas day.

8. Directs that the priest shall make the hosts himself of the best and clean flour, without salt or leaven.—Martene, Vet. Scrip. Coll., tom. v. col. 132.

TARRAGONA (1242). Held in 1242, by Peter, the archbishop, against the Waldenses in Arragon. Part only of the acts remain.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 592.

TARRAGONA (1292). Held on Saturday, March 15th, 1292, by Roderick, Archbishop of Tarragona, assisted by the Bishops of Vich (Vicensis), Urgel, Tortosa, Barcelona, Saragossa, Huesca, and Lerida, together with the proctors of six others. Twelve canons were published, together with a preface.

2. Is directed against the defamers of the clergy.

6. Forbids clerks to administer the Holy Sacraments to the parishioner of another clerk without the consent of the latter or his diocesan, except the sacraments of baptism and extreme unction in cases of necessity, which it allows any priest to confer and dispense.

7. Declares that if the Archbishop of Toledo, or any other archbishop, passing through the province of Tarragona, shall cause his cross to be carried before him, or use the pall, or grant indulgences, the Bishop in whose diocese the offence has been committed shall, under pain of being suspended from entering the Church, oppose it to the utmost of his power.

8. Relates to heretics, and directs all rectors and vicars to receive well the preaching friars deputed by the Holy See as inquisitors of heretics.—Martene, Vet. Scrip. Coll., tom. v. col. 289.

TARRAGONA (1317). Held on February 22, 1317, by Eximinus, Archbishop of Tarragona, assisted by Martin of Huesca; Berengarius of Vich; Raymond of Urgel; William of Gerona; William of Lerida; Berengarius of Tortosa; and Peter of Tarazona (Tirasonœ), together with proctors of five absent bishops. Seven canons are extant.

1. Against the Beguini and Beguinæ. Forbids them to meet together in numbers, to live two together in a house, except they be related, to wear mantles, to observe any new manner of life unsanctioned by the Church, to meet together to read or say anything unless at Church, offenders to be excommunicated.

2. Forbids them to have or read any theological book except a book of prayers previously approved by the Diocesan.

4. Forbids to administer to any girl a vow of virginity unless in the manner and by the persons lawfully appointed to do so.

6. Orders all canons and beneficed clerks to communicate twice a year.

7. Orders all clerks to observe the tonsure and proper ecclesiastical dress; to refrain from all worldly business and improper trade, especially those of butcher and tavern keeper.—Martene, Vet. Scrip. Coll., tom. v. col. 305.

TARRAGONA (1329). Held on February 26th, 1329, by John, the Latin Patriarch of Alexandria, at the time administering the affairs of the Church of Tarragona. There were also present Raymond, Bishop of Valencia, Gaston of Gerona, Benignis of Tortosa, Raynaldus of Urgel, and Bernard of Lerida. Eighty-six canons were published, chiefly collected from those published in former councils.

9. Excommunicates any priest belonging to another province, who shall set up an altar in that of Tarragona.

16. Orders all beneficed clerks to attend the Synod of the Cathedral Church.

24. Declares that some Saracenic captives had come to baptism in order thereby to escape the yoke of slavery. Orders that in future they shall abide some days with the rector of the church, previously, that he may be able to judge whether they are sincere and fit for baptism.

30. Orders bishops, abbots, and priors to listen to the reading of the Word of God at meals.

33. Against Jews.

34. Forbids canons who have been canonically presented to chaplaincies by their bishop, of their own mere will to present others to those chaplaincies.

35. Declares that since the church of Tarragona, which is the head and mother of the whole province, was built in honour of St Tecla, all and singular in the said province are specially bound to invoke and venerate her, and directs that the canons published in the sacred Council of Tarragona upon the observances of the Feast of St Tecla, V. and M., on the 23rd of September, shall be observed.

44. Declares that the following abuse exists in many places, viz.: when the tithe is carried home the payers demand a dinner, and in order to get more dinners they carried home the tithe by little portions each day, claiming always the dinner from the rector—obstinate offenders to be excommunicated.

45. Declares that tithe is to be paid to the Church by Saracens as well as Christians.

52. Declares to be excommunicated all persons, religious or secular, who in any way fraudulently conceal or try to suppress any instruments or deeds belonging to the church of Tarragona, by which it held its privileges and liberties.

56. Against rectors who never celebrated in their churches.

62. Renews the canon of Vienne, which forbade Mahometans to call upon the name of their prophet in an audible tone.

64. Orders bishops to proceed against concubinary priests, “prœsertim publicos.”

62. Orders the observance of the Canon “Omnis utriusque Sexus.”

68. Orders that two persons in each Cathedral Church shall be sent to study theology and canon law.

69. Forbids bishops, prelates, and other clerks to give at dinner more than two kinds of meat; on fast days, three dishes of meat only (fercula tria).

72. Against blasphemers of God and the Saints.—Mart., Thes. Anec., tom. iv. col. 283.

TASSUS (1177). Held by Gregory 5th, Catholic of the Armenians, to effect a union with the Greeks, which the Emperor Manuel greatly desired. According to one account, the design was frustrated by the death of Manuel, which happened during the council; but if this be true, the Synod must have lasted two or three years, for the emperor did not die before 1179 or 1180. Another and more probable reason is the unwillingness of the Greeks to grant to the Catholic of the Armenians the style and dignity of patriarch of Antioch.—Or., Christ., tom. i. p. 1400.

TELEPTA (or TELLA). [Concilium Telense or Teleptense.] Properly Zella (which see).

THEODOSIOPOLIS (or CHARNUM) (629), now Erzerom, the capital of Turkish Armenia. A council was held here by order of the Emperor Heraclius, at which all the bishops and magnates of Armenia were present, with Teser or Esdras, their catholic. Several Greek doctors also attended, and during a month debated the points at issue between the two churches. At length a reconciliation was effected, the acts of Theven annulled, and that council anathematised. Moreover the Synod of Chalcedon was received.

THEVEN or TIBEN (535). Held in 535, at a city of this name (the seat of the Catholic), in Armenia Major, under the Catholic Nierces the second, in which the Armenian Church renounced the Communion of the Orthodox Church, condemned the Church of Chalcedon, and admitted the Monophysite heresy. This council also ordered that the words “qui crucifixus es” should be added to the Trisagion, anathematised the Church of Jerusalem, and ordered the celebration of Christmas day, and the Epiphany on the same day.—Orien’s Christ., tom. i. p. 1381.

THIONVILLE (822). [Concilium apud Theodonis-villam.] Held in 822. Thirty-two bishops being present; amongst whom were Aistuphus of Mayence and Ebbo of Rheims. Four or five articles were drawn up in defence of ecclesiastical persons and property.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1519.

THIONVILLE (835). Held in February 835; more than forty bishops being present. All the proceedings against Louis-le-Débonnaire, in the assembly of bishops held at Compiégne in 833, were declared to be null and void, and he was conducted to the cathedral church of Metz, and was solemnly restored to his rights and privileges. This done, the prelates returned to Thionville, where Agobard of Lyons and Bernard of Vienne, who were absent, were solemnly deposed, together with Ebbo of Rheims, who, being present, himself consented to the sentence, and renounced the episcopate. Agobard was subsequently restored, and was present in the Council of Paris, held in 838.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1695.

THIONVILLE (844). Held in October 844, in a place called at present “Just” (Judicium); Drogon, Bishop of Metz, presided. In this council Lothaire, Louis, and Charles promised to observe brotherly concord amongst themselves. Six articles were drawn up, which the princes promised to observe. They are exhorted, amongst other things, to live in unity and brotherly love; to fill without delay the sees which, owing to their quarrels, had remained vacant; to hinder the laity from appropriating to themselves the property of the Church, &c.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1800.

THORP (1363). See canon 3, C. YORK, A.D. 1363.

THURINGIA (1105). [Concilium Quintilineburgense or Northusense.] Held in 1105, by the Emperor Henry, who had lately succeeded in reuniting Saxony to the Roman obedience. The council was held in the palace. The decrees of the preceding councils were confirmed; the heresy of the Nicolaitans (meaning the concubinage of the clergy) was condemned, &c.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 744.

TOLEDO (400). Held on the 1st September 400, under Patronus, or Patruinus, Bishop of Merida. This was a national council, and not merely provincial, as Nicolas Antonio asserts, who also erroneously places it, not at Toledo, but at Celenis in Gallicia, and makes Paternus, Bishop of Braga, to have been president; as, however, it appears from the acts themselves that this Paternus was a converted Priscillianist, and not yet admitted to communion, such a supposition is utterly untenable. Tillemont, without any grounds, denies that these canons belong to this council, and assigns them to the time of Pope St Leo. The reason for assembling this council, which consisted of nineteen bishops, was the troubles and disturbances caused by the heresy of the Priscillianists, which sprung up towards the close of the fourth century. Nineteen bishops, from all the Spanish provinces, attended. Many of the sect of the Priscillianists who presented themselves, were received back into communion with the Church, after having abjured their errors. In this council the Bishop of Rome is, for the first time, spoken of simply by the title of “pope.” Twenty canons were also published.

1. Forbids to admit to the order of priesthood a deacon who has had converse with his wife, and forbids similarly to elevate a priest to the episcopate.

2. Forbids to admit to any higher order than that of Ostiarius or Lector a man who had publicly done penance, and even restricts his administration of those offices. Reduces to the rank of sub-deacon a deacon who has been put to penance.

4. Enacts that a sub-deacon marrying a second time, shall be reduced to the rank of Ostiarius or Reader, and shall not be permitted to read the gospel or epistle; should he marry a third time, he shall be separated from the Church for two years, and then be admitted to lay communion only.

5. Deprives clerks who, having been appointed to any church in town or country, do not assist daily at mass.

7. Permits clerks whose wives do not lead a decorous life, to castigate them to any extent short of killing them, bind them or shut them up, and to make them fast; forbids them to eat with them until they have done penance.

8. One, who after baptism, becomes a soldier, cannot, if admitted to orders, rise to the diaconate.

9. Forbids a widow or woman who has professed to talk in her house to a clerk.

12. Forbids a clerk to leave his own bishop in order to attach himself to another.

13. Warns those who attend the other offices of the Church, but who do not communicate, that they must either receive the holy Communion, or take place amongst the penitents, upon pain of excommunication.

14. Orders that any one who shall have received the Holy Eucharist, without eating it, shall be driven from the Church as guilty of sacrilege.

17. Excommunicates a married man keeping a concubine; but permits unmarried men to do so. Allows either a wife or a concubine.

20. Restricts the consecration of the chrism to the bishops; orders all priests to send a deacon or sub-deacon to the bishop at Easter, in order to receive it from him.

The other acts of this Synod were (I) a Rule of Faith in eighteen articles against the Priscillianists, and to which eighteen anathemas were attached.

TOLEDO (405). Another Synod was held about 405, under Pope Innocentius, who addressed a letter to the assembled prelates. Florez, tom. vi. 117.

TOLEDO (531 or 527). Held May 17, 531, or more probably in 527, according to Florez. Montanus, Bishop of Toledo, presiding over seven other bishops. Five canons were published.

1. Relates to the treatment of children offered by their parents to be brought up for holy orders; directs that they shall be brought up under the eye of the bishop until their eighteenth year, when they shall freely choose their own future state. If they chose the clerical state, and promised chastity, they were to be admitted to the sub-diaconate at twenty years.

Others relate to the continence of the clergy, the preservation of Church property, &c.

In this council Toledo is, for the first time, spoken of as a metropolitan see.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1734.

TOLEDO (589). Held May 8, 589; St Leander, the primate of Seville, was present, and in all there were seventy-two bishops and deputies from the different provinces under the rule of King Reccaredus, who attended in person, and presented his confession of faith. Eight deputies were also present. The main object of the council was to confirm the conversion of the Goths who had abjured Arianism, and who here presented a confession of faith, in which they declared their assent to the first four œcumenical councils, and anathematised the principal errors of the Arian party. Twenty-three canons were published, and as many anathemas directed as against other heresies and evils, so against those who deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, and those who refuse to anathematise the council of Ariminum.

1. Orders that all that the ancient canons prohibit shall be prohibited, and that they order shall be ordered.

2. Directs that, according to the king’s writ, the Constantinopolitan creed shall be sung by the people in every church in the kingdom before the Lord’s Prayer in the Eucharistical office.

3. That the bishop cannot alienate the property of his church.

5. Relates to the rule of continence to be observed by heretical bishops, priests, and deacons, when reconciled to the Church, as well as by all clerks, and orders that women of ill-fame, who have sinned with the faithful, shall be sold by the bishop, and their price given to the poor.

7. Orders that some portion of Holy Scripture shall be read daily at the tables of priests, to prevent idle conversation.

8. That no clerk shall covet the gifts made by the king for the service of the church.

9. That the churches of the converted Arians shall belong to the bishop of the see in which they are situated.

10. Forbids any to hinder women who desire to embrace the virgin state.

11 and 12. Relate to penitence. Forbid to reconcile without penance; forbid the priest to admit to penance without first cutting off the hair of the penitent, if a man, or changing her dress, if a woman.

14. Forbids Jews to have Christian women for wives or concubines.

16. That the priest, the judge, and the Lord of the soil shall extirpate idolatry.

17. That they shall be punished who beat their sons, in order to compel them to marry.

19. Leaves it to the bishop to fix the endowment to be given to a newly founded church.

20. Orders bishops to behave themselves with moderation.

22. Forbids to say anything but psalms at the funerals of the religious, without sobbing or singing the lugubrious canticle, which was the custom.

23. Forbids profane dances and songs on festivals.

These canons were confirmed by the king.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 997.

TOLEDO (597). Held May 17, 597; sixteen bishops attended; two canons only remain, and the subscription of thirteen bishops only appear.

1. Orders that priests and deacons who will not observe the law of continence shall be degraded, shut up in a cloister, and put to penance.

2. Forbids the bishop to appropriate to himself the revenues of any church or chapel in his diocese, and declares that they belong to the ministering priest.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 1603.

TOLEDO (610). Held October 23, 610; Protogenes, Bishop of Segovia, presiding over fifteen bishops, Aurasius, Bishop of Toledo, being a party concerned, was absent. The primacy of the See of Toledo over all the churches of the province of Carthagena was established, and subsequently confirmed by an edict of King Gundemar, who added civil penalties for the infraction of the decree.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 1620.

TOLEDO (633). A national council was held in this city on the 5th of December 633, assembled from the whole of Spain, and that part of Gaul which was in subjection to the Goths; St Isidore of Seville presided, sixty-six archbishops and bishops being present: amongst them were the metropolitans of Narbonne, Merida, Braga, Toledo, and Tarragona. Seventy-five canons were published.

1. Contains a profession of faith upon the subject of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation.

2. Directs that the same order of prayer and of psalmody shall be observed throughout the kingdom, and the same manner of celebrating mass.

3. Orders that a national council shall be held annually, if possible; otherwise a council in each province.

4. Relates to the proper mode of holding synods, and is of some length. It orders that on the first day of the synod, the church shall be cleared before sunrise, and all the doors shut except one; that the bishops shall enter first, and take their seats in a circle, according to the date of their consecration; then the priests; after them the deacons, who are ordered to stand in sight of the bishops; and last of all, the laity and notaries: this done, the door is directed to be shut, and silence and devotion enjoined upon all; then the archdeacon, standing up, shall bid them pray: upon which all shall prostrate themselves upon the floor, and after private prayer, mingled with sobs and tears, one of the bishops shall rise up and say a prayer, to which all shall respond Amen. All having risen up and taken their places, a deacon in an alb shall read the canons relating to the holding of councils, and the metropolitan shall invite the bishops to proceed to business. It is forbidden to proceed to another matter until the first has been disposed of. Any clerk or layman desiring to appeal to the council is enjoined to mention his cause to the metropolitan archdeacon, who shall declare it to the council. No bishop is allowed to leave the synod before the others, nor shall the council be dissolved until everything is settled.

5. Directs that the metropolitans shall consult together before Epiphany concerning the proper time for celebrating Easter, and shall signify their determination to their suffragans.

6. Approves of leaving the question about single and trine immersion open; but orders single immersion to be practised throughout Spain, to prevent schism.

7. Orders that the Passion be preached on Good Friday, and that the people, in an audible voice, ask forgiveness of their sins, in order that, being thereby purified from sin, they may worthily celebrate the great festival of Easter, and partake of the Holy Eucharist with a pure heart.

8. Deprives of the Easter communion those who break their fast on Good Friday before sunset, exception being made in favour of old and sick persons and children.

9. Relates to the benediction of the Paschal candle and lights on Easter Eve.

10. Is directed against an abuse then prevalent in many churches, in which the Lord’s Prayer was said on Sundays only; orders all clerks to say it daily at the office, either openly or privately.

11. Forbids to sing the Hallelujah during Lent, and on the first January and days of abstinence.

12. Orders that immediately after the Epistle the Gospel should be read, which should be followed by the Lauds, which in some churches were improperly sung after the Epistle.

13. Condemns the opinion of those who deemed it wrong to sing hymns composed by men in honour of the apostles and martyrs, on account of their not being taken out of Holy Scripture nor authorised by tradition.

14. Orders that the canticle, “Benedicite, Opera Omnia,” be sung on Sundays and Feast-days at mass, at the entrance of the chancel [in pulpito].

15. Orders, under pain of excommunication, that at the end of each psalm shall be sung, “Glory and honour be to the Father,” &c., and not merely “Glory be,” &c.

16. That in the Responds the Gloria should be added, except at funerals.

17. Excommunicates those (the Alogi) who refused to acknowledge the inspiration of the Apocalypse, and also those who refused to read it in church from Easter to Pentecost.

18. That the priest shall not give the Benediction to the people after communion, but before.

19. Enumerates the cases in which persons may not be admitted to holy orders.

25. Is directed against ignorance in the clergy; requires them to be acquainted with Holy Scripture and the canons.

26. Orders that a priest, when appointed to any parish, shall receive a copy of the ritual from the bishop, and that, when the priests attend the litanies or synods, they shall give account to the bishop of their manner of celebrating the holy office and administering holy baptism.

27. Orders that the priest at his ordination shall receive the Planeta “quæ idem est ac Casula.” That he shall promise before the bishop to observe chastity.

28. That a priest unjustly deposed shall not only be restored, but shall receive as a distinction the Staff, Alb and Paten, as at his ordination.

30. Priests dwelling in places in the land of the enemy cannot send to, or receive from, their own country anything without the king’s permission.

33. Forbids the bishop to take for his own share more than one-third of the revenue of the churches within his diocese.

34. Enacts that thirty years’ possession shall give to a bishop lawful right over a church situated in the diocese of another bishop, if in the same province.

35. New churches to belong to the diocesan.

38. Founders of churches, or their children, in distress, to be supported by the church.

39. Forbids the deacons to pretend to the privileges of the priesthood, and to sit in the first places.

40. Forbids them to wear two stoles, which it declares to be unfit for even a bishop or priest; directs them to wear the stole over the left shoulder, and also that it be clean, and not worked with colours or with gold.

41. Orders all clerks, as well as the priests and deacons, to shave the entire crown of the head, and to leave but a slight rim of hair in the form of a circle.

43. Women of ill-fame to be sold by the bishop.

45. A clerk voluntarily taking arms to be degraded and placed in a monastery.

46. Orders that a clerk found plundering a tomb be deposed from every ecclesiastical rank and office, and subjected to three years’ penance.

47. Free-born clerks to be exempt from labouring in public works. This was also confirmed by the king.

48. Administrators of the goods of a church to be chosen by the clerk of that church.

51. Forbids bishops to ill-treat monks, but grants to them the exercise of their canonical authority over them, such as exhorting them to observe a good and holy life, instituting abbots and other officers, correcting those who infringe the rules, &c.

52. Enacts that monks forsaking the monastic state, in order to marry and settle in the world, shall be brought back and put to penance.

57. Forbids to compel Jews to profess Christianity; with regard to the compulsory conversions under King Sisbertus; it allows that they should continue to be considered as Christians, because they had received baptism, chrism, and the Holy Eucharist.

The following nine relate to the Jews, and to Christians who had apostatised to Judaism.

The 66th and following eight relate to the case of slaves.

67. Bishops cannot give liberty to the slaves of the church.

75. Anathematises all who conspire against regal authority.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 1700.

TOLEDO (636). Held in 636, under King Chintila; Eugenius, second Bishop of Toledo, presiding; twenty-two bishops, in all, were present. Nine canons were published, of which,

1. Orders public litanies every year for three days, beginning December 14th, except one of the three should prove to be Sunday, in which case the litany days were to be observed in the week following.

6. Orders that the religious who forsake their estate shall be brought back to it or excommunicated.

All the others relate to the prince, and the strengthening of his powers, &c.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 1735.

TOLEDO (638). Held January 9th, 638, under Silva, Metropolitan of Narbonne, in the second year of the reign of King Chintila. Fifty-two Spanish and Gallic bishops were present, either in person or by deputy. Amongst these were all the metropolitans, except him of Merida, who sent his proctor. Eighteen canons were published.

2. Confirms Canon 1 of the preceding council.

3. Enacts that, for the future, no king should ascend the throne without making a vow to defend the Catholic faith, and to rid the country of Jews and infidels; pronounces anathema against the prince who should violate this oath.

7. Orders that persons who, after having been admitted to penance, quit that state and resume the secular dress, shall be arrested by the bishop, and compelled to perform their course of penance, whether they will or not, in some monastery.

Fleury observes that this is the first time that we find mention of this compulsory penance, which evinced entire ignorance of the sound practice of antiquity.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 1740.

17. Renews a former canon against those who, during the life of the king, would appoint a successor; names the qualification of those who may be raised to the office.

TOLEDO (646). Held in 646, under King Chintasuinthus, by twenty-eight bishops present, and the deputies of eleven who were absent. Six canons were published.

2. Allows the bishop, or any priest who may be present, to complete the celebration of the sacred mysteries, when the celebrating priest is unable to proceed through sickness; excommunicates those who, without such cause, leave the celebration unfinished, or who celebrate after having partaken of the slightest particle of food.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 1836.

3. Commands bishops promptly to attend the burial of a defunct bishop when called to do so.—(C. VALENTIA.)

4. Restrains the exactions made by the bishops of Galicia in visitations.

5. Directs that the Religious who wander about, ignorant and disgraceful, should be confined to their monasteries.

6. Commands that, out of reverence to the king and the royal see, and for the comfort of the metropolitan, all the neighbouring bishops should attend at Toledo once a month, excepting at harvest and vintage.

TOLEDO (653). Held in 653, under Orontius of Merida; the king, Resesuinthus, being present, and fifty-two bishops, with the deputies of ten absent. The prince read his profession of faith, in which he acknowledged the first four œcumenical councils. Twelve canons were published.

1. Contains a definition of faith.

2. Condemns all oaths and vows to commit evil actions.

3. Excommunicates those who were guilty of simony.

7. Condemns those who forsake the episcopal or sacerdotal office upon pretext of having been admitted to such holy office unwillingly; orders those who so return into the world and marry to return to their duty, or to be shut up for life in a monastery.

8. Forbids to ordain those who are not instructed in the offices of the Church and the law of God, and who are not imbued with letters.

9. Excludes from the Easter communion, and from the privilege of eating meat for twelve months, those who break the Lent fast, except in cases of necessity, age, and infirmity.

12. Confirms the canons of a former council concerning the Jews.

Besides the bishops and deputies present, we find amongst the signatures those of ten abbots, the arch-priest and the primicarius of Toledo, and sixteen counts, and this is, according to Florez, the first time of such signature.

After the subscriptions there is a synodal decree, concerning the disposition of the king’s property, and an edict of the king, confirming it.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 394.

TOLEDO (655). Held November 2, 655, St Eugenius, the archbishop, presiding; sixteen bishops attended, and eighteen canons were published, many of which tend to repress the abuses committed by bishops in the administration of Church property.

1. That no one shall alienate any of the property of a church; if the offence be committed by the clerk of the church, the heirs of the founder to bring the case before the bishop; if by the bishop, before the metropolitan; if by the metropolitan, before the king.

2. Orders that during the lifetime of the founder of a church, he shall himself take care of it, and present to the bishop a fit person to be instituted to it, whom the bishop shall institute accordingly. If the founder does not present a fit person, the bishop to institute another with the consent of the founder; but if the bishop institutes or ordains any one against the consent of the founder, his ordination to be null.

9. Forbids a bishop who attends the funeral of another bishop to receive more than a pound of gold if the latter were rich, and half a pound if he were poor.

11. Forbids to confer orders upon the slaves of the Church, except they have been first set free by the bishop.

18. Orders that newly baptised Jews shall show themselves in the assemblies of the Christians on all Jewish festivals.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 451.

TOLEDO (656). Held December 1, 656, under Reccasuinthus; twenty bishops were present, amongst whom were St Eugenius, the Metropolitan of Toledo; Fugitivus, the Metropolitan of Seville; and St Fructuosus, the Metropolitan of Braga. Five bishops who were absent sent deputies. Seven canons were published.

1. Orders that the Feast of the Annunciation shall, in future, be kept on the 18th of December, because that, falling in Lent, it interfered with the fast, and often with the celebration of Good Friday.

3. Forbids bishops to present churches to their relations and friends for the sake of the revenue to be derived.

4. That a widow intending to observe chastity in the religious state shall make her profession in writing before the minister of the Church, and thenceforth shall wear the dress, or at least a red or black veil, to mark her profession.

6. Directs that children devoted by their parents to the tonsure or religious life shall be compelled to fulfil the life; does not allow parents so to devote their children, after they have attained to ten years of age, without their own consent.

7. Forbids to sell Christian slaves to Jews or infidels.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 459.

TOLEDO (675). Held November 7th, 675, under King Wamba; seventeen bishops of the province of Carthagena (amongst whom was Quiritius of Toledo), the deputies of two others, and six abbots, were present. Sixteen canons of discipline were also published.

1. Declares that synods should be held without tumult, with polite discussion, and without vain talk and quarrelling and laughing.

2. The metropolitan shall instruct his suffragans, and they the clergy under them, how they ought all to be well informed in the law of God, and be constant in their studies.

3. Orders all the bishops of the province to conform to the order and ritual in use in the metropolitan church. This extended also to monasteries.

4. Forbids to suffer priests who are at variance to approach the altar, or to receive their offerings.

5. Decrees infamy, banishment, and perpetual excommunication (save in the hour of death) as the punishment of a bishop who sins carnally with the wife, daughter, &c., of a nobleman.

6. Deprives ecclesiastics who take part in the judgment of capital cases.

8. Enacts penalties to be enforced against priests who demand a fee for christening or for the chrism; orders bishops to punish such offenders under pain of suspension.

11. Exempts from excommunication those sick persons who, from extremity of illness, could not swallow the sacrament of Christ’s body, and received therefore the Chalice only. This is an explanation and relaxation of canon 14 of the first Council of Toledo.

12. A penitent in danger of death to be reconciled if he dies before reconciliation. The offering for his soul shall be received and commemoration be made of him in the church.

13. Forbids a person possessed with a devil or out of his mind to serve at the altar or to approach it.

14. Orders that, where the revenues and number of clergy permit it, mass shall never be celebrated by one priest only, lest he should be taken ill, and the mass left unfinished, for want of another to take his place.

15. That a Synod shall be held annually on the day agreed upon by the metropolitan and the king; that all the bishops of the provinces shall be excommunicated for a year if they allow any year to pass without so meeting, unless the omission arise from the extraneous power of the king.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 539.

TOLEDO (681). Held January 9, 681, under King Ervigius. Julian of Toledo presided, at the head of thirty-four bishops, amongst whom were the metropolitans of Seville, Braga, and Merida. Thirteen canons were published.

1. Approves of the resignation of King Wamba (who had assumed the religious habit) and the election of Ervigius.

4. Declares to be null and void the consecration of a bishop for the little town of Aquis, in the immediate vicinity of Toledo, made by the Bishop of Merida against his own will, and against the canons, at the command of Wamba, and generally forbids to consecrate a bishop to a place which has not hitherto had a bishop.

5. Speaks of an abuse which had crept in, by which priests having to celebrate many masses in one day, partook only in the last. They condemn this abuse, “nam quale est sacrificium cui nee ipse sacrificans participasse dignoscitur? Orders the priest as often as he offers the sacrifice so often to communicate.

6. Enacts that, in order to prevent any further delay in filling up the vacant bishoprics, it shall be lawful for the Metropolitan of Toledo to consecrate at once, and without consulting the churches, those persons whom the king shall choose, without prejudice, however, to the rights of the province, and provides that the new bishops shall, within three months, present themselves to their proper metropolitan.

8. Excommunicates those who separate from their wives, except for adultery.

10. Confirms, with the king’s consent, the privilege of asylum to those who take refuge in a church, or anywhere within thirty paces of it.

11. Orders the abolition of every remnant of idolatry, and commands that slaves found guilty of it shall be flogged and imprisoned, and freemen guilty of mixing in it banished and excommunicated.

12. That there shall be a council held in each province on the first day of November.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1221.

TOLEDO (683). Held November 4th, 683, under King Ervigius, who was present; forty-eight bishops, four of whom were metropolitans, attended, Julian of Toledo presiding. Twelve canons were published, the Nicene Creed having been first read, which from this time was sung in all churches in Spain.

The fifth is the extraordinary canon, which absolutely forbids the widow of the king to re-marry, even with a prince, and declares that if she does so her name shall be erased from the book of life.

7. Condemns the priest who, out of private revenge, uncovers the altars, puts out the lights, and ceases the offices of the church.

From the tenth it appears not to have been uncommon at this period for persons (even bishops) in time of dangerous illness to ask to be received to penance without confessing, or their conscience accusing them of, any particular sin, but for greater security.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1253.

TOLEDO (684). Held at the request of Pope Leo II., under King Ervigius, to receive and approve the sixth œcumenical council held at Constantinople against the Monothelites; seventeen bishops, ten deputies, and six abbots, attended. In the answer of the bishops to Leo they make no mention of the sixth œcumenical council, saying, in canon 7, that they decree that this council shall rank after the council of Chalcedon, in honour, place, and order. The council broke up on the 20th November.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1278.

TOLEDO (688). Held May 11, 688, under King Egica, Julian of Toledo presiding over sixty bishops, in order to explain certain expressions made use of in a confession of faith drawn up by the Spanish bishops some years before, which had given offence to Pope Benedict II. These expressions related to the two wills in our Lord Jesus Christ; and it was decreed to be not contrary to Christian truth to maintain that in God the will proceeds from the will—“voluntatem ex voluntate procedere.”—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1294.

TOLEDO (693). Held May 2, 693; composed of fifty-nine bishops, five abbots, and the deputies of three bishops absent; there were also present the King Egica and sixteen lords. In this council the decision of the previous council, concerning the procession of the will from the will, and of the essence from the essence, in God, was further explained. Twelve or thirteen canons were published.

6. Relates to the conduct of some priests, who, instead of using bread made for the purpose in the Holy Eucharist, contented themselves with offering on the holy table common bread cut into a round form. The canon orders that the bread used at the altar shall be made expressly for that purpose.

9. Excommunicated for life and deposed Sisbertus of Toledo, convicted of conspiring against the person of King Egica and his family. Felix, Bishop of Seville, was elected to fill the vacant see.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1327.

TOLEDO (694). Held November 9, 694. The subscriptions of the bishops present are lost. Eight canons were published.

1. Directs that during the three days preceding the opening of any council, and during which a strict fast ought to be observed, nothing shall be discussed which does not refer to matters of faith, morals, and ecclesiastical discipline.

3. Orders that bishops, following the example of our Lord, shall observe the ceremony of washing the feet of the poor on Holy Thursday.

5. Condemns to excommunication and perpetual imprisonment priests who, from a vile and wicked superstition, shall say the office of the mass for the dead for the living, in order by so doing to cause their death.—Tom. vi. Conc. p. 1361.

TOLEDO (1324). Held November 21, 1324, by John, Archbishop of Toledo. Eight canons were published; in the preface to which it is ordered that they shall be observed together with those which the legate William de Gondi, Bishop of Sabina, had made in the Council of Valladolid (1322). These canons, amongst other things, order bishops to attend the synods, and relate to the conduct and dress of clerks; forbid priests to demand anything for masses said by them, but allow them to receive voluntary offerings; forbid to say more than one mass in a day, except on Christmas Day.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1712.

TOLEDO (1339). Held in 1339, by Gil, Archbishop of Toledo, six bishops being present. Five canons were published.

2. Forbids to ordain any illiterate person.

3. Provides that in cathedral or collegiate churches some shall be compelled to study theology, the canon law, and the liberal arts.

5. Orders all rectors to keep a list of such of their parishioners as are of age, in order to effect the observation of the canon “Omnis utriusque sexus.”—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1869.

TOLEDO, or ARANDA (1473). Held December 5, 1473, in the burgh of Aranda, by Alphonso de Carille, Archbishop of Toledo. This council was numerously attended, and twenty-nine canons were published.

1. Orders that provincial councils shall be held biennially, and diocesan synods annually.

2. Orders curates to instruct their flocks in the principal articles of belief.

3. Forbids to promote to holy orders persons ignorant of Latin.

4. Forbids to receive a clerk from another diocese without letters from his bishop.

5 and 6. Relate to the dress of bishops and clerks; forbid them to wear garments made of red and green silk, short garments, and white shoes, &c.

7. Relates to the proper observance of Sundays and Festivals.

8. Forbids ecclesiastics to wear mourning.

9. Orders the punishment of incontinent clerks.

10. Forbids to admit to parochial churches or prebends persons ignorant of Latin, unless, for good cause, the bishop shall think fit to dispense with it.

11. Inflicts a pecuniary fine upon ecclesiastics who play with dice.

12. Orders that all priests shall celebrate mass four times in the year, at the least, and bishops three times.

13. Forbids all preaching without the bishop’s licence.

14. Enacts penalties to be enforced against clerks in the minor orders who do not wear the clerical habit and observe the tonsure.

15. Forbids ecclesiastics to furnish soldiers to any temporal lord, except the king, or to accept of lands upon condition of so doing.

16. Forbids the celebration of marriages at uncanonical times.

17. Excommunicates those who are married clandestinely without five witnesses, and suspends for three months the priest who shall officiate.

18. Excommunicates those who buy or sell the property of a vacant benefice.

19. Forbids the custom of performing, at certain times, spectacles, &c., and singing songs, and uttering profane discourses in churches.

20. Directs that persons dying of wounds received in duels shall not be allowed Christian burial, even though they may have received the sacrament of penance before death.

21. Excommunicates those who hinder the clergy from receiving tithe and enjoying their privileges, &c.

23. Orders that sentences of excommunication pronounced in any one diocese shall be observed in all others;

24. Places under an interdict the place from which any clerk has been forcibly expelled.

25. Forbids any sort of fee on account of ordination.

27. Grants to the bishop the power of absolving from synodal censures.

28. Provides for the publication of these canons in diocesan synods and in cathedral churches.—Tom. xiii. Conc. p. 1448.

TOLEDO (1565). Held on September 8, 1565. Christopher de Sandoval, Bishop of Cordova, was called upon to preside, on account of his being the oldest bishop of the province. The Bishops of Siguença, Segovia, Palencia, Cuença, and Osma, attended, with the Abbot of Alcala le Real. Three sessions were held; in the first the decree of Trent, relating to the celebration of provincial synods was read; also a profession of faith, which was signed by all present. In the second session, thirty-one articles of reformation were published, relating to bishops, curates, officials, proctors, residence, and divine service. In the third session, held 25th March, twenty-eight articles were drawn up, and the decrees of Trent relating to residence were read. Bishops were directed not to admit to the tonsure those who had no benefices immediately in view. Rules were laid down to guide curates in preaching, and instructing their people, &c.—Tom. xv. Conc. p. 751. Aguirre, Con. Hisp., tom. iv. Esp. Sag., tom. xlii. 140.

TORTOSA (in CATALONIA) (1429). [Concilium Dertusense.] Held in 1429 by Peter Cardinal de Foix. All the prelates and many ecclesiastics of the kingdoms of Arragon and Valencia, and of the principality of Catalonia, attended. The king’s letters patent confirming the liberties and immunities of the Church were read; and at the end of the fourth session twenty canons were approved and published.

4. Orders that all beneficed clerks and ecclesiastics in holy orders shall keep breviaries, in order that they may say the office privately when hindered from attending in the choir.

5. Forbids the elevation of unworthy persons to holy orders.

6. Orders curates every Sunday to teach by catechising some part of the things necessary to be known by Christians in order to salvation, which it declares to be as follows: 1. What they ought to believe, contained in the articles of the faith. 2. What they ought to pray for, contained in the Lord’s Prayer. 3. What they ought to keep, contained in the ten commandments. 4. What they ought to avoid, viz., the seven mortal sins. 5. What they ought to desire, viz., the joys of paradise. 6. What they ought to fear, viz., the pains of hell.

9. Orders neophytes to bring their children to church within eight days after their birth, in order that they may receive baptism.

15. Forbids the delegates of the holy see to go beyond their commission.—Tom. xii. Conc. p. 406.

TOULE (859). See C. SAVONIERES, 859.

TOULOUSE (1056). [Concilium Tolosanum.] Held in 1056, September 13, eighteen bishops being present. Rambaldus, Archbishop of Arles, and Pontius, Archbishop of Aix, presiding. Thirteen canons were published.

1. Forbids simony.

3. Forbids any fees for consecrating a church.

4. Forbids all buying and selling of church preferment.

5. Enacts that, if a clerk have entered upon the monastic state in order to obtain an abbacy, he shall be compelled to continue the religious life, but shall be entirely excluded from the honour he coveted.

6. Orders abbots to see that their monks follow the rule of St Benedict in their manner of life, food, dress, &c. Any abbot or monk altering (corrigentes) these institutions to be corrected by his own bishop.

7. Enjoins celibacy upon priests, deacons, and other clerks holding ecclesiastical dignities; offenders to be deprived.

8. Forbids, under pain of excommunication, lay persons to apply church property to their own use.

9. Forbids the laity to plunder the effects of dead persons.

10 and 11. Relate to the payment of Church-dues and tithes.

13. Forbids, under pain of excommunication, all intercourse with heretics and excommunicated persons, unless for the purpose of converting them and bringing them back from their evil ways.

In this council Berenger, Viscount of Narbonne, made complaint of the conduct of Archbishop Guifroi, accusing him of giving away the lands appertaining to the Church of Narbonne to those who had borne arms for him. The result of his complaint is unknown.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1084.

TOULOUSE (1119). Held July 15, 1119; Pope Calixtus II. presiding, assisted by his cardinals, and the Bishops, Archbishops, and Abbots of Languedoc, Gascony, and part of Spain. Ten canons were published.

1. Is directed against the buying and selling of holy orders or livings.

3. Is directed against the followers of Peter de Bruis, a sect of Manichæans, ordering that the secular authorities shall repress those who affect an extreme piety, condemn the holy sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood, infant baptism, the priesthood, and other ecclesiastical orders, and lawful matrimony; directs that they shall be driven out of the Church as heretics.

5. Forbids to make slaves of free persons.

10. Excommunicates monks, canons, and other clerks, who quit their profession, or who allow their beard and hair to grow after the fashion of the people of the world.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 856.

TOULOUSE (1161). Held in 1161, convoked by the Kings of France and England, who were present. One hundred bishops and abbots of the two kingdoms attended, and solemnly recognised Alexander III. as pope, to the exclusion of Victor II.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 1406.

TOULOUSE (1219). Held in 1219 by the Cardinal of St Angelo, Legate of the Apostolic See. Four canons are extant. (1) Forbids all prelates, barons, knights, &c., to retain about them persons, by public report, suspected of heresy. (2) Orders all parishioners to attend their parish church on Sundays and Holy Days, and not to leave till the preaching and the entire mass is finished. (3) Orders them to go to Church on Saturdays at vespers, in honour of the blessed Virgin. (4) Contains a list of the days to be kept holy.—Mart., Vet. Scrip. Coll., tom. v. col. 106.

TOULOUSE (1229). Held in September 1229. The Archbishops of Narbonne, Bordeaux, and Auch, being present, with many other bishops and abbots. Raymond, Count of Toulouse, with several lords, attended; also the Seneschal of Carcassone, and the two Consuls of Toulouse. Forty-five canons were published for the extinction of heresy, and the re-establishment of peace.

The first seven relate to the heretics. They enact that the archbishops, bishops, and exempted abbots, shall appoint in every parish a priest, and two or three laymen of good character, who shall take an oath constantly and minutely to search for heretics in houses, caves, and every place in which they may be hid; and, having taken precautions that those whom they have discovered shall not escape, to report the fact to the bishop, the lord of the place, or his bailiff.

6. Orders that the house in which any heretic shall be discovered be destroyed.

8. Forbids to punish any one as a heretic before the bishop has given his sentence.

10. Orders that heretics who have of their own accord recanted shall not be suffered to remain in their own villages, but shall be carried to some place free from all suspicion of heresy; orders them to wear two crosses upon their dress; forbids to entrust them with any public office, &c.

11. Orders that such as pretend to be converted through fear of death, or from any other motive, shall be shut up, in order that they may not corrupt others.

12. Orders every man above fourteen years of age, and every woman above twelve, to abjure heresy, to make open profession of the Roman faith, and to swear to hunt out the heretics. This to be repeated every two years. Recusants to be looked upon as heretics.

13. Requires all persons arrived at years of discretion to confess to their own priest three times a year, and to receive the holy communion at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide; those who neglect to do so to be considered as heretics.

14. Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament (except the Psalter, and such portions of them as are contained in the Breviary, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin), most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue.

16. Declares all wills to be void which are not made in the presence of the priest or his vicar.

25. Forbids to be absent from church on Sundays.

26. Declares the following to be Festival days, viz., all Sundays; Christmas Day; Feasts of St Stephen, St John the Evangelist, the Holy Innocents, St Sylvester, the Circumcision, the Epiphany; Feasts of the Purification, the Annunciation, the Assumption, and the Nativity of the blessed Virgin Mary; Easter; the two days after Easter; the three Rogation days; Whitsunday; the two days after Whitsunday; Feasts of the Nativity of St John the Baptist, and the Invention and Exaltation of the Holy Cross; the Feasts of the Twelve Apostles; Feasts of St Mary Magdalene, St Laurence, St Martin, St Nicholas, and the Dedication of St Michael; and the Feasts of the Dedications of every church, and of all Saints to whose honour churches have been built.

42. Forbids women possessed of castles and other fortified places to marry men who are enemies to the faith and to peace.

43. Forbids judges to receive bribes.

44. Orders that counsel be provided gratis for the poor.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 425.

TOULOUSE (1590). Held in May 1590, by the Cardinal de Joyeuse, Archbishop of Toulouse, assisted by the bishops of St Papoul, Rieux, and Lavaur, and the deputies of the bishops of Lombez, Pamiers, Mirepoix, and Montauban. Various regulations were made, relating to the duties of bishops, chapters, beneficed clerks, priests, and others; they also embrace the following subjects:—The holy sacraments, relics, indulgences, festivals, vows, seminaries, hospitals, excommunications, residence, &c.—Tom. xv. Conc. p. 1378.

TOURS (461). [Concilium Turonense.] Held November 18, 461, by St Perpetuus, Archbishop of Tours, assisted by nine bishops. Thirteen canons were made for the restoration of the ancient discipline.

1 and 2. Enjoin celibacy upon bishops, priests, and deacons.

3. Forbids them to live with or be on terms of too great familiarity with any woman.

4. Forbids a clerk to marry a widow.

5. Excommunicates those who renounce the ecclesiastical state.

6. Is directed against those who marry or offer violence to virgins consecrated to God.

7. Excommunicates homicides.

8. Condemns those who fall away from a state of penance after having entered upon it.

9. Deprives of communion bishops who get possession of the bishopric of another, or who promote the clerks of another bishop.

10. Declares ordinations made contrary to the canons to be null.

11. Condemns ecclesiastics who leave their own church, and go to another diocese, without their bishop’s leave.

12. Condemns clerks who leave their dioceses to travel without letters from their bishop.

13. Condemns usury in clerks; allows other business and employments.

Mansi adds to these thirteen canons six others.—Tom. iv. Conc. p. 1049.

TOURS (566 or 567). Held November 17, 566; convoked by order of King Charibert, and composed of nine bishops. Amongst whom were Germanus of Paris, Prætextatus of Rouen, and Euphronius of Tours, who presided. Twenty-seven canons were published.

1. Orders provincial councils twice a year.

3. Forbids to place the Body of Jesus Christ upon the altar after any fashion, and orders that it shall be placed under the cross.

4. Forbids laymen to come close to the altar with the clerks during the office; but allows them, and women also, to enter the sanctuary for private prayer at other times, and also in order to receive the communion.

5. Orders each Church to maintain its own poor, that they may not be obliged to wander about.

6. Forbids clerks and lay persons to give letters commendatory (epistolium), allows this to bishops only.

12. Orders married bishops to live with their wives as with sisters.

13 and 14. Episcopus Episcopam non habentem nulla sequatur mulierum turba. (Magri) see Councils.

15. Orders that monks who leave their monastery in order to marry shall be separated from their wives, and put to penance; and that the aid of the secular powers shall be entreated in order to effect this.

17. Orders that monks shall fast during the three Rogation days and during the whole of Whitsun-week; from that time to the first August three days in each week; during September, October, and November, also three days in each week; and during December every day till Christmas. Again on the first three days of January; and from Epiphany to Lent, three days in each week.

23. Allows hymns composed by an author of respectability to be used at the holy office besides those of St Ambrose.

27. Declares that bishops taking any fee, &c., for ordination, are to be regarded not merely as guilty of sacrilege, but even as heretics.—Tom. v. Conc. p. 851.

TOURS (813). Held in 813, by order of Charlemagne, for the purpose of re-establishing ecclesiastical discipline. Fifty-one canons were published.

1. Orders the people to be faithful to the emperor, and to pray for his preservation.

2. Orders bishops to give themselves to the study of the Holy Scriptures, especially of the Gospels and the Epistles of St Paul, and to try to learn them by heart.

3. Orders them to acquaint themselves with the canons and the pastoral of St Gregory.

4, 5, and 6. Order that they shall preach frequently, that they shall be frugal in their repasts, and entertain the poor and strangers, affording them both bodily and spiritual food.

7. Forbids priests to be present at plays and farces, and all immodest exhibitions.

9. Forbids priests to administer indiscreetly the Lord’s Body to boys and any chance persons, lest they be in sin, and so receive the greater damnation.

15. Anathematises those who give money in order to obtain a benefice.

16. Orders bishops to take care that the tithes of each church be divided between the priests, the poor, and the repairs, &c., of the church.

19. Warns priests not to administer the Holy Eucharist inconsiderately to children.

21. Forbids priests to eat and drink in taverns.

27 and 28. Forbid to give the veil to young widows, without good evidence of their sincere love of a religious life, and to virgins under twenty-five years of age.

37. Orders that prayer be made kneeling at all times, except on Sundays and during Easter.

38. Warns the faithful not to make a noise when entering church, not to talk when there, and to keep all bad thoughts out of their minds.

39. Forbids to hold pleadings in churches or church-porches.

40. Forbids to hold pleadings or markets on Sundays.

43. Is directed against the wicked habit of swearing.

50. Orders all persons to communicate at least thrice a year, unless hindered by some great crime.—Tom. vii. Conc. p. 1259.

TOURS (1055). Held in 1055, by Hildebrand, the Roman legate (afterwards Gregory VII.), and Cardinal Geraldus. In this council Berenger was called upon to defend his opinions; but, not being able to do satisfactorily, he retracted, and made a public confession of the faith required of him, which he signed; whereupon the legates, believing him to be sincere, received him into communion.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1081.

TOURS (1060). Held in 1060, by Cardinal Stephen, the Roman legate, and ten bishops. Ten canons were made.

The first four condemn simony.

6. Declares that those bishops, priests, and deacons, who, although aware of the interdict of Nicholas II., refused to abstain from the exercise of their functions, being at the time in a state of incontinence, should be irrevocably deposed.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 1108.

TOURS (1096). Held in Lent, 1096, by Pope Urban II., who presided. The decrees of the Council of Clermont were confirmed. The pope received into favour King Philip (who had been excommunicated for forsaking Bertrade his lawful wife), upon his humbly making satisfaction.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 601. Pagi.

TOURS (1163). Held on May 19, 1163, in the church of St Maurice, by Pope Alexander III., assisted by seventeen cardinals. There were also present, besides Louis VII., King of France, one hundred and twenty-four bishops, four hundred and fourteen abbots, and an immense multitude of others, both ecclesiastics and laics. These prelates were assembled from all the provinces in subjection to the kings of France and England; some few of them also were Italians, who had declared for Alexander. Amongst the English prelates was St Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was received by the Pope with extraordinary honours, all the cardinals present, except two in immediate attendance upon Alexander, being sent beyond the city walls to meet him. The Archbishop of Canterbury sat on the right hand of the pope, the Archbishop of York on the left. The immediate object of the council was the condemnation of the synods of Pisa and Lodi, convoked by the Emperor Frederic. Ten canons were published.

2. Condemns usury amongst the clergy.

4. Is directed against the Albigenses, and forbids all intercourse with them; forbids even to give them a retreat or protection, or to buy and sell with them.

5. Forbids to entrust churches to stipendiary priests, or to such as were hired for an annual sum by the laity.

8. Forbids monks to leave their cloisters in order to practise medicine or to learn the civil law.

9. Declares all ordinations made by Octavianus, and other heretics or schismatics to be null and void.—Tom x. Conc. p. 1411. Mart., Thes. Anec., tom. iv. col. 143.

TOURS (1236). Held June 10, 1236; Juhel de Mayenne, Archbishop of Tours, presiding. Fourteen canons were published.

1. Forbids the crusaders or other Christians to kill or injure the Jews, or to plunder or ill-use them in any way; also orders the secular judges to give up to the ecclesiastical authorities any crusaders whom they may have seized on account of any crime.

7. Orders that all wills shall be put into the hands of the bishop or his archdeacon within ten days after the death of the testator.

8. Denounces those who have two wives living, declares them to be infamous, and orders that they shall be tied up in public, unless they can pay a heavy fine; orders priests to publish every Sunday in Church the sin of having two wives living.

13. Orders the bishops to instruct and to provide for the subsistence of the new converts from Judaism and heresy.—Tom. xi. Conc. 503.

TOURS (1239). Held in 1239, by Juhel de Mayenne, Archbishop of Tours, and his suffragans. Thirteen canons were published, “with the approbation of the holy council;” the use of which expression in this case shows that the approbation was not confined to the pope and his legates.

1. Orders that the bishop shall appoint three clerks, or three reputable laymen, in every parish, who shall take an oath to report faithfully concerning all scandals in morality, faith, &c., happening in the neighbourhood.

4. Forbids to receive any thing for the administration of the sacraments; without prejudice, however, to pious customs.

5 and 6. Forbid curates and rectors to excommunicate their parishioners of their own authority.

12. Forbids clerks and monks to retain any female servants in their houses or priories.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 565.

TOURS (1282). Held August 1, 1282, by John de Monsoreau, Archbishop of Tours, who presided. Thirteen canons were published.

1. and 2. Are directed against needless lawsuits.

3. Forbids clerks and monks to frequent taverns.

4. Excommunicates those who steal or tear the church books and injure the furniture.

5. Orders the observance of customary processions.

6. Orders the punishment of usurers according to the canon of Lyons.

12. Is directed against those who hinder the payment of tithe.—Tom. xi. Conc. p. 1183.

TOURS (1396). Held on the Tuesday after the Festival of St Luke, 1396, by Ameil, Archbishop of Tours. Twenty-six canons were published.

TOURS (1448). See C. of ANGERS, 1448.

TOURS (1510). A general assembly of the French clergy was held, by order of Louis XII., in September 1510, on account of the sentence of excommunication passed against him by Pope Julius II. The object of the council was to discuss the question, how far it was necessary for Louis to respect the spiritual weapons of the Church, when in the hands of an adversary who used them only to further injustice, and in matters purely temporal. Eight questions were discussed. The following are the most important:—

2. Is it allowable for a prince, in defence of his person and property, not only to repel injustice by force of arms, but to seize the lands of the church in the possession of the pope, his declared enemy, not with any view of retaining them, but only in order to cripple the pope’s means of injuring him? Answer in the affirmative.

3. Is it allowable for a prince, on account of such declared hatred on the part of the pope, to withdraw from the obedience of the latter, the pope having stirred up other princes to make war upon him, and urged them to seize upon his territories? Answer: that it is lawful so to withdraw from obedience, not, however, altogether, but so far as the defence of the prince’s temporal rights shall render necessary.

4. This withdrawal from obedience being supposed, how is the prince to conduct himself with regard to his subjects, and the prelates with regard to other ecclesiastics, in all those matters in which recourse is usually had to the see of Rome? Answer: it is necessary in such a case to keep to the ancient common rights, and the Pragmatic Sanction taken from the decrees of the Council of Basle.

8. If the pope, without any attention to justice, or even to the appearance of right, employs arms and artifices, and publishes censures against the prince, and against those who protect and defend him, ought the latter to be deserted? Answer: that such censures are altogether null, and not binding in law.—Tom. xiii. Conc. p. 1481.

TOURS (1583). Held in September 1583; Simon de Maillé, the archbishop, presiding; the Bishops of Angers, Nantes, St Brien, Rennes, and Quimper, and the deputies of those of St Malo and Mans, were present.

A petition was read, which it was proposed to present to the king, Henry III., requesting him to order the publication of the decrees of Trent in his states; also another petition to the pope, to induce him to remedy certain abuses in the matter of benefices. A formulary of faith, to be signed by all beneficed clerks, was drawn up, and regulations were made to prevent simony. In consequence of the appearance of the plague in Tours, the prelates adjourned the council to Angers.—(See C. of ANGERS, 1583.) Tom. xv. Conc. p. 1001.

TOUSI (859). [Concilium Tullense, or apud Saponarias.] Held in June 859. Charles the Bald and the sons of the Emperor Lothaire were present. Thirteen canons were published, of which the 1st treats of the reconciliation of Charles and his brother Louis. The 6th relates to a charge of treason brought by Charles the Bald against Venilon, Archbishop of Sens. Canon 8th relates to the case of the Breton bishops, who had been guilty of schism in separating from their metropolitan. The 10th contains certain dogmas relating to grace, (originally put forth in the first six canons of Valence, and in the synod of Quiercy, concerning which there arose a great contention amongst the bishops present. Synodal letters were addressed to Venilon, the Breton prelates, and to those factious and seditious persons, whose unbridled licentiousness had caused extreme disorder.—(See C. SAVONIERES, 859.) Tom. viii. Conc. p. 974.

TOUSI (860). [Concilium Tullense, or Tussiacense.] Held at Tousi (a place in the diocese of Toul), on October 22, 860. Forty bishops from fourteen provinces attended. Five canons were published, directed against robbery, perjury, and other crimes, then very prevalent. Although only forty bishops were present, these canons are signed by fifty-seven; the decrees of councils being often sent to the bishops who were absent, for their signature.

1. Is directed against invaders of sacred things.

2. Concerning the incontinence of virgins or widows consecrated to God.

3. On perjury and false witnesses.

4. Against robbers and others guilty of various crimes.

5. Concerning vagabond clerks and monks.

A synodal letter was also drawn up, addressed to the invaders of ecclesiastical rights and property, and the plunderers of the poor.—Tom. viii. Conc. p. 702.

TRENT (1545). [Concilium Tridentinum.] This council was first convoked, June 2nd, 1536, by Pope Paul III., to be held at Mantua, May 23rd, 1537. In the bull of convocation he declares that, anxious to free the Church from the new heresies which had sprung up, and desirous to bring back the ancient state of discipline, he had thought it expedient and necessary to call an œcumenical council. Subsequently, the Duke of Mantua having refused to permit the assembling of the council in that city, the pope prorogued the meeting to November, without naming any place. Afterwards, by another bull, he prorogued it till May, 1538, and named Vicenza as the place of assembly; in the meantime, he nominated certain cardinals and prelates to look into the question of reform, who, in consequence, drew up a long report upon the subject, in which they divide the abuses needing correction into two heads:—

1. Those concerning the Church in general.

2. Those peculiar to the Church of Rome.

Paul himself proposed a reformation in full consistory; but opinions were divided, and the question was referred to the coming council.

When the time arrived, however, not a single bishop appeared at Vicenza; whereupon the pope again prorogued the council to Easter, 1539, and subsequently forbade its assembling until he should signify his pleasure upon the subject.

At last, at the end of three years, in the year 1542, after much dispute between the pope, the emperor, and the other princes in the Roman communion, as to the place in which the council should be held, the pope’s proposition that it should take place at Trent was agreed to; whereupon the bull was published, May 22nd, convoking the council to Trent on the first of November in that year. Subsequently, he named as his legates in the council, Cardinal John del Monté, Bishop of Palestrina (afterwards Pope Julius III.), Marcellus Cervinus, and the cardinal deacon Reginald Pole. However, difficulties arose, which caused the opening of the council to be further delayed, and the first meeting was not held until December 1545.

The council was opened, and the first session held, December 13th, when there were present, the three legates, four archbishops, and twenty-two bishops, in their pontifical vestments. Mass was said by the Cardinal del Monté, and a sermon preached by the Bishop of Bitonte; after which, the bull given November 19th, 1544, and that of February 1545, were read, and the Cardinal del Monté explained the objects which were proposed in assembling the council, viz., the extirpation of heresy, the re-establishment of ecclesiastical discipline, the reformation of morals, and the restoration of peace and unity. He then exhorted the fathers to avoid disputes, and to labour only for the glory of God, whose eyes were upon them, as well as those of the angels, and the whole Church.

The next session was then appointed to be held on the 7th of January following.

On the 18th and 22nd of December, congregations were held, in which some discussion arose about the care and order to be observed by prelates in their life and conversation; amongst other things noticed was the abuse introduced at Rome, where the prelates at all times, except when engaged in the exercise of their functions, wore the secular dress.

On the 5th of January another congress was held, in which Cardinal del Monté proposed that the order to be observed in conducting the business of the council should be the same with that at the last Council of Lateran, where the examination of the different matters had been entrusted to different bishops, who for that purpose had been divided into three classes; and when the decrees relating to any matter had been drawn up, they were submitted to the consideration of a general congregation; so that all was done without any disputing and discussion in the sessions. A dispute arose in this congregation about the style to be given to the council in the decrees. The pope had decreed that they should run in this form, “The Holy Œcumenical and general Council of Trent, the Legates of the Apostolic See presiding,” but the Gallican bishops, and many of the Spaniards and Italians, insisted that the words “representing the universal Church,” should be added; this, however, the legates refused, remembering that such had been the form used in the councils of Constance and Basle, and fearing lest, if this addition were made, the rest of the form of Constance and Basle might follow, viz., “which derives its power immediately from Jesus Christ, and to which every person, of whatever dignity, not excepting the pope, is bound to yield obedience.”

In the second session, four archbishops (amongst whom were Oläus Magnus, titular archbishop of Upsala, and Robert Vaucop (Venantius), titular archbishop of Armagh); twenty-eight bishops (amongst them the Bishop of Worcester), three abbots, and four generals of orders, were present, making in all forty-three prelates.

A bull was read prohibiting the proctors of absent prelates to vote; also another, exhorting all the faithful then in Trent to live in the fear of God, and to fast and pray. The learned generally were exhorted to give their attention to the question, how the rising heresies could be best extinguished. The question about the style of the council was again raised.

In the following congregation, January 13, the same question was again debated, the legates declaring that such discussions, by showing the want of unity among themselves, would rejoice the Protestants. Nothing was settled in this matter, and they then proceeded to deliberate upon which of the three subjects proposed to be discussed in the council (viz. the extirpation of heresy, the reformation of discipline, and the restoration of peace), should be first handled. Three prelates were appointed to examine the procuration papers and excuses of absent bishops.

In the next congregation the deliberations on the subject to be first proposed in the council were resumed. Some wished that the question of reform should be first opened; others, on the contrary, maintained that questions relating to the faith, as being at the root of all, demanded immediate notice. A third party, amongst whom was Thomas Campeggio, bishop of Feltri, asserted that the two questions of doctrine and reformation were inseparable, and must be treated of together: this latter opinion ultimately prevailed; but at the moment the sense of the assembly was so divided, that no decision was arrived at.

It was then resolved that congregations should in future be held twice a week.

In the congregation held January 22nd, the party in favour of entering at once upon the subject of reform was much increased, but the three legates continued their opposition to their scheme. Subsequently, however, they proposed that they should always take into consideration together one subject relating to the faith, and one relating to reform, bearing one upon the other.

On the 24th a curious dispute arose about the proper seal for the use of the council. Some desired that a new seal should be made; but the legates, upon the plea that there was no workman in Trent capable of executing the work, and that it would be necessary to send to Venice for the purpose, succeeded in having the seal of the first legate attached to e synodal letters.

In the third session a decree was read which declared that the council was resolved, after the example of the fathers, to commence their deliberations by reciting the confession of their faith. The creed was then read word for word, without addition, and the majority of the prelates having signified their acquiescence in the decree and its wording, the session was terminated.

In a congress, held on February 22nd, the legates proposed that the council should enter upon the subject of the Holy Scriptures; and four doctrinal articles were presented, extracted by the theologians from the writings of Luther upon the subject of Holy Scripture, which they affirmed to be contrary to the orthodox faith.

1. That all the articles of the Christian faith, necessary to be believed, are contained in Holy Scripture; and that it is sacrilege to hold the oral traditions of the Church to be of equal authority with the Old and New Testament.

2. That only such books as the Jews acknowledged ought to be received into the canon of the Old Testament; and that the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of St James, the Second Epistle of St Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of St John, the Epistle of St Jude, and the Apocalypse, should be erased from the canon of the New Testament.

3. That the true sense of Holy Scripture is to be gained from the original text in which it was written, and that the Latin version is full of errors.

4. That Holy Scripture is easy to be understood, and clear, and that no gloss or commentary is needed, but only the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

The two first articles were debated in the four following congregations.

As to the first article, the fathers came to the decision that the Christian faith is contained partly in Holy Scripture and partly in the traditions of the Church. Upon the second article much discussion arose. All agreed in receiving all the books read in the Roman Church, including the Apocryphal books, alleging the authority of the catalogues drawn up in the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage, and those under Innocentius I. and Gelasius I.; but there were four opinions as to the method to be observed in drawing up the catalogue. One party wished to divide the books into two classes, one containing those which have always been received without dispute, the other containing those which had been doubted. To authorise this, they brought forward the example of St Austin, who made this distinction, and that of St Gregory the Great, who asserts that the Books of Maccabees are not to be accounted canonical. The authority of St Jerome and of Cardinal Cajetan was also adduced.

The second party desired a threefold division. 1. Containing the undoubted books. 2. Those which had been at one time suspected, but since received (such as the six epistles rejected by Luther). 3. Those which had never been recognised, as seven of the Apocryphal books, and some chapters in Daniel and Esther.

The third party wished that no distinction should be made.

The fourth that all the books contained in the Latin Vulgate should be declared to be canonical and inspired.

The discussion was resumed on the 8th of March, but not decided; the fathers, however, unanimously agreed that the traditions of the Church are equal in authority to Holy Scripture.

In the following congregation it was decided that the catalogue of the books of Holy Scripture should be drawn up without any of the proposed distinctions, and that they should be declared to be all of equal authority.

The authority of the Latin Vulgate came under consideration in subsequent congregations, and it was, almost unanimously, declared to be authentic.

With regard to the fourth article, it was agreed that in interpreting Scripture men must be guided by the voice of the fathers and of the Church.

In the next session between sixty and seventy prelates attended. Two decrees were read. 1. Upon the canon of Scripture, which declares that the holy council receives all the books of the Old and New Testament, as well as all the traditions of the Church respecting faith and morals, as having proceeded from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself, or as having been dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continued succession, and that it looks upon both the written and unwritten Word with equal respect (pari prelates affectu ac reverentia suscepit et veneratur). After this the decree enumerates the books received as canonical by the Church of Rome, and as they are found in the Vulgate, and anathematises all who refuse to acknowledge them as such, and the tradition aforesaid. The second decree declares the authenticity of the Vulgate, forbids to interpret it contrary to the teaching of holy Church and the fathers, orders that extreme care be taken in printing it, forbids all profane uses of scriptural words and expressions, and directs that all who make such evil use of them, or employ them for superstitious purposes, shall be punished as profaners of the Word of God.

Subsequently, in congregation, the abuses relating to lecturers on Holy Scripture and preachers were discussed, also those arising from the non-residence of bishops.

After this, the question of original sin came under consideration, and nine articles taken from the Lutheran books were drawn up and offered for examination; upon which some discussion took place; ultimately, however, a decree was drawn up upon the subject, divided into five canons.

1. Treats of the personal sin of Adam.

2. Of the transmission of that sin to his posterity.

3. Of its remedy, i.e., holy baptism.

4. Of infant baptism.

5. Of the concupiscence which still remains in those who have been baptised.

A great dispute arose between the Franciscans and Dominicans concerning the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin; the Franciscans insisted that she should be specially declared to be free from the taint of original sin; the Dominicans, on the other hand, maintained that, although the Church had tolerated the opinion concerning the immaculate conception, it was sufficiently clear that the Virgin was not exempt from the common infection of our nature.

A decree of reformation, in two chapters, was also read.

In the fifth session the decree concerning original sin was read, containing the five canons mentioned above, enforced by anathemas. Afterwards the fathers declared that it was not their intention to include the blessed Virgin in this decree, and that upon this subject the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV. were to be followed.

In a congregation held June 18, they proceeded to consider the questions relating to grace and good works. Also the subject of residence of bishops and pastors was discussed; the Cardinal del Monté and some of the fathers attributed the heresies and disturbances which had arisen to the non-residence of bishops, whilst many of the bishops maintained that they were to be attributed to the multitudes of friars and other privileged persons, whom the Pope permitted to wander about and preach in spite of the bishops, who, in consequence, could do no good even if they were in residence.

In the congregation held June 30, twenty-five articles, drawn up from the Lutheran writings on the subject of justification, were proposed for examination, in order that those which were deemed censurable might be condemned. Some of these articles seem well to have merited the judgment passed upon them; thus, amongst others:

5. Declares that repentance for past sin is altogether unnecessary, if a man lead a new life.

7. The fear of hell is a sin, and makes the sinner worse.

8. Contrition arising from meditation upon, and sorrow for past sin, makes a man a great sinner.

11. Faith alone is required: the only sin is unbelief; other things are neither commanded nor forbidden.

12. He who has faith is free from the precepts of the law, and has no need of works in order to be saved; nothing that a believer can do is so sinful that it can either accuse or condemn him.

13. No sin separates from God’s grace but want of faith.

14. Faith and works are contrary to one another; to teach the latter is to destroy the former, &c.

At this time the three ambassadors of the King of France arrived, viz., Dursé, Lignieres, and Pierre Danez. The last-mentioned delivered a long discourse, in the course of which he entreated the council to suffer no attack to be made upon the privileges of the kingdom and Church of France.

In a congregation held August 20, the subject of justification was again warmly discussed, as well as the doctrine of Luther concerning free-will and predestination.

Upon this latter subject nothing worthy of censure was found in the writings of Luther or in the Confession of Augsburg; but eight articles were drawn up for examination from the writings of the Zuinglians. Upon some of these there was much difference of opinion.

By the advice of the Bishop of Sinagaglia, the canons drawn up embodying the decrees of the council were divided into two sets: one set, which they called the decrees of doctrine, contained the Catholic faith upon the subjects decided; the others, called canons, stated, condemned, and anathematised, the doctrines contrary to that faith. These decrees were mainly composed by Cardinal St Croix, who bestowed infinite pains upon them: at least one hundred congregations were held upon the subject.

Afterwards they returned to the consideration of the reform of the Church, and to the question about episcopal residence. Most of the theologians present, especially the Dominicans, maintained that residence was a matter not merely canonically binding, but of Divine injunction. The Spaniards held the same opinion. The legates, seeing that the discussion tended to bring the papal authority and power into question, endeavoured to put a stop to it.

In the sixth session the decree concerning doctrine was read: it contained sixteen chapters and thirty-three canons against heretics. These chapters declare that sinners are brought into a state to receive justification when excited and helped by grace; and believing the word of God, they freely turn to God, believing all that He hath revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by the grace of God, given unto him through the redemption of Jesus Christ; and when acknowledging their sinfulness, and filled with a salutary fear of God’s justice, yet trusting to His mercy, they conceive hope and confidence that God will be favourable to them for the sake of Jesus Christ, and thereupon begin to love Him as the only source of all righteousness, and to turn from their sins through the hatred which they have conceived against them, i.e., through that repentance which all must feel before baptism; in short, when they resolve to be baptised, to lead a new life, and to follow the commandments of God.

After this, the decree explains the nature and the effects of justification, saying that it does not consist merely in the remission of sin, but also in sanctification and inward renewal. That the final cause of their justification is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and eternal life; the efficient cause is God Himself, who, of His mercy, freely washeth and sanctifieth by the seal and unction of the Holy Spirit, who is the pledge of our inheritance; the meritorious cause is our Lord Jesus Christ, His beloved and only Son, who, of His great love wherewith He loved us, merited justification for us, and by His Holy passion made satisfaction to the Father for us, when we were yet enemies; and the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, without which no one can be justified; and, finally, the formal cause is the righteousness of God given to each, not that righteousness by which He is righteous in Himself, but that by which He makes us righteous, i.e., with which being endued by Him, we become renewed in our hearts, and are not merely accounted righteous, but are made really so, by receiving, as it were, righteousness in ourselves, each according to the measure given unto us, at the will of the Holy Spirit, and in proportion to the proper disposition and co-operation of each: so that the sinner by means of this ineffable grace becomes truly righteous, a friend of God, and an heir of everlasting life; that it is the Holy Spirit who works this marvellous change in him by forming holy habits in his heart, habits of faith, hope, and charity, which unite him closely to Jesus Christ, and make of him a lively member of His Body. But that no man, although justified, is to imagine himself exempt from the observation of God’s commandments. No man may dare, under pain of anathema, to utter such a rash notion, already condemned by the fathers, as that it is impossible for a man even after justification to keep God’s commandments. Since God commands nothing impossible, but with the commandment He desires us to do all that we can, and to seek for aid and grace to enable us to fulfil that which in our natural strength we cannot do.

The council further teaches upon this subject, that no man may presume upon the mysterious subject of predestination, so as to assure himself of being amongst the number of the elect and predestinated to eternal life; as if, having been justified, it were impossible to commit sin again, or at least as if, falling into sin after justification, he must of necessity be raised again. That, without a special revelation from God, it is impossible to know who are those whom He has chosen. It also teaches the same of the gift of perseverance, concerning which it declares that he who persevereth unto the end shall be saved; that it can be obtained only from the Almighty, who alone is able to keep him that standeth, and to raise up him that falleth. That no one in this life can promise himself an absolute assurance of perseverance, although all ought to put entire confidence in God’s assistance, who will finish and complete the good work which He hath begun in us, by working in us to will and to do, if we do not of ourselves fail of his grace.

Further, that they who by sin have fallen from grace given, and justification, may be justified again when God awakens them; and that this is done by means of the sacrament of penance, in which, through the merits of Jesus Christ, they may recover the grace which they have lost; that this is the proper method of recovery for those who have fallen. That it was for the benefit of those who fall into sin after baptism, that our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of penance, saying, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained.” Whence it follows, that the repentance of a Christian fallen unto sin after baptism, is to be clearly distinguished from the repentance required at holy baptism; for it not alone requires him to cease from sin, and to view his vileness with horror, i.e., to have an humble and contrite heart; but it also implies the sacramental confession of his sin, at least in will, and the absolution of the priest, together with such satisfaction as he can make by means of fasting, alms-giving, prayer, and other pious works proper to a spiritual life. Not that any thing that he can do can help towards obtaining the remission of the eternal punishment due to sin, which is remitted together with the sin by the sacrament of penance (or by the desire to receive that sacrament where it cannot be had), but such satisfaction is necessary to attain remission of the temporal penalties attached to sin, which are not always remitted in the case of those who, ungrateful to God for the blessing which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and profaned the temple of God.

That this grace of justification may be lost, not only through the sin of infidelity, by which faith itself is lost, but also by every kind of mortal sin, even though faith be not lost. For the gospel excludes from the kingdom of God not only unbelievers, but believers also if they be “fornicators, or idolators, or adulterers, or effeminate, or abusers of themselves with mankind, or thieves, or covetous, or drunkards, or revilers, or extortioners,” or guilty of any other mortal sin, for the punishment of which they are cut off from the grace of Jesus Christ.

These chapters were accompanied by thirty-three canons, which anathematise those who hold the opinions specified in them, contrary to the tenor of the doctrine contained in the chapters.

Besides this decree, another was published in this session, relating to reform, containing five chapters upon the subject of residence. The council, after first exhorting bishops to watch over the flock committed to them, declares that they cannot possibly fulfil this duty, if, like mere hirelings, they forsake their sheep. The decree renews the ancient canons against non-resident prelates, and declares that every prelate, whatever be his dignity, being absent for six months together from his diocese, without just and sufficient cause, shall be deprived of the fourth part of his revenue; and that, if he remain away during the rest of the year, he shall lose another fourth: that if his absence be prolonged beyond this, the metropolitan shall be obliged, under pain of being interdicted from entering the church, to present him to the pope, who shall either punish him, or give his church to a more worthy shepherd; that if it be the metropolitan himself who is in fault, the oldest of his suffragans shall be obliged to present him. Several of the bishops present wished that the residence of bishops should be, in this decree, formally recognised by the council as a matter of divine obligation; but by the decision of the majority it passed in this form.

Secondly, the decree relates to the case of inferior prelates and clerks having benefices, and declares that the ordinary may compel residence, notwithstanding any privilege of perpetual non-residence which may be alleged.

The decree then goes on to treat, thirdly, of the reform of ecclesiastics, both secular and regular; fourthly, of the visitation of chapters by the ordinary; and, fifthly, it declares that bishops may not perform any episcopal function whatever out of their own dioceses, without the consent of the bishop of the place.

Before the seventh session, a congregation was held, in which it was agreed to treat in the next place of the sacraments; and thirty-six articles, taken from the Lutheran books, were proposed for examination: after which thirty canons on the subject were drawn up, viz., thirteen on the sacraments in general, fourteen on baptism, and three on confirmation. They relate to their number, their necessity, excellence, the manner in which they confer grace, which they declared to be ex opere operato, i.e., that the sacraments confer grace upon all those recipients who do not, by mortal sin, offer a bar to its reception; e.g., grace is conferred by baptism upon infants, although they bring with them no pious affections; how they efface sin, the character which they imprint, the worthiness of the minister, the persons who may administer them, of the right of private individuals to change the form of the sacraments, and the intention of the minister, &c. They also drew up a decree, declaring that the sacraments ought always to be administered gratuitously.

After this the question of reformation was discussed; amongst other things it was debated whether a plurality of benefices requiring residence is forbidden by the divine law; for those who held residence to be a divine command denied to the pope the power of dispensing, the others maintained that residence is binding only by the authority of the canons.

In the seventh session the thirty canons relating to the sacraments were read, together with the accompanying anathemas, viz., thirteen on the sacraments in general, fourteen on baptism, and three on confirmation.

1. Anathematises those who maintain that the seven sacraments of the New Testament were not all instituted by Jesus Christ.

3. Anathematises those who maintain that any one sacrament is of more worth than another.

8. Anathematises those who deny that the sacraments confer grace ex opere operato, i.e., by their own proper virtue.

9. Anathematises those who deny that baptism, orders, and confirmation, imprint an ineffaceable character.

10. Anathematises those who maintain that all Christians, male and female, may preach God’s word, and administer the sacraments.

11. Anathematises those who deny that the intention of the minister to do what the Church does, is necessary to the effectual administration of the sacraments.

12. Anathematises those who maintain that the sin of the minister invalidates the sacrament.

13. Anathematises those who maintain that the minister may change the prescribed form.

Amongst the fourteen canons on baptism:

2. Anathematises those who assert that real and natural water is not necessary in baptism.

3. Anathematises those who maintain that the Church of Rome, the mother and mistress of all Churches, does not teach the true doctrine on the subject of baptism.

4. Anathematises those who deny the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, in the name of the blessed Trinity, and with the intention to do what the Church does.

5. Anathematises those who maintain that baptism is not necessary to salvation.

7. Anathematises those who maintain that the baptised need only believe, and not keep the law of God.

10. Anathematises those who maintain that sin after baptism is remitted by faith.

11. Anathematises those who maintain that apostates from the faith should be again baptised.

12. Anathematises those who maintain that no one ought to be baptised until he is of the age at which our Lord was baptised, or at the point of death.

13. Anathematises those who deny that baptised infants are not to be reckoned amongst the faithful.

14. Anathematises those who maintain that persons baptised in infancy should, when they come of age, be asked whether they are willing to ratify the promise made in their name.

Secondly, the decree of reformation, containing fifteen chapters: 1. Relates to the election of bishops. 2. Prohibits any one to hold more than one bishopric. 3. Relates to the choice of persons to be presented to benefices. 4. Forbids the holding of two or more incompatible benefices. 5. Directs that persons holding such incompatible cures or benefices be compelled to show their dispensations. 6. Relates to the union of benefices. 7. Of perpetual vicars to serve united cures. 8. Of the visitation of exempt churches by their ordinaries. 9. Of the consecration of prelates. 10. Of the power of chapters to give letters dimissory during the vacancy of the see. 11. Of the permission necessary in order to be promoted to holy orders by another than one’s own bishop. 12. Of dispensations in this case. 13. Of the examination of those to be presented to benefices. 14. Of the cognisance of causes concerning the exempt. 15. Of the jurisdiction of bishops over hospitals.

In a congregation which followed, the question of transferring the council to some other place was discussed, a report having been spread that a contagious disease had broken out in Trent.

Accordingly, in the eighth session, a decree was read, transferring the Council to Bologna, which was approved by about two-thirds of the assembly; the rest, who were mostly Spaniards, or other subjects of the emperor, strongly opposed the translation. The matter was warmly debated, and the emperor complained much of the transfer of the council, and ordered the prelates who had opposed it to remain at Trent, which they did.

In the first session held at Bologna, the legates and thirty-four bishops were present; a decree was read postponing all business to the next session, to be held on the 2nd of June ensuing, in order to give time to the prelates to arrive.

On the second of June, however, there were but six archbishops, thirty-six bishops, one abbot, and two generals of orders present. It was deemed advisable to prorogue the session to the fifteenth of September ensuing; but the quarrel between the pope and the emperor having now assumed a more serious aspect, the council remained suspended for four years, in spite of the solicitations made by the German bishops to the pope that the sessions of the council might continue. The emperor, on his side, wished that the council should be brought back to Trent, and urged the pope on that head; but, finding his request unattended to, he published a protest against the assembly at Bologna, upon the plea that the Germans could not attend it, the place being under the control of the pope. It was at this time that he caused the well-known formulary of faith to be drawn up, called the “Interim,” composed by three theologians, and contained in twenty-six articles. This formulary, having received the sanction of the electors, was published in 1548, but gave satisfaction to neither party.

However, in 1549, Paul III. died, and the Cardinal del Monte having been elected in his place, under the name of Julius III., he very shortly issued a bull, dated March 14, 1551, directing the re-establishment of the Council of Trent, and naming as his legates, Marcellus Crescentio, cardinal, Sebastian Pighino, Archbishop of Siponto, and Aloysius, Lipomanes, Bishop of Verona.

Accordingly, the next session was held at Trent, in May 1551, when Cardinal Crescentio caused a decree to be read, to the effect that the council was re-opened, and that the next session should be held on the 1st of September following.

In the next session, an exhortation was read in the name of the presidents of the council, in which the power and authority of œcumenical councils were extolled, and the fathers were exhorted to seek for God’s assistance in prayer, and by leading an irreproachable life: then followed a decree declaring that the subject of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist should be treated of in the next session. Afterwards, the Earl of Montfort, ambassador from the emperor, demanded to be admitted to the council; which was agreed to: moreover, James Amyot, the ambassador of Henry II. of France, presented a letter from his master, which, after some opposition, was read; it explained why no French bishop had been permitted to attend the council. Afterwards, Amyot, on the part of Henry, made a formal protest against the Council of Trent, in which he complained of the conduct of Julius III.

In the congregation following, the question of the Holy Eucharist was treated of, and ten articles selected from the doctrine of Zuinglius and Luther were proposed for examination.

1. That the body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist only in a figure, not really.

2. That the Lord’s body is eaten, not sacramentally, but only spiritually and by faith.

3. That no transubstantiation takes place in the Eucharist, but a hypostatic union of the human nature of Christ with the bread and wine.

4. That the Eucharist was instituted for the remission of sins only.

5. That Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is not to be adored, and that to do so is to commit idolatry.

6. That the holy sacrament ought not to be kept; and that no person may communicate alone.

7. That the body of Christ is not in the fragments which remain after communion; but it is so present only during the time of receiving, and not afterwards.

8. That it is sin to refuse to the faithful the communion in both kinds.

9. That under one species is not contained the same as under both.

10. That faith alone is required in order to communicate; that confession ought to be voluntary, and that communion at Easter is not necessary.

It was ruled that the theologians, in giving their several opinions upon these articles, should be guided solely by the authority of Holy Scripture, apostolical tradition, the recognised councils, the constitutions of the sovereign pontiffs, the holy fathers, and the consent of the universal Church; that they should weigh their decisions so well, and be so careful in making choice of correct and proper terms, as not unnecessarily to shock the particular views of different theologians, but that they should endeavour to make use of expressions which could not offend the sentiments of either party, in order that thus the whole united force of the Catholic Church might be turned against the heretics. Nine of the most learned of the fathers were selected to prepare the decree.

In the subsequent congregations these articles were considered, and the decree, in eight chapters, was drawn up, and presented for examination and correction.

In another congregation the question of reform was discussed, the subject of episcopal jurisdiction was brought forward, and a regulation drawn up upon appeals. No appeal from the judgment of the bishop and his officials was allowed, except in criminal cases, without interfering with civil judgments; and even in criminal cases, it was not permitted to appeal from interlocutory sentences, until a definite sentence had been passed. The ancient right of the bishops to give sentence in the provincial synods was not, however, restored.

The power was left to the pope of judging, by means of commissioners delegated in partibus.

The decree concerning the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist was read on the 13th of September, and was contained in eight chapters. The council declares, in chapter 1, that after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, very God, and very Man, is verily, really, and substantially contained under the species of these sensible objects: that it is a sin to endeavour to put a metaphorical sense upon the words in which our Lord instituted the holy sacrament; that the Church has always believed the actual body and the actual blood, together with His soul and His divinity, to be present under the species of bread and wine after consecration.

3. That each kind contains the same as they both together do, for that Jesus Christ is entire under the species of bread, and under the smallest particle of that species, as also under the species of wine, and under the smallest portion of it.

4. That in the consecration of the bread and wine, there is made a conversion and change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of our Lord’s body, and a change of the whole substance of the wine into that of His blood, the which change has been fitly and properly termed “transubstantiation.”

5. That the worship of Latria is rightly rendered by the faithful to the holy sacrament of the altar.

6. That the custom of keeping it in a consecrated place is as ancient as the time of the Council of Nicea (canon 13); and that of carrying it to the sick is to be commended.

7. That the holier this sacrament is, the more care should be taken by all Christian men to approach it with suitable respect, remembering those fearful words of the apostle, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself”; that he ought, consequently, to “examine himself,” and that no man who hath committed a mortal sin may presume to approach the Holy Eucharist, without having first made sacramental confession, &c.

8. That there are three modes of communicating: 1. Sacramentally, as in the case of sinners. 2. Spiritually, as they do who receive only in will and by faith. 3. Both sacramentally and spiritually, as they do who actually receive, and with faith and proper dispositions.

To this decree there were added eleven canons, anathematising those who held certain heretical doctrines on the subject of the Holy Eucharist, and especially those contained in the ten articles proposed for examination in the congregation held September 2.

Thus, canon 1 condemns the opinion contained in the first of those articles.

2. That contained in article 3.

3. That contained in article 9.

4. That contained in article 7.

5. That contained in article 4.

6. That contained in article 5.

7. That contained in article 6.

8. That contained in article 2.

9. That contained in article 10.

10. Condemns those who deny that the priest may communicate alone.

11. Condemns those who maintain that faith alone, without confession, is a sufficient preparation for the communion.

Afterwards, a decree of reformation, containing eight chapters, was read; the subject of it was the jurisdiction of bishops. It reminds prelates, amongst other things, that they are appointed to feed the flock committed to them, and not to injure it; bids them conduct themselves towards their inferiors without even the appearance of lording it over them, but as towards their children and brethren.

Chapter 1. Declares that in cases relating to visitations and corrections, and the capacity or incapacity of persons, and also to criminal matters, it shall not be lawful to appeal before the definitive sentence is given.

2. Declares that, in cases of appeal, the pope shall appoint judges in partibus, and that the commission shall always be directed to the metropolitan.

3. States that the appellant must lay before the judge to whom he has appealed the documents relating to the first judgment, which shall be furnished gratuitously.

4. Declares that bishops may proceed to the deposition and degradation of criminal ecclesiastics, if they have the assistance of so many abbots or dignified clergy as the canons heretofore required bishops.

5. Directs that the bishop shall take cognizance of the absolution of criminals against whom proceedings have been commenced, and shall nullify all absolutions, &c., obtained upon false pretences.

6. In order to avoid unnecessary odium, bishops shall not be called upon to appear personally at their judgments, unless it be a case involving the deposition of the party accused.

7. No witnesses against a bishop to be listened to unless they be of respectability and of good character; those who bear false witness, from hatred or other cause, to be rigorously punished.

8. Criminal cases relating to bishops, in which they must of necessity appear in person, to be sent to the pope for judgment.

In a congregation held after this session, twelve articles on the subjects of penance and extreme unction were examined, taken from the writings of Luther and his disciples in a subsequent congregation. The decrees and canons upon the subject were brought forward, together with a decree in fifteen chapters on reform.

In the fourteenth session the decree upon penance, in nine chapters, was read.

It states 1, that our Lord chiefly instituted the sacrament of penance when He breathed upon His disciples, saying, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” &c.; and the council condemns those who refuse to acknowledge that by these words our Lord communicated to His apostles and to their successors the power of remitting or retaining sins committed after baptism, understanding them only of the power of preaching the word of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

2. That in this sacrament the priest exercises the function of judge; that it is only with many tears and with much labour, which the justice of God demands, that we can regain that total and perfect renewal which was wrought in us at our baptism; and that for this cause the holy fathers justly speak of penance as a laborious baptism.

3. The decree states that the form of the sacrament, in which its force and virtue resides, is contained in the words of the absolution pronounced by the priest, “Ego te absolvo,” &c.; that the penitential acts are contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are, as it were, the matter of the sacrament, i.e., these exterior acts are instead of a sensible and permanent matter.

4. The council defines contrition to be an inward sorrow for and hatred of the sin committed, accompanied by a firm resolution to cease from it in future. It also states, that although sometimes contrition is made perfect by charity, and reconciles to God, without the actual reception of the sacrament of penance, yet that reconciliation is not to be attributed to contrition only, apart from the desire of receiving that sacrament, which is implied in contrition.

With respect to imperfect contrition, called attrition, arising merely from the shame and disgracefulness of sin, or from the fear of punishment, the council declares that if it be accompanied by a hope of forgiveness, and excludes the desire to commit sin, it is a gift of God, and a motion of the Holy Spirit; and that, far from rendering a man a hypocrite and a greater sinner, it disposes him (disponit) to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of penance.

This word “disponit” was substituted for “sufficit,” which stood in the first draught of the decree.

5. The decree then goes on to establish the necessity of confessing in every mortal sin which, by diligent self-examination, can be brought to remembrance. With regard to venial sins it states, that it is not absolutely necessary to confess them, and that they may be expiated in many other ways.

6. As to the minister of this sacrament, it declares that the power of binding and loosing is, by Christ’s appointment, in the priest only; that this power consists not merely in declaring the remission of sins, but in the judicial act by which they are remitted.

7. As to the reserved cases, it declares it to be important to the maintenance of good discipline, that certain atrocious crimes should not be absolved by every priest, but be reserved for the first order.

8. The decree further teaches, that in the matter of satisfaction, the acts imposed upon the penitent should be such as may serve as a remedy for and preservative against sin, to cure the disease of the soul; that the satisfaction which the priest imposes ought to be in proportion to the sin committed; that it is owing to the satisfaction made by Jesus Christ, that ours have any merit.

9. That we can make satisfaction to God not only by self-imposed inflictions, and by those which the priest prescribes, but also by bearing patiently and with a penitential spirit the temporal sorrows and afflictions which God sends to us.

In conformity with this decree, fifteen canons were published, condemning those who maintained the following doctrines:—

1. That penance is not a true sacrament of Jesus Christ.

2. That baptism is the real sacrament of penance.

3. That the words “Quorum remiseritis peccata,” &c., are to be understood of the authority to preach the word.

4. That contrition, confession, and satisfaction are not the matter of the sacrament of penance.

5. That contrition only makes man a hypocrite.

6. That sacramental confession is not necessary, and that auricular confession is an institution purely human.

7. That it is not necessary to confess every mortal and secret sin.

8. That such confession is impossible, and that annual confession, as ordered by the Council of Lateran, is not necessary.

9. That sacramental absolution is not a judicial act.

10. That priests in mortal sin have no power to bind and loose, and that this power is common to all the faithful.

11. That bishops have not the power to reserve certain cases for their own judgment.

12. That the whole penalty is remitted in this sacrament with the sin.

13. That we offer no satisfaction to God in bearing His inflictions patiently, or in imposing voluntary mortifications on ourselves.

14. That satisfactions do not do honour to God.

15. That the keys of the Church are only to loose, and not to bind.

After this, the decree upon the subject of extreme unction, in three chapters, was read. It states that this sacrament was looked upon by the Fathers as the consummation of penitence and of the whole Christian life, which ought to be a scene of continual penitence. That this unction was appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ as a true sacrament of the New Testament; that it is plainly recommended to the faithful by St James, and that the use of it is insinuated by St Mark. That the matter of the sacrament is the oil consecrated by the bishop, and that its form consists in the words pronounced when the unction is applied. 2. That its effect is to wipe out the remains of sin, and to reassure and comfort the soul of the sick person, by exciting within him a full confidence in God’s mercy, and sometimes to restore the health of the body, when such renewed health can advantage the salvation of the soul. That bishops and priests alone may administer this sacrament. That this sacrament ought to be given to those who are in danger of death; but that if they recover, they may receive it again.

The council then agreed upon four canons on the subject, with anathema.

1. Anathematises those who teach that extreme unction is not a true sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ.

2. Anathematises those who teach that it does not confer grace, nor remit sin, nor comfort the sick.

3. Anathematises those who teach that the Roman rite may be set at nought without sin.

4. Anathematises those who teach that the πρεσβύτεροι, of whom St James speaks, are old persons and not priests.

After this the question of reform came before them, and fourteen chapters upon the subject of episcopal jurisdiction were published.

1. Forbids the granting of dispensations and permissions by the Court of Rome to the prejudice of the bishop’s authority.

2. Forbids bishops in partibus infidelium, upon the strength of their privileges to ordain any one under any pretext without the express permission of or letters dimissory from the ordinary.

3. Gives bishops power to suspend clerks ordained without proper examination, or without their licence.

4. Orders that all secular clerks whatever, and all regulars living out of their monasteries, shall be always, and in all cases, subject to the correction of the bishop in whose diocese they are, notwithstanding any privileges, exemption, &c., whatsoever.

5. Relates to the conservators.

6. Orders all clerks, under pain of suspension and deprivation, to wear the habit suited to their order, and forbids them the use of short garments, and green and red stockings.

7. Enacts that a clerk guilty of voluntary homicide shall be deprived of all ecclesiastical orders, benefices, &c.

8. Checks the interference of prelates in the dioceses of others.

9. Forbids the perpetual union of two churches situated in different dioceses.

10. Directs that benefices belonging to the regulars shall be given to regulars only.

11. Directs that no one shall be admitted to the religious life who will not promise to abide in the convent in subjection to the superior.

12. Declares that the right of patronage can be given only to those who have built a new church or chapel, or who endow one already built.

13. Forbids all patrons to make their presentation to any one but to the bishop, otherwise the presentation to be void.

In a congregation, held December 23, the sacrament of orders was considered, and twelve articles, taken from the Lutheran writings, were produced for examination. Subsequently eight canons were drawn up, condemning as heretics those who maintained the following propositions:—

1. That orders is not a true sacrament.

2. That the priesthood is the only order.

3. That there ought to be no hierarchy.

4. That the consent of the people is necessary to the validity of orders.

5. That there is no visible priesthood.

6. That unction is unnecessary.

7. That this sacrament does not confer the Holy Spirit.

8. That bishops are not by Divine appointment, nor superior to priests.

In the fifteenth session a decree was read to the effect that the decrees upon the subject of the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrament of orders, which were to have been read in this session, would be deferred until March 19, in order that the Protestants, to whom a new safe conduct had been granted, might be able to attend.

In the following congregation the subject of marriage was treated of, and thirty-three articles thereon were submitted for examination.

The disputes which arose between the ambassadors of the emperor and the legates of the pope produced another cessation of the council. The Spanish bishops and those of the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, as well as all who were subjects of the emperor, wished to continue the council, but those, on the other hand, who were in the interests of the court of Rome, did all they could to prevent its continuance, and were not sorry when the report of a war between the emperor and Maurice, Elector of Saxony, caused most of the bishops to leave Trent. In the meantime some Protestant theologians arrived, and urged the ambassadors of the emperor to obtain from the fathers of the council an answer to certain propositions, and to induce them to engage in a conference with them; both of which, however, the legates, upon various pretexts, eluded.

The chief part of the prelates having then departed, the pope’s bull, declaring the council to be suspended until peace and security should be re-established, was read in the sixteenth session. This suspension lasted for nearly ten years; but on the 29th November 1560, a bull was published by Pius IV. (who succeeded to the papacy upon the death of Julius III. in 1555), for the re-assembling of the council at Trent on the following Easter Day, in which Pius named for his legates to the council Hercules Gonzaga, Cardinal and Bishop of Mantua, and Cardinal James Dupuy, of Nice, to whom he subsequently added three others.

Immediately after the publication of the bull, the pope despatched nuncios to the different courts of Europe, and, amongst others, to Elizabeth, Queen of England, inviting her and the bishops of the English Church to the council. However, the nuncio (the Abbot Jerome Martinengo) had not got farther than Flanders when he received an order from the queen, forbidding him to cross the sea; and although both the King of Spain and the Duke of Alba did all in their power to induce her to listen to his message, and reminded her that he had been sent only in order that he might labour for the reunion of the Church of Christ in a general council, Elizabeth obstinately persisted in her refusal, declaring that she would have no intercourse with the Bishop of Rome, whose authority had been banished from England by Parliament. A nuncio was sent to the Czar of Muscovy. From various causes the re-opening of the council did not take place until the year 1562.

On the 18th of January in that year the seventeenth session was held; one hundred and twelve bishops and several theologians being present. The bull of convocation and a decree for the continuation of the council were read; the words “proponentibus legatis,” inserted in it, passed in spite of the opposition of four Spanish bishops, who represented that the clause, being a novelty, ought not to be admitted, and that it was, moreover, injurious to the authority of œcumenical councils.

In a congregation, held January 27, the legates proposed the examination of the books of heretics and the answers to them composed by Catholic authors, and requested the fathers to take into their consideration the construction of a catalogue of prohibited works. Some discussion arose about the propriety of examining in council the works to be prohibited. In a congregation, held February 11, leave was given to the legates to nominate the fathers who should draw up the decree for the next session, and to form a congregation for the index of prohibited books.

In the next session the pope’s brief was read, who left to the council the care of drawing up a list of prohibited books. After which a decree upon the subject of the books to be prohibited was read, inviting all persons interested in the question to come to the council, and promising them a hearing.

In congregations held on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of March, they deliberated about granting a safe conduct to the Protestants, and a decree upon the subject was drawn up.

On the 11th of March a general congregation was held, in which twelve articles of reform were proposed for examination, which were discussed in subsequent congregations.

The first article, upon residence, gave rise to great disputes; the fathers were divided upon the question, whether residence is binding by the Divine law or not; a question which the pope was anxious should not be discussed at all: since, according to contemporary historians, he conceived that his dignity might be endangered by it. The Archbishop of Grenada strongly supported that view of the question which regards residence as ordered by the Divine law, and the event proved that such was the sentiment of the majority.

2. Whether it should be ordered that in future no one should be ordained without a benefice as a title? many frauds having been discovered in the matter of patrimonial titles.

3. Whether any thing ought to be paid for ordination to the bishop or his officers?

4. Whether authority should be given to prelates to convert some prebends into daily distributions in places where there were no such distributions?

5. Whether several titles should be allowed in large parishes requiring many priests?

6. Whether small cures might be united?

7. What measures should be taken with vicious and ignorant curates?

8. Whether authority should be given to ordinaries to reunite to the mother church ruined chapelries, which, for want of funds, could not be restored?

9. Whether ordinaries should have authority to visit benefices in commendam, belonging to the regulars?

10. Whether clandestine marriages should for the future be declared null?

11. What marriages should be regarded as clandestine?

12. What remedy should be applied to the abuses caused by the mendicant friars?

In the nineteenth session nothing whatever passed requiring notice, the publication of the decrees was postponed to the following session. Immediately after this session the French ambassadors arrived, and their instructions were curious, and to the following effect:—

That the decisions which had taken place should not be reserved for the pope’s approval, but that the pope should be compelled to submit to the decision of the council. That they should begin with the reform of the Church in its head, and in its members, as had been promised at the Council of Constance, and in that of Basle, but never completed. That annates should be abolished, that all archbishops and bishops should be obliged to residence, that the council should make arrangements with respect to dispensations, so as to remove the necessity of sending to Rome. That the sixth canon of Chalcedon should be observed, which prohibits bishops to ordain priests, without appointing them to some specific charges, so as to prevent the increase of useless ministers, &c., &c., &c.

On the 26th May, a congregation was held to receive the Ambassador of France. The Sieur de Pibrac, in the name of the king his master, in a long discourse, exhorted the prelates to labour at the work of reformation, promising that the king would, if needful, support and defend them in the enjoyment of their liberty.

In the twentieth session, the promoter of the council replied to the discourse delivered by Pibrac in the last congregation; after which a decree was read proroguing the session to the 16th July.

In the following congregation five articles upon the subject of the Holy Eucharist were proposed for examination.

1. Whether the faithful are, by God’s command, obliged to receive in both kinds?

2. Whether Jesus Christ is received entire under one species as under both?

3. Whether the reason which induced the Church to give the communion to the laity under one kind only, still obliged her not to grant the cup to any one?

4. Upon what conditions the cup should be permitted to any persons, supposing it to be advisable to grant it?

5. Whether the communion is necessary to children under years of discretion?

The question about the obligation of residence was also again mooted; but the Cardinal of Mantua objected to its discussion as entirely alien from the subject before them, promising at the same time that it should be discussed at a fitting season. In subsequent congregations held from the 9th to the 23rd of June, the subject of the five articles was discussed. Four canons were drawn up upon the subject of communion in both kinds. In a congregation held July 3rd, the French Ambassadors presented a memorial exhorting the fathers, as the imperialists had already done, to concede the cup to the laity. They said that in matters of positive right, like the question before them, it behoved them to give way at the right time, and not to cause a scandal by appearing so pertinacious in observing the commandments of men, and so negligent of those of God. They concluded by begging the council so to word their decree as not to prejudice the right of the kings of France to communicate in both kinds on the day of their consecration, nor the use enjoyed in some monasteries of the Cistercian order in the kingdom of doing the same.

In a congregation held July 14th, the decree in four chapters on the communion was examined. In the first it is endeavoured to be shown that those passages of holy Scripture which are adduced in favour of communion in both kinds do not prove the necessity of it. That our Lord (in the 6th of St John) by speaking one while of the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and at another, of eating His flesh only, shows that the latter is sufficient.

On the 21st session, the four chapters on doctrine were read, in which the council declared, that neither laymen nor ecclesiastics (not consecrating) are bound by any divine precept to receive the sacrament of the eucharist in both kinds; that the sufficiency of communion in one kind cannot be doubted, without injury to faith. Further, that the Church has always possessed the power of establishing and changing in the dispensation of the sacraments (without, however, interfering with essentials) according as she has judged to be most conducive to the honour due to the holy sacrament, and to the good of the recipients, taking into account the diversities of place and conjuncture; that although Jesus Christ instituted and gave to His apostles the sacrament under two kinds, it is necessary to believe that under either kind Jesus Christ is received whole and entire; and that no diminution is experienced in any of the graces conveyed by the sacrament. Lastly, that children not arrived at years of discretion are not obliged to receive the eucharist; since having been regenerated in the water of baptism, and so incorporated in Jesus Christ, they are incapable at their tender years of losing the gift, so bestowed upon them, of being the children of God. Four canons in conformity with this doctrine were then read:

1. Against those who maintain that all the faithful are under an obligation to receive in both kinds.

2. Against those who maintain that the Church hath not sufficient grounds for refusing the cup to the laity.

3. Against those who deny that our Lord is received entire under each species.

4. Against those who maintain that the eucharist is necessary to children before they come to the exercise of their reason.

Subsequently nine chapters on reform were read.

1. Enacts that bishops shall, on no pretext whatever, receive any fee for conferring orders, giving letters dimissory, &c., &c. That their registrar shall not ask more than the tenth of a crown of gold for their fee.

2. Forbids to ordain any one, without a sufficient title.

3. Provides for the service of cathedrals and collegiate churches with small revenue.

4. Provides for an increase of curates, or subdivision of parishes, in very populous or very extended districts.

5. Permits bishops in certain cases to unite parishes in perpetuity.

6. Enacts that bishops shall provide ignorant clerks, having cure of souls, with vicars or curates, to whom a certain portion of the revenue of the benefice shall be assigned; that they shall suspend irregular livers, and deprive those who continue obstinately in evil.

7. Provides for the reunion of decayed chapels with the mother church.

8. Orders the annual visitation of all benefices, even of those held in commendam.

9. Provides for the entire suppression of the mendicant orders, and enacts that indulgences shall be published by the ordinary, assisted by two of the chapter.

A few days after this session, the Italian bishops received a letter from the pope, in which he declared that he was far from wishing to hinder the discussion of the question concerning the nature of the obligation to residence; that he desired the council to enjoy entire freedom, and that every one should speak according as his conscience directed him; at the same time, however, he wrote to his nuncio Visconti, bidding him take secure measures for stifling the discussion, and for sending it to the holy see for decision.

In the congregations held after the twenty-first session, the question was concerning the sacrifice of the mass. All the legates, the ambassadors of the emperor, of the King of France, and of the Venetian States, were present, with one hundred and fifty-seven prelates, about one hundred theologians, and nearly two thousand other persons: thirteen articles were proposed for consideration.

1. Whether the sacrifice of the mass be a true sacrifice, or merely a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross?

2. Whether it be not false to assert that the sacrifice of the mass derogates from that of the cross?

3. Whether by the words, “Do this in remembrance of me,” Jesus Christ ordered His apostles to offer His Body and His Blood in the mass?

4. Whether the sacrifice of the mass avails others besides those who receive it; whether it may not also profit the dead and the living; and whether it may not be offered as a satisfaction for sin?

5. Whether it be not false to assert that solitary masses are unlawful?

6. Whether it be not false to assert that it is contrary to the institution of Jesus Christ to mix water with the wine?

7. Whether it be not false to assert that the canon of the mass contains any errors, and that it ought to be abrogated?

8. Whether it be not false to assert that the Roman use of pronouncing the words of consecration in secret is to be condemned?

9. Whether it be not false to assert that mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue?

10. Whether it be not false to assert that it is an abuse to say masses in honour of any particular saint?

11. Whether it be not false to assert that any retrenchment ought to be made in the ceremonies, vestments, &c., ordered by the Church to be used in the celebration of mass?

12. Whether to say that Jesus Christ is mystically sacrificed for us, is the same thing as to say that He is given us to eat?

13. Whether the mass is merely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a real sacrifice for the living and the dead?

All the theologians agreed, unanimously, that the mass ought to be regarded as a true sacrifice under the new covenant, in which Jesus Christ is offered under the sacramental species. One of their arguments was this, that Jesus Christ was priest after the order of Melchisedec; the latter offered bread and wine, and that, consequently, the priesthood of Jesus Christ includes a sacrifice of bread and wine.

In a congregation held about the 18th of August, the Archbishop of Prague presented a letter from the emperor, in which he made earnest entreaties that the cup might be conceded to the laity. This being rather a delicate subject, it was reserved for special consideration in a subsequent congregation.

The decree on the subject of the sacrifice of the mass being now completed, the fathers began next to consider the subject of communion in both kinds. Three opinions principally prevailed amongst the prelates; 1, was to refuse the cup entirely; 2, to grant it upon certain conditions to be approved of by the council; and 3, to leave the settlement of the matter to the Pope. The Spanish and Venetian bishops supported the first opinion.

Amongst those who were inclined to grant the cup was Cardinal Madrucio, Christopher, Baron von Madrutz, Cardinal and Bishop of Brixen, who endeavoured to prove that the council possessed the power to grant the petition, and that they clearly ought to do so; that the council of Basle had already afforded a precedent in yielding the use of the cup to the Bohemians; that by giving way on this point they would be the means of bringing back many heretics from their errors, and of hindering Catholics from forsaking the Church.

Amongst other prelates who spoke in favour of giving the cup to the laity was the Bishop of Modena, who was followed by Gaspard Capal, Bishop of Leira, who urged that those who refused the cup were merely supported by the authority of later times, whereas they who were for yielding it had on their side all antiquity, the authority of the Council of Basle, and that of Pope Paul III. But amongst the strongest advocates for granting the petition was the bishop of the Five Churches, who implored the prelates to have compassion on the Churches, and to pay some regard to the pressing entreaties of the emperor, who, he averred, never spoke of the matter without tears, so great was his desire to see peace restored to the Church, and ended a long speech by repeating what he had said in a former congregation, that it had been better that the council had never been convoked, than that it should refuse to yield the cup; for that multitudes of persons had hitherto been kept in obedience to the pope in the hope of receiving this boon, who, if it were at last denied to them, would, without doubt, forsake the Church. On the other hand, the patriarchs of Aquileia and Venice, and the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, were in favour of refusing: the latter maintained that by giving way to them, the people would be rather confirmed in the error of supposing that the body only of our Lord is contained under the species of bread, and the blood only under that of wine; that if they gave way now, other nations would require the same, and they would go further, and would next require the abolition of images, as being an occasion of idolatry to the people. Other bishops, supporting this opinion, reminded the assembly that the Church had been led to forbid the use of the cup from a fear lest the consecrated wine should be spilled or turn sour, and that the former accident could hardly be prevented when the holy sacrament was carried long distances and by bad paths. The Archbishop of Rossano, the Bishops of Cava, Almeria, Imola, and Rieti, with Richard, Abbot of Preval, at Genoa, were also amongst those who spoke in favour of absolutely refusing the cup.

Osio, Bishop of Rieti, spoke most strongly on the subject; he said that councils had ever taken a course the very reverse of that pointed out by heretics; that, for example, when certain Jews insisted that the new converts should observe Jewish ceremonials, the apostles forbade them, and abolished the use of them: that when Nestorius had advanced the doctrine that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of Jesus Christ, but not the Mother of God, the council at once declared that in future the Blessed Mary should be styled the Mother of God; that when the Bohemians demanded the concession of the cup at the Council of Constance, it was denied to them; that the authority of the Council of Basil could not be brought forward, since experience had proved that the Church had gained nothing by the concession there made, which had but served to render the heretics more insolent.

Others, who preferred half measures, were for leaving the decision to the pope, which was the result which the legates themselves laboured hard to obtain, for they neither desired that the demand for the cup should be absolutely negatived (which would undoubtedly have been the case had it been left to the decision of the council), for then the emperor would have been enraged; nor did they wish that the concession of the cup should appear to be so much the act of the council, as of the pope personally. Eventually they won over some to their views, both from those who desired absolutely to refuse, and from those who approved of giving the cup; and on the eve of the twenty-second session a decree passed, by which it was left to the pope to act as he thought best in the matter, the numbers being ninety-eight for the decree, and thirty-eight against it. The discussion lasted altogether from the 15th of August to the 16th of September.

In the twenty-second session, one hundred and eighty prelates, with the ambassadors and legates, were present. The doctrinal decree touching the sacrifice of the mass, in nine chapters, was published. It was to the following effect:

1. That although our Lord once offered Himself to God the Father in dying upon the altar of His cross, in order to obtain thereby eternal redemption for us, nevertheless, since His priesthood did not cease at His death, in order that He might leave with His Church a visible sacrifice (such as the nature of man requires), by means of which the bloody sacrifice of the cross might be represented, at the Last Supper, on the same night that He was betrayed, in the execution of His office as a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, He offered His Body and Blood to the Father under the species of bread and wine, and gave the same to His Apostles, and by these words, “This do in remembrance of me.” He commanded them and their successors to offer the like sacrifice, as the Catholic Church has always believed and taught.

2. As the same Jesus Christ, who once offered Himself upon the cross with the shedding of His blood, is contained and immolated without the effusion of blood in the holy sacrifice of the mass, this latter sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and that by it we obtain mercy and forgiveness; since it is the same Jesus Christ who was offered upon the cross, who is still offered by the ministry of His priests; the only difference being in the manner of offering. And that the mass may be offered, not only for the sins and wants of the faithful who are alive, but also for those who, being dead, are not yet made pure.

3. Although the Church sometimes celebrates masses in honour and in memory of the saints, the sacrifice is still offered to God alone, for she only implores their protection.

4. That the Church for many ages past has established the sacred canon of the mass, which is pure and free from every error, and contains nothing which is not consistent with holiness and piety, being in truth composed from our Lord’s words, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions of the holy popes.

5. That the Church, in order the better to set forth the majesty of so great a sacrifice, has established certain customs; such as saying some things at mass in a low voice, others aloud; and has introduced certain ceremonies,—as the benediction, lights, incense, ornaments, &c., after the tradition of the apostles.

6. That although it is to be desired that at every mass all the faithful should communicate, not only spiritually, but also sacramentally, nevertheless the council does not condemn private masses, in which the priest only communicates, but, on the contrary, approves and authorises them, for that they are celebrated by the proper minister in behalf of himself and the faithful.

7. That the Church hath ordained that the priest shall mix water with the wine, because there is reason to believe that our Blessed Lord did so, and because both Blood and Water issued from His side; which sacred mystery, by the use of this mixture, is remembered.

8. Although the mass contains much to edify the people, the fathers did not judge it right that it should be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, and the Roman Church has preserved the use; nevertheless, the clergy should at times, and especially on festivals, explain to the people some part of what they have read to them.

9. Anathematises, in nine canons, all those who deny the affirmative of twelve of the thirteen articles proposed in the congregation following the twenty-first session, viz., the 1st, 3rd, 13th, and 4th, 2nd, 10th, 7th, 11th, 5th, 8th, and 9th, and 6th (which see).

Then followed a decree concerning what should be observed or avoided in the celebration of mass. Bishops were ordered to forbid and abolish everything which had been introduced through avarice, irreverence, or superstition, such as pecuniary agreements for the first masses, and forced exactions made under the name of alms; vagabond and unknown priests were forbidden to celebrate, also those who were notorious evil livers; no masses were to be said in private houses; all music of an impure and lascivious character was forbidden in churches, and all worldly conversation, profane actions, walking about, &c. Priests were forbidden to say mass out of the prescribed hours, and otherwise than Church form prescribed. It was also ordered to warn the people to come to church on Sundays and holidays at least.

In the third place the decree of Reformation was read, containing eleven chapters.

1. Orders that all the decrees of the popes and the councils relating to the life, morals, and acquirements of the clergy, should be in future observed, under the original and even greater penalties.

2. Enacts that bishoprics shall be given only to those persons who possess the qualifications required by the canons, and who have been at least six months in holy orders.

3. Permits bishops to appropriate the third part of the revenue of the prebends in any cathedral or collegiate church, for daily distributions; to be given in such a manner that those who fail to attend service shall lose their share in the distributions for that day; and if they continue to absent themselves, they shall be proceeded against according to the canons.

4. Declares that no one under the rank of sub-deacon shall have any voice in the chapter; that all the members shall perform their proper offices.

5. Enacts that dispensations “extra curiam” (i.e., granted anywhere out of the court of Rome) shall be addressed to the ordinary, and shall have no effect until he shall have testified that they have not been obtained surreptitiously.

6. Treats of the care to be observed in proving wills.

7. Orders that legates, nuncios, patriarchs, and other superior judges, shall observe the constitution of Innocentius IV., beginning “Romana,” whether in receiving appeals, or granting prohibitions.

8. Orders that bishops, as the delegates of the holy see, shall be the executors of all pious gifts, whether by will or otherwise; that to them it appertains to visit hospitals and other similar communities, except those under the immediate protection of the king.

9. Directs that those to whom the care of any sacred fabric is entrusted, whether laymen or clerks, shall be held bound to give account of their administration yearly to the ordinary, unless the original foundation require them to account to any other.

10. Declares that bishops may examine notaries, and forbid them the exercise of their office in ecclesiastical matters.

11. Enacts penalties against those who usurp or keep possession of the property of the Church, and pronounces anathemas against them.

With respect to the concession of the cup to the laity, the council declared, by another decree, that it judged it convenient to leave the decision to the pope, who would act in the matter according as his wisdom should direct him.

In a congregation certain articles relating to the reformation of morals were discussed, and the theologians were instructed to examine eight articles on the subject of the sacrament of orders.

1. Whether orders is a true sacrament instituted by Christ?

2. Whether the priest’s ordination is the only sacrament, and whether the inferior orders are only steps to the priesthood?

3. Whether there is in the Catholic Church a hierarchy composed of the episcopate, priesthood, and the other orders? whether all Christians are priests? whether the consent of the people is necessary to ordination? whether a priest can return to the lay condition?

4. Whether in the New Testament there is a visible priesthood with power to consecrate and offer the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and to remit sin; or whether the priesthood means merely the ministry of God’s word?

5. Whether the Holy Spirit is given in ordination? whether ordination confers a character?

6. Whether the unction and other ceremonies used in ordination are necessary?

7. Whether bishops are superior to priests? whether they alone have the power of confirming and ordaining? whether persons not canonically ordained are true ministers?

8. Whether bishops, called and ordained by the pope’s authority, are lawful bishops? and whether they who are made bishops in any other way, and without a canonical institution, are true bishops?

This occupied many congregations; in one of which a large number of the prelates, chiefly Spaniards, demanded that there should be added to the 7th canon, concerning the institution of bishops a clause declaring the episcopate to be of Divine right.

An attempt was made to stifle the discussion, but John Fonséca, a Spanish theologian, amongst others, entered boldly upon the subject, declaring that it was not, and could not be forbidden to speak upon the matter. He maintained that bishops were instituted by Jesus Christ, and that by Divine right, and not merely by a right conferred by the pope; that they were superior to priests; that as it was believed that Christ instituted the papacy when he said to St Peter, “I will give to thee the keys,” &c., so must it be believed that He instituted the episcopate when He said to the other apostles, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth,” &c.; consequently, as the pope is the successor of St Peter, so are the bishops the successors of the other apostles. He then proved his position by a multitude of passages taken from the fathers, and cited a long passage from St Bernard, as well as Acts 20:28. Further, he showed that although bishops were created or confirmed by the pope, this was no more a proof that they did not derive their institution and authority from Jesus Christ, than the creation of the pope himself by the cardinals, was a proof that he did not derive his authority from God. To all which he added many other arguments.

The discussion of this question proved highly disagreeable at Rome, and the legates received instructions on no account to permit it to be brought to a decision.

However, in subsequent congregations the dispute was renewed with warmth: in the congregation of the 13th October, the Archbishop of Granada insisted upon the recognition of the institution of bishops, and their superiority to priests, Jure Divino: and alleged the words of St Dionysius, who teaches that the order of deacons is subject to that of priests, the order of priests to that of bishops, and the order of bishops to Jesus Christ, the Bishop of bishops; also a passage from St Cyprian, who, in his Epistle to Rogatianus, declares that “bishops are created by God Himself;” and another in his book on the Unity of the Church, viz. “Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur.” In short, he declared that the pope was bishop in precisely the same manner as other bishops, and that he and all other bishops were brethren, the children of the same Father, which is God, and of the same Mother, which is the Church.

The same view was taken in the following congregation, by the Archbishop of Braga and the Bishop of Segovia, who declared that it was clear from ecclesiastical history and the epistles of the Fathers, that as the primitive bishops gave an account to one another of the proceedings in their several churches, for the approval of their brethren, so the popes made the very same sort of report of what had passed at Rome, and that all the popes up to the time of Sylvester had acknowledged the Divine right of bishops. No less than fifty-three prelates, out of one hundred and thirty-one present, voted in favour of the recognition of the Divine institution and jurisdiction of bishops. According to Paolo, the number amounted to fifty-nine. The dispute was, however, by no means ended. On the 20th the Jesuit Lainez, at the instigation of the legates, delivered a powerful speech in opposition to the view taken by the Spanish bishops, denying altogether that the institution and jurisdiction of bishops were of Divine right: “If,” said he, “bishops have received any jurisdiction from Jesus Christ, they are all equal in rank and authority, and everything else; and all distinction between patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops is annihilated; and the pope can no more interfere with their jurisdiction to restrain or to do away with it.” A most just conclusion, in which lay the secret cause of all the violent opposition made by the Ultra Montane party to the demand of the Spaniards.

However, powerful as was the speech of Lainez, he was answered by the Bishop of Paris so effectually, that the legates, to their great discomposure, saw the views of the Spanish prelates gain ground. The latter then declared formally that unless their demand was granted, and the order and jurisdiction of bishops declared in the canon to be “Jure Divino,” they would thenceforth absent themselves from all the congregations and sessions.

In the meantime the Cardinal of Lorraine arrived at Trent with several French prelates, and was received with honour. In a congregation held on the 23rd of November, he read the letter of the King of France to the council, in which he strongly urged them to labour sincerely to bring about a sound reformation of abuses, and to restore its pristine glory to the Catholic Church by bringing back all Christian people to one religion. After the letter was finished the cardinal delivered a speech, strongly urging the necessity of proceeding speedily with the work of reformation, in which he was followed by Du Ferrier, the king’s ambassador, who spoke his mind freely.

All this time so little progress had been made with the canons and decrees, that when the 26th of November, the day fixed for holding the 23rd session, arrived, it was found necessary to prorogue it. After this, in the following congregations the subject of the Divine right of bishops was again discussed, when the French bishops declared in favour of the views held by the Spaniards. Much time was consumed upon this question and upon that of residence, to the great disgust of the Cardinal of Lorraine and others, who desired that the subject of reformation should be at once gone into.

At the beginning of the year 1563 the French ambassadors presented their articles of reformation, under thirty-four heads. Their principal demands were as follows:—

6. That no person should be appointed bishop unless he were of advanced age, and of good character and capacity.

7. That no curates (plebani) should be nominated unless they were of good character and abilities.

9. That bishops, either personally or by deputy, should preach on every Sunday and Festivals, besides daily during Lent and Advent.

10. That all curates should do the same, when they had a sufficient audience.

12. That incapable bishops, abbots, and curates, should resign their benefices or appoint coadjutors.

14. That all pluralities whatever should be abolished, without any consideration of compatibility or incompatibility.

16. That steps should be taken to provide every beneficed clerk with a revenue sufficient to maintain two curates, and to exercise hospitality.

17. That the Gospel should be explained to the people at mass, that after mass the priest should pray with the people in the vulgar tongue; and that at the same or some other appointed time, pious and spirited canticles, such as the Psalms of David, should be sung.

18. That the ancient decretals of Pope Leo and Gelasius on communion in both kinds should be re-established.

19. That the efficacy of the sacrament should be also explained to the people before their administration.

20. That benefices should be conferred by bishops within six months; after which time they should devolve to the immediate superior, and so gradually to the pope.

21. That they should abolish, as contrary to the canons, all expectatives, regressions (returning to a benefice which has been once resigned), resignations, &c.

22. That all resignations in favour of another should be entirely rejected, as contrary to the canons.

23. That simple, or secular, priories should be reunited to the cure of souls, originally intended by the foundation, which had been separated from them, and assigned to perpetual vicars with miserable pittances.

26. That their ecclesiastical jurisdiction should be restored to the bishops throughout their dioceses and all exemptions done away with, except in the case of heads of orders and some few others.

27. That bishops should take in hand no matter of importance without the advice of their chapters; and that the canons should be compelled to continual residence, and be men of sufficient learning, good life, and twenty-five years of age.

28. That the ancient impediments to marriage should be renewed, except in the case of kings and princes.

29. That the people should be properly instructed concerning the worship of images.

31. That no sentence of excommunication should be passed until two or three monitions had been issued, and then only for grievous faults.

32. That bishops should be desired to give benefices rather to those who drew back from receiving than to such as sought for them.

34. That diocesan synods should be assembled at least once a year, provincial synods every three years, and general councils every ten years.

The pope, in order to elude the difficulty in which he was placed by the demand of the Spanish and French bishops, that the Divine right of bishops should be inserted in the 7th chapter, sent a form for the approval of the council, in which it was declared that “bishops held the principal place in the Church, but in dependence upon the pope.” This, however, did not meet with approval, and, after a long contest, it was agreed to state it thus—that “they held the principal place in the Church under the pope,” instead of in dependence upon him.

However, a still warmer contest arose upon the chapter in which it was said that the pope had authority to feed and govern the Universal Church. This the Gallican and Spanish bishops would by no means consent to, alleging that the Church is the first tribunal under Christ, and that even St Peter himself was sent to the Church as to his judge by our Saviour, when He said to him, “tell it to the Church,” &c. Accordingly, they insisted that the words “Universos Ecclesias,” “all Churches,” should be substituted for “Universam Ecclesiam”; “for,” said the Archbishop of Granada, “I am the Bishop of Granada, and the pope is archbishop of it:” meaning that he permitted to the pope the same right of superintendence over particular Churches which an archbishop possesses over his suffragan bishops. The Italians, who warmly opposed this view, alleged the œcumenical authority of the Council of Florence, as establishing the doctrine of the chapter; whilst the French denied both the œcumenicity and the legality of the Council of Florence, and appealed to the Councils of Constance and Basle; the former of which the Italians rejected as having been only approved in part, whilst the latter they scouted as schismatic.

The Gallicans even more strenuously denied that “the pope possessed all the authority of Jesus Christ,” notwithstanding all the limitations and explanations which were added to it.

On the 5th of February the legates proposed for consideration eight articles on the subject of marriage, extracted from heretical books.

1. That marriage is not a sacrament instituted by God.

2. That parents may annul marriages contracted by their children clandestinely.

3. That a man may marry again during the life of his first wife, divorced on account of fornication.

4. That polygamy is allowed to Christians, and that to forbid marriages at certain seasons is a heathen superstition.

5. That marriage is to be preferred to the state of virginity.

6. That priests in the Western Church may marry notwithstanding their vow.

7. That the degrees of consanguinity and affinity laid down in Leviticus 18 are to be observed, and no others.

8. That the cognisance of causes relating to marriages belongs to the secular prince.

These articles were discussed in several congregations.

The sixth article came under consideration on the 4th of March; all agreed in condemning it as heretical, but they were divided upon the grounds of their opinion; some maintained that neither the Eastern nor Western Church had ever permitted priests, after ordination, to marry, and that this custom was founded upon apostolical tradition, not upon any ecclesiastical constitution or vow; others, on the contrary, maintained that marriage was forbidden to the secular clergy on account of their ordination, and by the ecclesiastical law, and to the regulars by their solemn vow, but that the pope had power to dispense with this prohibition in certain cases; moreover, that up to the time of Innocentius II., a priest, by marrying, was only deprived of his ministry, whilst his marriage was held to be valid.

The question was afterwards discussed, whether it was advisable, under the circumstances of the times, to remove the restriction laid upon the clergy not to marry? this was in consequence of a demand to that effect made by the Duke of Bavaria. Strong opposition was made to this demand, and many blamed the legates for permitting the discussion, and maintained that if this licence were granted the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy would fall to pieces, and the pope be reduced to the simple condition of Bishop of Rome; since the clergy, having their affection set upon their families and country, would be inevitably detached from that close dependence upon the holy see, in which its present strength mainly consists.

In the meantime, the Cardinal of Mantua and Cardinal Seripandus died, and the pope despatched two new legates to the council, Cardinal Moroni, and Cardinal Navagier. The French continued their importunities on the subject of reformation, and were as constantly put off upon one pretext or another, by the legates, and thus much time was wasted. The chief difficulties in their way were these:—1. The decree already made, which gave the right of proposing to the legates only. 2. The question of the Divine obligation of residence. 3. The Divine institution of bishops. 4. The authority of the pope. And 5. The general question of reformation. As to the articles upon the latter subject proposed by the French ambassadors, the pope positively refused to allow them to be discussed; accordingly, about this time, the French, wearied with the proceedings, began to withdraw from the council.

In a congregation held May 10th, a letter from the Queen of Scots was read, in which she expressed her sorrow that she had not one Catholic prelate in her dominions whom she could send to the council, and declared her determination, should she ever attain to the crown of England, to do all in her power to bring that kingdom, as well as Scotland, back to the Roman obedience.

About this time, i.e., on the 29th of June, a fierce dispute arose between the orators of France and Spain upon a point of precedency, which lasted some time. On the 1st July Du Ferrier delivered an angry speech filled with invectives against the King of Spain and the pope, vowing openly that he would do everything in his power to bring over the whole kingdom of France to the Huguenot faith, for that it appeared to him that his king and nation were but ill treated by the synod.

All this time the contests about the institution and jurisdiction of bishops, and the Divine obligation of residence, continued; and at last, in order to accommodate matters, and bring things to an end, it was resolved to omit altogether all notice of the institution of bishops, and of the authority of the pope, and to erase from the decree concerning residence whatever was obnoxious to either party. They then fell to work upon the decree, concerning the reformation of abuses, and at last, on the 15th of July, the twenty-third session was held: 208 prelates, besides the legates and other ecclesiastics, were present, with the ambassadors of France, Spain, Portugal, &c. The sermon was preached by the Bishop of Paris, who seems to have contrived in it to give offence to all parties. After the sermon, the bulls authorising Moroni and Navagier to act as legates for the pope were read, together with the letters of the King of Poland, the Duke of Savoy, and the Queen of Scotland. Lastly, the decrees and canons drawn up during the past congregation were brought before the council.

First, the decree upon the sacrament of orders, in four chapters, was read; it was to the effect, 1. That it is necessary to recognise in the Church a visible and outward priesthood, which has taken the place of the former priesthood. That both Holy Scripture and tradition teach us that it was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave to his apostles and their successors the power of consecrating, of offering, and administering, His body and blood; and that of remitting and retaining sin. 2. That for the good order of the Church it is necessary that there should be divers orders of ministers consecrated to the service of the altar. That Holy Scripture speaks not only of priests, but also of deacons, and that from the very beginning of the Church the names and functions of the other orders have been in use. 3. That orders is one of the seven sacraments of the holy Church, because that the grace of order is conferred in ordination by means of the word used, and the outward sign. 4. That this sacrament confers a character which can never be effaced. That the bishops who have succeeded to the apostles belong in the chief place to the order of the hierarchy, that they have been appointed by the Holy Spirit for the government of the Church of God; that they are superior to priests, and can perform certain functions which the latter cannot. That those who having been elected and appointed by the people only, or by some secular power, take upon themselves this ministry without ordination, are to be regarded as thieves, and not as true ministers of the Church.

Then were published eight canons on the Sacraments of orders, which anathematised,

1. Those who deny a visible priesthood in the Church.

2. Those who maintain that the priesthood is the only order.

3. Those who deny that ordination is a true sacrament.

4. Those who deny that the Holy Spirit is conferred by ordination.

5. Those who deny that the unction given at ordination is necessary.

6. Those who deny that there is a hierarchy composed of bishops, priests, and ministers, in the Catholic Church.

7. Those who deny the superiority of bishops to priests, or that they alone can perform certain functions which priests cannot, and those who maintain that orders conferred without the consent of the people are void.

8. Those who deny that bishops called by the authority of the pope, qui auctoritate Romani pontificis assumuntur, are true and lawful bishops.

After this, the decree of reformation was read, containing eighteen chapters:—

1. Relates to the much-contested question of residence, and is of great length. The residence of bishops is strongly insisted upon, since the Divine command to all who have any charge of souls is, that they shall know their sheep, offer the sacrifice for them, nourish them with the bread of the Word of God, &c.; and since it is not possible to fulfil these duties except they be present with their flocks, the council declares that all who have the government of churches, whether patriarchs, primates, bishops, &c., and even cardinals, shall reside in person, without ever absenting themselves for any length of time, unless some necessity, or the evident advantage of the Church or State require it, in which cases even they may not absent themselves without the written permission of the pope, or of the metropolitan, or one of his oldest suffragans. That if any one shall absent himself contrary to the enactments of this decree, he will offend mortally against God, and cannot, with a clear conscience, touch the revenue of his preferment for the period of his absence, but shall be obliged to expend such revenue in building churches, or in alms to the poor of the place.

Although the Divine obligation of residence is not openly declared in this decree, it is plainly to be inferred from it, and proves such to have been the opinion of the majority of bishops present.

This chapter, moreover, orders the residence of the inferior clergy, and directs that, when necessity compels their absence, they shall take care to supply their place by a sufficient curate, approved by the bishop, to whom they shall assign a proper stipend.

2. Orders the consecration, within three months, of all persons presented to cathedral or superior churches, under pain of being compelled to pay back the revenue they have received during that period; and orders that if they delay their consecration for three months longer they shall be deprived.

3. Directs that bishops shall themselves confer orders on their own clergy. If they be unable, they shall not send candidates to other bishops for ordination, without previous examination.

4. Forbids to admit to the first tonsure persons who have not been confirmed and instructed in the first principles of the faith, and those who cannot read and write, &c.

5. Orders that candidates for minor orders shall bring a testimonial from their curate and schoolmaster. Those who aspire to higher orders shall wait upon the bishop one month before ordination, who shall publish their names in full church, and require information concerning their birth, morals, and manner of life.

6. Declares that no clerk under fourteen years of age can hold a benefice, and orders the observance of the constitution of Bonifacius VIII. “Clerici qui cum unicis,” in the matter of married clerks.

7. Orders bishops to make careful examination of candidates for orders.

8. Directs bishops to confer orders only at the canonical seasons, in the cathedral church, and in the presence of the canons. No one to be ordained except by his own bishop, or with letters dimissory from him.

9. Forbids bishops to confer orders on any of their domestics not belonging to their diocese, except they have been with them three years.

10. Forbids abbots, notwithstanding any privilege, to give the tonsure, or minor orders, to any, except to those under their jurisdiction (under pain of suspension).

11. Forbids to confer minor orders upon those who are ignorant of Latin.

12. Forbids to promote any one to the rank of sub-deacon, under twenty-two years; to that of deacon, under twenty-three: and to that of priest under twenty-five.

13. Requires that persons to be received into the orders of sub-deacon or deacon, shall produce testimonials of having conducted themselves well in the inferior orders, and shall declare, that with God’s help, they are capable of living in continence.

14. Forbids to admit any one to the priesthood who has not served at least one year as a deacon, unless, in the bishop’s opinion, the good of the Church requires it. Orders bishops to take care that priests observe, at least, the Sundays and festivals, by celebrating mass, &c.

15. Forbids a priest, not having cure of souls, to hear confessions without the bishop’s express permission.

16. Renews the sixth canon of Chalcedon.

17. Orders that the several functions belonging to the different orders of clerks, from that of porter to that of deacon, shall be, in future, performed by the proper clerks.

18. Orders that in every cathedral church, a certain number of children belonging to the diocese shall be instructed in the ecclesiastical profession. Stipulates that they be born in lawful wedlock, and be not under twelve years of age, and capable of reading and writing.

In the following congregations the decrees concerning marriage were discussed, and it was unanimously agreed that the law of celibacy should be continued binding upon the clergy.

Moreover, twenty articles of reformation, which the legates proposed, were examined; and during the discussion, letters were received from the King of France, in which he declared his disappointment at the meagre measure of ecclesiastical reform proposed in these articles, and his extreme dissatisfaction at the chapter interfering with the rights of princes. Shortly after, nine of the French bishops returned home, so that fourteen only remained.

On the 22d of September, a congregation was held, in which the ambassador Du Ferrier spoke so warmly of the utter insufficiency of the articles of reform which the legates had proposed, and of their conduct altogether, that the congregation broke up suddenly in some confusion, and shortly after the French orators returned home.

To fill up the time intervening before the twenty-fourth session, the subjects of indulgences, purgatory, and the worship of saints and images, was introduced for discussion, in order that decrees on the subject might be prepared for presentation in the twenty-fifth session. The Cardinal of Lorraine having now returned from Rome, whither he had gone to concert measures with the pope, for settling those questions which had all along hindered the progress of the council, all parties seemed to be equally desirous to bring matters to a close, and the final business of the council was as much precipitated, as its deliberations hitherto had been delayed and protracted. On the 11th of November, the twenty-fourth session was held, in which the decree of doctrine, and the canons relating to the sacrament of marriage, were read.

First, the decree containing the catholic doctrine on the subject; after establishing the indissolubility of the marriage tie, by Holy Scripture, it adds, that Jesus Christ by His passion merited the grace necessary to confirm and sanctify the union betwixt man and wife. That the apostle means us to understand this when he says, “Husbands love your wives, as Jesus Christ loved the Church;” and shortly after, “This sacrament is great; I speak of Jesus Christ and the Church.” Marriage, under the Gospel, is declared to be a more excellent state than that of marriage under the former dispensation, on account of the grace conferred by it, and that, accordingly, the holy fathers, councils, and universal tradition, rightly teach us to reckon marriage amongst the sacraments of the new law.

Then followed twelve canons, with anathemas, upon the subject.

1. Anathematises those who maintain that marriage is not a true sacrament, of Divine institution.

2. Anathematises those who maintain that polygamy is permitted to Christians.

3. Anathematises those who maintain that marriage is unlawful only within the degrees specified in Leviticus.

4. Anathematises those who deny that the Church has power to add to the impediments to marriage.

5. Anathematises those who maintain that the marriage tie is broken by heresy, ill-conduct, or voluntary absence on either side.

6. Anathematises those who deny that a marriage contracted, but not consummated, is annulled by either of the parties taking the religious vows.

7. Anathematises those who maintain that the Church errs in holding that the marriage tie is not broken by adultery.

8. Anathematises those who maintain that the Church errs in separating married persons for a time, in particular cases.

9. Anathematises those who maintain that men in holy orders, or persons who have taken the religious vow, may marry.

10. Anathematises those who maintain that the married state is preferable to that of virginity.

11. Anathematises those who maintain that it is superstitious to forbid marriages at certain seasons.

12. Anathematises those who maintain that the cognisance of matrimonial causes does not belong to the ecclesiastical authorities.

After this, a decree of reformation was published, relating to the same sacrament, containing ten chapters.

1. Refers to the subject of clandestine marriages, declares that the Church views such with horror, and hath always forbidden them; orders curates to publish the names of the parties about to contract marriage, on three consecutive festivals, in church, during the solemn mass; orders that two or three witnesses be present at the marriage, and declares all marriages to be null which are not solemnised in the presence of the clergyman of the parish, or of some other priest having his permission, or that of the ordinary.

The council also exhorts the bride and bridegroom not to dwell together until they have received the benediction of the priest, and to confess carefully, and receive with devotion the Holy Eucharist before marriage.

2. Treats of the impediments to marriage, which were in some respects relaxed, i.e., the impediments to marriage between a godparent and godchild and the parents of the godchild, was removed; also that between the person administering baptism and the person baptised, or his or her parents.

3 and 4. Also refer to the relaxation of impediments.

5. Those who wilfully contract marriage within the prohibited degrees are sentenced to be separated without any hope of obtaining a dispensation. Dispensations are ordered to be given rarely, if ever, and if given only for a lawful cause. Dispensations to the second degree never to be granted unless to princes for the public good.

6. No marriage to be allowed between a ravisher and the woman ravished whilst she remains in his power; if, however, when at liberty, she consents, they may be married. The ravisher, and all aiding and abetting, to be, nevertheless, excommunicated.

7. Care to be used in permitting wanderers to receive the sacrament of marriage.

8. Fornicators, whether married or single, to be excommunicated, unless they will put away their mistresses after three monitions. The women, after three monitions, to be driven out of the diocese unless they obey.

9. Forbids all masters, magistrates, &c., under anathema, to compel those under their control to marry against their own inclinations.

10. Confirms the ancient prohibitions to celebrate marriages between Advent and Epiphany, and between Ash-Wednesday and the octave of Easter.

After this a decree, containing twenty-one articles, upon the reform of the clergy was read.

1. Relates to the election of bishops and cardinals.

2. Directs that provincial councils shall be held at least every three years by the metropolitan or the oldest suffragan. Diocesan synods annually.

3. Orders that bishops shall visit their dioceses annually, or at least every three years, either in person or by deputy; that metropolitans shall not visit their suffragans except for reasons to be approved in the provincial council. Treats of the duties of inferior ordinaries when visiting, and directs that all visitors shall be careful not to be burdensome, and shall be content with frugal and modest entertainment. Also forbids patrons to interfere with the spiritual concerns of their churches.

4. Orders bishops to preach either in person or by deputy. Orders that sermons shall be preached either by the minister or his deputy in all parish churches every Sunday and holiday, and thrice a week during Advent and Lent.

5. Directs that criminal cases relating to bishops shall be judged at Rome.

6. Allows of dispensations in certain cases for secret sins.

7. Orders that the nature of the holy sacraments shall be explained to the people before they are administered to them.

8. Orders that open offenders shall be put to open penance, but allows to the bishop the power of imposing secret penance instead.

9. Extends the decrees made in the council relating to exempt benefices to extra diocesan benefices.

10. Declares that, in matters relating to visitations and the correction of morals, no claim of exemption or of appeal shall suspend the execution of the sentence.

11. Declares that such titles as that of prothonotary, count palatine, royal chaplain, &c., shall not exempt the holder from the bishop’s jurisdiction.

12. Relates to the age at which persons may be advanced to certain dignities, and restricts some to persons holding certain academical degrees.

13. Permits bishops to provide for poor benefices having cure of souls, either by uniting them, or by assigning first fruits or tithes to them, or by the contributions of the parishioners. Forbids to annex parish churches to monasteries.

14. Declares that the council abhors the practice of paying anything for a title or for taking possession.

15. Allows the bishop to diminish the number of prebends in poor cathedral establishments.

16. Ordains that the chapter shall elect a vicar-general within eight days after the death of their bishop, to look after the concerns of the church during the vacancy.

17. Forbids pluralities.

18. Relates to the filling up of vacant cures.

19. Suppresses altogether expectative graces, mental reservations, &c.

20. Orders that all ecclesiastical causes shall be tried in the first place before the ordinary, and that no appeal shall be allowed except from the definitive sentence; relates, further, to the trial of matrimonial causes, &c.

21. Relates to the words “Proponentibus Legatis” inserted in the decree of the first session, and declares that it was not the intention of the council thereby to depart from the ordinary manner of treating matters in general councils, or to give or take away any privilege from or to any person.

The last session was held on the 3rd December 1563; in it the decrees concerning purgatory, the invocation of saints, and the worship of images and relics were read.

1. Of purgatory. Declares that the Catholic Church, following Holy Scripture and tradition, has always taught, and still teaches, that there is a purgatory, and that the souls which are detained there are assisted by the suffrages of the faithful and by the sacrifice of the mass. Orders all bishops to teach and to cause to be taught the true doctrine on this subject, without amusing the people with subtleties.

2. Of the invocation of saints. Orders bishops, and others concerned in the teaching of the people, to instruct them concerning the invocation of saints, the honour due to their relics, and the lawful use of images, according to the doctrine of the Church, the consent of the fathers, and the decrees of the councils; to teach them that the saints offer up prayers for men, and that it is useful to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers and help. It further condemns those who maintain that the saints in rest ought not to be invoked, that they do not pray for men, that it is idolatry to invoke them, that it is contrary to Holy Scripture, &c., and that their relics and their tombs ought not to be venerated.

On the subject of images, the council teaches that those of our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and of the saints are to be placed in churches; that they ought to receive due veneration, not because they have any divinity or virtue in them, but because honour is thus reflected upon those whom they represent; by means of these representations the people are instructed in the mysteries of the faith, and by thus seeing the good deeds of the saints are led to bless God, and endeavour themselves to do likewise.

The council then proceeds to anathematise all who hold or teach any contrary doctrine.

Lastly, in order to remedy abuses, it declares that if in any Scriptural painting the Divinity is represented under any figure, the people should be warned that it is not intended that the Divinity can be seen by mortal eyes; further, that all things tending to superstition in the invocation of saints, the worship of their relics, and the right use of images, should be done away with; that care should be taken not to profane the festivals of the saints, &c.; that no new miracles or relics should be admitted without the bishop’s consent, and that any other abuses should be rectified by the bishop and provincial council.

These decrees were followed by one of reformation, consisting of twenty-two chapters, which relate to the regulars.

1. Orders that all shall observe the rule of their profession.

2. Forbids any regular to hold any sort of property.

3. Permits all monasteries, except those of the Capuchins and Franciscan Observantines, to hold property.

4. Forbids the religious to enter the service of any person, or to quit their convent without permission of the superior.

5. Charges that nuns shall strictly keep within their bounds, and forbids any nun to leave the convent, and any other person to enter it without the bishop’s permission.

6. Of the election of superiors.

7. Superiors of nunneries to be at least forty years of age, and eight years of profession.

8. Of monasteries under the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy See.

9. Orders that nunneries under the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy See shall be governed by the bishops.

10. Orders that the religious shall make confession, and communicate once a month.

11. Orders that in cases in which monasteries have parishes annexed to them, those who have charge of them shall be subject to the bishop in everything relating to the ministration of the sacraments, except the monastery of Clugny, those in which the generals of orders reside, and those whose abbots possess episcopal or temporal jurisdiction.

12. Directs that regulars shall publish and observe the censures, interdicts, &c., ordered by the pope and the bishops.

13. Of cases of precedency.

14. Directs that regulars guilty of any public scandal shall be punished by the superior within the time prescribed by the bishop.

15. Every profession made before sixteen years of age, and one of noviciate, to be null.

16. No engagements, &c., to be binding unless made within the last two months of the noviciate, and with the bishop’s permission; at the end of the noviciate the novice to be either sent out of the house, or admitted to profession at once.

17. No woman to take the veil until the bishop, or some one by him appointed, hath examined her as to her willingness, &c.

18. Excommunicates those who force women to take the veil against their will.

19. No complaints made by any one against the validity of his profession to be listened to unless made within the first five years.

20. The heads of orders to visit the monasteries committed to them.

21. Of the re-establishment of discipline.

22. Submits all regulars whatever to the enactments of this decree.

After this another decree, in twenty-one chapters, on general reformation, was read.

1. Of the duties of bishops: exhorts them to be modest and frugal in their way of living, and not to enrich their relatives with Church property.

2. Directs that the decrees of this council shall be received by every bishop in the first provincial council, and that the bishops shall promise obedience to the pope, and anathematise every heresy condemned by the council. Orders the same with respect to all beneficed men and universities.

3. Of excommunications.

4. Allows bishops in synod and the heads of monastic orders to act as they shall consider most conducive to the glory of God and the good of the Church, where the number of endowed masses is so great that they cannot be duly performed.

5. Relates to collations to benefices.

6. Relates to cases of episcopal proceedings against canons.

7. Is directed against the hereditary possession of benefices.

8. Exhorts all clerks to hospitality, and relates further to the conduct of governors of hospitals.

9. On the right of patronage, forbids to sell such right, and to unite benefices.

10. Orders four persons in every province to be elected, who shall judge ecclesiastical causes delegated to them by the legates of the Holy See.

11. Forbids to let out ecclesiastical property to farm upon consideration of any payment in advance, to the prejudice of successors.

12. Declares tithe to be of Divine appointment, and those who refuse it to be guilty of robbery, and excommunicated. Exhorts the faithful to give part of their property to the endowment of poor bishoprics and churches.

13. Enacts that all dues on account of funerals paid to the cathedral or parish church, which may have been diverted to the use of hospitals or other pious institutions, shall in future revert to the Church.

14. Forbids clerks to retain concubines or women of suspected reputation, either in their houses or villages, under pain of being deprived of a third of the revenue of their benefice after the first monition, of losing all the fruits of it after the second, and of being for ever deprived of it if they continue obstinate after the third. Orders that if after obeying, they return to their wicked course of life, they shall be excommunicated. Also provides for the punishment of unbeneficed clerks and bishops.

15. Enacts that the bastards of clerks shall be unable to serve in or to hold the churches which their fathers have served in or held.

16. Forbids to convert cures into simple benefices.

17. Reprobates the servility of certain bishops, who conducted themselves in a time-serving and fawning manner towards great men and the king’s officers, such as giving place to them in church, &c.; orders all bishops to abstain from such meanness.

18. Orders all the faithful to obey the sacred canons.

19. Insists upon the total cessation, throughout Christendom, of the detestable custom of duelling, which it declares to have been introduced by Satan for the ruin of souls. Enacts that all emperors, kings, princes, and other lords, granting a spot of ground for a duel, shall be, ipso facto, excommunicated, and deprived of the lordship of the town or place in which they permitted the duel. Sentences the duellists and their seconds to excommunication, loss of property, and perpetual infamy; and, if either of the parties die in the encounter, forbids him Christian burial. Also excommunicates the instigators, abettors, and even spectators of a duel.

20. Declares that the council looks to princes to support the Church in all her rights, and to take care that their subjects show due respect to the clergy; exhorts princes to observe the canons of the Church and the constitutions of the pope. Renews all canons and constitutions made in favour of the liberty and immunities of the clergy and the Church.

21. Declares that whatsoever clauses and words are contained in the decrees of reformation made under the sovereign pontiffs, Paul, Julius, and Pius, all are to be so understood, as that the authority of the holy see remains always untouched and entire.

A decree was also published upon the subject of indulgences, to this effect, that the Church, having received from Jesus Christ the power to grant indulgences, and having, through all ages, used that power, the council declares that their use shall be retained, as being very salutary to Christian persons, and approved by the holy councils; it then anathematises all who maintain that indulgences are useless, or that the Church has no power to grant them. At the same time, it desires that the ancient custom of the Church be adhered to, and that they be granted with care and moderation, forbidding all trafficking in them.

Further, the council exhorted all pastors to recommend to the observance of all the faithful, whatever had been ordered by the Church of Rome, established in this, or in any one of the œcumenical councils, and to impress upon them especially the due observance of the fasts and festivals of the Church.

The lists of books to be proscribed was referred to the pope, as also were the catechism, missal, and breviaries.

Then the secretary, standing up in the midst of the assembly, demanded of the fathers whether they were of opinion that the council should be concluded, and that the legates should request the pope’s confirmation of the decrees, &c. The answer in the affirmative was unanimous, with the exception of three. The cardinal president Moroni then dissolved the assembly amidst loud acclamations.

In a congregation held on the following Sunday, the fathers affixed their signatures, to the number of two hundred and fifty-five; viz., four legates, two cardinals, three patriarchs, twenty-five archbishops, one hundred and sixty-eight bishops, thirty-nine proctors, seven abbots, and several generals of orders.

The acts of the council were confirmed by a bull, bearing date January 6, 1564. The Venetians were the first to receive the Tridentine decrees. The kings of France, Spain, Portugal, and Poland, also received them, and they were published and received in Flanders, in the kingdom of Naples, and Sicily, in part of Germany, in Hungary, Austria, Dalmatia, and some part of South America; also amongst the Maronites. The Churches of England, Ireland, Scotland, Russia, Greece, Syria, Egypt, &c., &c., reject the authority of this council.

In France the Council of Trent is received generally as to doctrine, but not altogether as to discipline. Various regulations which were deemed incompatible with the usages of the kingdom, the liberties of the Gallican Church, the concordat, and the just authority of the king, were rejected.—Paolo Sarpi, Hist. of Council of Trent, by Courayer. Tom. 14. Conc. p. 725.

TRENTON (1801). Held in September 1801. Bishop White presiding in the house of bishops. A letter from Bishop Provost having been read, stating that he had resigned the episcopal office, the question of the admissibility of such a resignation was discussed. In this convention, the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England were adopted, with certain verbal alterations adapted to the local circumstances of the American Church.—Bishop White, Memoirs, p. 31.

TREVES (948). [Concilium Trevirense.] Held in 948. The legate Marinus, the Archbishop of Treves, and several bishops, here excommunicated Hugo, Count of Paris, and two pretended bishops, made by Hugo, the pseudo-archbishop of Rheims.—(See C. INGELHEIM, A.D. 948.) Tom. ix. Conc. p. 632.

TREVES (1238). Held on the Festival of St Matthew, 1238, Theodoric, the Archbishop; Rudolph, Bishop of Virdun; John, Bishop of Metz; and Roger, Bishop of Toul, being present. Forty-five canons were published.

1. Against the incendiaries of religious places. Declares that whereas the absolution of denounced incendiaries was reserved to the pope, in order to spare them the expense, &c., it shall be necessary to inform them, before denouncing them, that unless they shall make satisfaction before publication, they must make a voyage to Rome in order to obtain pardon: “ut sic territi ad satisfactionem facilius inducantur.”

2. Puts under an interdict places where any ecclesiastical booty or persons are detained. Permits divine service to be celebrated in a low tone in any convent that there may be in the place.

7. Condemns to prison and penitence any clerk celebrating in any place under interdict after admonition from his bishop.

10. Orders the priest, when celebrating, to wear the “camisia” or “rochette.”

16. Forbids the “Campanarii” to serve in the church during divine service without the “camisia.”

25. Reserves the absolution of clerks who have celebrated whilst under sentence of excommunication to the pope.

33. Forbids pastors, vicars, and rural deans to take cognisance of matrimonial causes.

35. Of the penances to be performed by male and female adulterers.

38. Forbids women to wear at night the dress of monks or regular canons.

43. Against coiners of false money. Orders the priests at places where coiners live to cease instantly a divinis.

44. Provides for the public denunciation of persons excommunicated for coining, every Sunday and holy day.

45. Revokes the Annum Domini gratiæ, on account of its abuse (see the following Council).—Mart., Vet. Scrip. Coll., tom. v. col. 126.

TREVES (1310). Held on the 29th of April 1310, in the Church of St Peter at Treves, by Baldwin, Archbishop of Treves. One hundred and fifty-six canons were published.

The first six relate to the plunderers and violators of ecclesiastical persons, property, and places, and orders that the parishes and properties of such persons be put under an interdict until they repent.

10. Forbids the custom of giving a feast upon appointment to a canonry, benefice, &c., and orders instead that a “cappa” of a certain value be presented.

14. Forbids certain dresses worn by many of the clergy.

15. Forbids the “damnable abuse” of presenting to benefices those who have not even received the tonsure.

18. Forbids priests, clerks in holy orders, and especially monks, to follow any worldly calling, to receive unjust gifts, or to sell justice. Bids them avoid gambling, secular shows, and all ornaments unsuited to their calling; not live on superfluous delicacies, and to follow sobriety. Offenders to be excommunicated after due monition.

19. Relates to the church officer called the matricularius. Orders that every parish priest, unless hindered by extreme poverty, shall have one such, either a clerk or at least a literate, able to respond by reading and chanting, at the Holy Office, notwithstanding any custom which may exist in some places where the labourers or others, merely illiterate laymen, attempt to do so.

29. Orders a total cessation a divinis in places where coiners of false money dwell.

30. Confirms canon 45 of the Synod of Treves, 1238, which annuls the privilege of the “year of grace,” by which canons claimed one year’s value of their benefices after their death.—(See TREVES, 1238.)

38–47. Of the Religious.

50. Against the Begardi, who called themselves Apostoli.

52. Excommunicates those who seize or in any way injure the messengers of the ecclesiastical judges, or those who carry their letters, or the letters themselves.

54. Forbids all feasting at funerals.

55. Orders that, in places where laymen are forbidden to go abroad with a light after the bell or horn has been sounded, clerks and monks shall observe the same.

56 and 57. Of anniversaries; the conduct of priests on such occasions, &c.

69. Directs that in every church there shall be on, before, or behind, or above the altar, an image, or sculpture, or writing, or picture, designating the saint in whose honour the altar is built.

72. Strictly forbids to close the churches against the laity.

73. Orders that wills be carried to the bishop within forty days from the death of the testator.

79. Against conjurors, sorcerers, &c.

80. Forbids the “sortes psalterii,” or endeavour to discover the secret things to come by looking into the Psalter or any part of Scripture.

82. Forbids all incantations. In collecting herbs, allows only the Lord’s Prayer and Creed to be said.

83. Declares that no times are to be regarded as lucky or unlucky.

84. Against those who predict events from the twelve signs of the Zodiac.

93. Enumerates thirty-nine cases in which the penitent is to be reserved to the bishop for absolution.

97. Forbids a priest to marry persons who are unknown to him.

99. Allows persons living in different parishes to be married in the church belonging to either, if they bring letters from the priest belonging to the other.

102. Orders all rectors, &c., to publish the sentences, &c., of the Church, boldly and without fear.

105. Declares absolutions forcibly obtained to be null and void.

112. Declares that, in consequence of many unskilful persons having taken upon themselves to practise and teach medicine and surgery in the province, wishing to be masters before they were pupils, no one should in future presume to teach or practise medicine or surgery in the province without the licence of some one of the bishops. For that it is proper that they should first undergo an examination as to learning and morality.

115. Of confirmation.

116. Of confession.

117. Of the same.

125. Directs that the finder of anything shall do all in his power to discover the loser, and shall cause it to be proclaimed in church, that if the loser cannot be found it shall be given to the poor of the place, for the benefit of the soul of the loser.

131. Declares that it is not lawful to rob in order to give the thing stolen in alms, and that to give largely does not justify rapine.

145. Declares that a wife may give alms and make offerings out of her own paternal property, even against her husband’s will. Moreover, that without his express leave she may give away bread, wine, and such like things, which everywhere, by laudable and approved custom, it is the wife’s part to dispense.

149. Declares that no one ought to be excommunicated but for mortal sin and contumacy,

151. Forbids all mendicant monks to appropriate to themselves any new mansions or benefices beyond their monasteries and enclosures.—Mart., Thes. Anec., tom. iv. col. 245.

TREVES (1548). Held in 1548, by John, Count of Isembourg, Archbishop of Treves, who presided. Ten chapters, and a decree against the concubinary clergy were published.—Tom. xiv. Conc. p. 606.

TREVES (1549). Held by John, Archbishop of Treves, in 1549. Twenty canons were published.

1. Forbids to believe, hold, or teach, any other than the Roman doctrine.

2, 3, 4. Of preachers.

6. Orders that the hours be duly said by clerks, and that those who cannot attend at the time in the choir shall say them privately.

9. Of the celebration of the mass.

10. Provides for lessening the number of festivals, and gives a list of those which shall in any case be retained. Reduces Good Friday to the rank of a semi-festival ending at noon.

11, 12. Of the religious and their houses.

15. Of schools.

17, 18. Of the immunity of churches.

19. Of the life and conversation of the clergy.

20. Provides that the heads of monasteries and colleges, and others of the clergy, shall be supplied with a copy of these canons.—Tom. xiv. Conc. p. 705.

TRIBUR (895). [Concilium Triburense.] Held in 895, at Tribur, a royal residence near Mayence. Twenty-two bishops were present, including Hatho, Archbishop of Mayence; Herman, Archbishop of Cologne; and Ratbode, Archbishop of Treves. King Arnulphus also attended, with many of the chief lords of his kingdom. It was here decreed not only that the bishopric of Bremen should, as heretofore, remain suffragan to Cologne, but that the archbishopric of Hamburg, which, on account of the troubles, had been removed to that city and united to the bishopric, should in future be so also. This, however, was set aside by Pope Sergius. Fifty-eight canons were published.

3. Declares that, with the king’s consent, it is ordered to all his nobles to seize those who refused to perform the penance due to their offences, and to bring them before the bishop.

4. Regulates the manner of disposing of the pecuniary mulct inflicted for wounding a priest; if the latter survived, the whole belonged to him; if he died, it was to be divided into three parts—one for his church, one for his bishop, and one for his relations.

5. Imposes five years’ penance for killing a priest, during which time the penitent might not eat meat nor drink wine, except on Sundays and festivals. At the end of the five years, he might be admitted into the Church, but not to communion, until the expiration of other five years, during which he was to fast three days in the week.

10. Renews the canon of the Council of Carthage, which enacts that a bishop shall not be deposed by fewer than twelve bishops; a priest by fewer than six; nor a deacon by fewer than three.

12. Restricts the solemn celebration of baptism to Easter and Whitsuntide.

13. Orders the division of tithe into four portions: 1, for the bishop; 2, for the clerk; 3, for the poor; and 4, for the fabric.

15. Orders that the dead be buried, if possible, at the cathedral church; if not, at the church belonging to a monastery, in order that they might benefit by the prayers of the monks; otherwise in the church to which they paid tithe.

16. Proves from Scripture, that no fee be taken for burials.

17. Forbids to bury laymen within the church.

18. Forbids chalices and patens of wood.

19. Orders that water be mixed with the wine in the chalice, but that there be twice as much wine as water.

26. Orders priests never to go forth without the “stola vel orarium.” He who killed a priest in his stole, on a journey, was to pay a threefold mulct.

30. Orders all due respect to the See of Rome, and enacts penalties against those who cause the death of Christians by enchantments.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 438.

TRIBUR (1076). Held in October 1076. The pope’s legates, with several German lords and some bishops, assembled in council, debated concerning the deposition of the Emperor Henry IV., in consequence of which he passed into Italy, and after the most humiliating concessions, obtained absolution from the pope, January 25, 1077.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 355.

TRIM (1291). Held on the Sunday after St Matthew’s Day, 1291. Nicholas M‘Motissa, Archbishop of Armagh, presiding. The four archbishops, all the suffragan bishops, all the cathedral chapters, by their deputies, and the other orders and degrees of the clergy, unanimously agreed in this synod to maintain and defend each other, in all courts, and before all judges, ecclesiastical or secular, against all lay encroachments upon, and violations of, their rights, liberties, or customs; and further, amply to indemnify those of their messengers, executors of their orders, &c., who might receive loss or damage in the performance of their duty.

Other articles of agreement were drawn up, pledging them to mutual co-operation in enforcing sentences of excommunication, &c.—Bishop Mant, Hist. Irish Church, p. 17.

TROIES (867). [Concilium Tricassinum]. Held Oct. 25, 867. About twenty bishops, from the kingdoms of Charles and Lothaire, were present, who wrote a long letter to Pope Nicholas I., in which they give the history of the affair of Ebbo, and of the priests whom he had ordained. They, moreover, besought the pope not to interfere with the rule laid down by his predecessor, and not to permit in future the deposition of any bishop without the intervention of the holy see. This was in accordance with the principles of the false decretals of the pope.—(See C. SOISSONS, 866.) Tom. viii. Conc. p. 868.

TROIES (878). Held August 1st, 878, by Pope John VIII., who presided over thirty bishops. The former had come into France, to escape from the violence of Lambert, Duke of Spoleto. In the first session, the pope exhorted the bishops to compassionate the injuries which the Roman Church had suffered from Lambert and his accomplices, and to excommunicate them. The prelates, however, declined to act until the arrival of their brethren. In the second session, John read an account of the ravages committed by Lambert; after which, the council declared him to be worthy of death and anathema.

The Archbishop of Arles presented a petition against bishops and priests leaving one church for another; and also against persons deserting their wives, in order to marry other women. In the third session, the bishops declared their consent to the pope’s propositions. Hincmar of Laon, whose eyes had been put out, presented a complaint against his uncle, and demanded to be judged according to the canons. Hincmar of Rhiems required that the cause might be delayed, to give him time to reply to the complaint. Further, the sentence of condemnation passed against Formosus, formerly Bishop of Porto, and Gregory a nobleman was read, anathematising them without hope of absolution; as also were the canons forbidding the translation of bishops, viz., those of Sardica, Africa, and of Pope Leo. Seven canons were published.

1. Orders that temporal lords shall show due respect to bishops, and that they shall not sit down in their presence without their permission.

7. Forbids to receive anonymous accusations against any person.

TROIES (1104). Held in 1104, by the legate Richard, Bishop of Albano, whom Pascal II. had sent into France to absolve King Philip. The council was very numerous, and amongst those present we find Ivo of Chartres. Hubert, Bishop of Senlis, accused of simony, cleared himself by oath. The election of the Abbot Godefroi, by the people of Amiens, to the bishopric of that town, was approved; and in spite of the abbot’s resistance, he was compelled to consent to it.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 738.

TROIES (1107). Held in 1107, by Pope Pascal II., who presided. The main object of this council was to excite the zeal of men for the Crusade; besides which, sentence of excommunication was denounced against those who should violate the Trève de Dieu. The freedom of elections of bishops was asserted and established, and the condemnation of investitures repeated. Several German bishops were on various accounts suspended.

Mansi adds five canons to those usually attributed to this council.

1. Orders that any one receiving investiture at the hands of a layman shall be deposed, as well as the person ordaining or consecrating him.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 754.

TROIES (1128). Held January 13, 1128, by the legate Matthew, Bishop of Albano, assisted by the Archbishops of Rheims and Sens, thirteen bishops, and by St Bernard, St Stephen, and other abbots. A rule was drawn up for the order of the Templars, instituted in 1118, prepared by authority of the pope and of the patriarch of Jerusalem. In this council the white dress was given to the Templars.—Tom. x. Conc. p. 922.

TROSLE (near SOISSONS) (909). [Concilium Trosleianum.] Held June 26, 909, Herivius, Archbishop of Rheims, presiding. The decrees of this council are signed by twelve prelates, and are contained in fifteen chapters; they are in the form rather of long exhortations than of canons, showing the pitiable condition of the Church.

1. Orders due respect to the Church, to clerks, and to monks.

3. Relates to the reform of abuses in monastic institutions.

4. Anathematises those who pillage the Church.

5. Anathematises those who injure and persecute the clergy.

6. Is directed against those who refuse tithe, and appears to show that the clergy at this time enjoyed the entire use of all the property, &c., of their respective benefices, subject, however, to the oversight of the bishop in their use of it.

7. Against rapine and robbery, and orders restitution.

8. Is directed against the violent abduction of women and incest.

9. Forbids priests to have women in their houses.

10. Exhorts all Christians to charity, and to avoid luxury and excess.

11. Forbids perjury and oath-breaking.

12. Is directed against passionate and litigious persons.

13. Against liars and homicides.

14. Denounces those who plunder the property of bishops after their death.

15. Contains an exhortation to all the faithful to abstain from sin, and to do their duty.—Tom. ix. Conc. p. 520.

TURIN (401). [Concilium Turinense.] Held between 398 and 401, to settle certain differences which had arisen amongst the Gallican prelates. The bishops of the province of Aix, Proculus of Marseilles, Simplicius of Vienne, and the Bishop of Arles, were present. As Turin was at that time under the metropolitan of Milan, it is conjectured that Simplicianus of Milan convoked it.

The first question settled in the council was that of Proculus of Marseilles, who (although that see was not in the province) desired to be recognised as metropolitan of the province of Narbonne. The council, for the sake of peace, granted to Proculus personally, but not to his see, the right of primacy which he claimed, declaring, however, that after his death, the metropolitan should be a bishop of the province itself.

2. The council took into consideration the differences between the archbishops of Arles and Vienne, who both pretended to the primacy of Viennese Gaul. The decision was, that he of the two who could prove his city to be the metropolis of the province as to civil matters, should be considered as the lawful metropolitan, and in the meantime they were exhorted to live in peace.

3. The excuses of the Bishops Octavius, Ursion, Remigius, and Triferius were considered. These prelates were accused of having conferred orders irregularly and uncanonically. The council decided that, in this case, indulgence should be granted to the four bishops; but that in future, any bishops so violating the ancient decrees of the Church should be deprived of the right of ordaining, and of all voice in synodical assemblies; and that those who should be so ordained should be deposed. This canon was confirmed in the Council of Riez, A.D. 439.

Several other regulations relating to the affairs of the Church were also made. The Ithacians were condemned (see C. BORDEAUX, 385), and eight canons in all were published.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 1155.

TYANA (367). [Concilium Tyanense.] Held in 367. There were present in this council Eusebius of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, Athanasius of Ancyra, Pelagius of Laodicea, St Gregory of Nazianzum (the elder), Zeno of Tyre, Paul of Emesa, and many others who had declared their belief in the consubstantiality of the Son at Antioch, in 363. The letters of Pope Liberius and the bishops of Italy, Sicily, Africa, and Gaul, were read, which had been written to wipe out the disgrace attaching to them on account of the Council of Ariminum. Eustathius of Sebastia, formerly deposed, was re-established; and a synodical letter written to all the bishops of the East, exhorting them to testify in writing their rejection of the acts of Ariminum, and their adherence to the faith of Nicea.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 836.

TYRE (335). The Arians, through Eusebius of Nicomedia, obtained the convocation of this council from the Emperor Constantine, under pretext of thereby healing the divisions which existed amongst the bishops; but really to crush St Athanasius.

The bishops who were summoned to attend were selected by the Eusebian party, and came from Egypt, Lybia, Asia, and most of the eastern provinces; the most noted were Maris of Chalcedon, Theognius of Nicea, Ursaces of Singedon, and Valens of Mursa, in all about sixty Arian bishops attended. There were also a few bishops present who were not of the Eusebian faction, as St Maximus of Jerusalem, Marcellus of Ancyra, Alexander of Thessalonica, Asclepas of Gaza, &c.

Constantine sent the Count Dionysius to keep order, who, as the event showed, was completely devoted to the Eusebian cause, and by his violence destroyed all liberty of debate.

St Athanasius, compelled by the order of the emperor, came to the council, attended by forty-nine Egyptian bishops, amongst whom were Potamon and St Paphnutius.

No accusation was brought against St Athanasius on account of his faith, but he was arraigned for having killed a Meletian bishop named Arsenius, and that Macarius, his deacon, had forcibly broken into a church whilst Ischyras, a pretended priest, was celebrating, and overturned the altar and broken the sacred chalice. He was made to stand as a criminal, whilst Eusebius and the others sat as his judges, against which treatment St Potamon of Heraclea made a vehement protest, heaping reproaches upon Eusebius.

From the very first the Egyptian bishops protested against the proceedings, but their objections were not heeded.

Sozomen says that St Athanasius appeared frequently before the council, and defended himself admirably, listening quietly to all the calumnious accusations brought against him, and replying with patience and wonderful sagacity. However, his enemies, not contented with the charges which they had already brought against him, dared to impeach his purity, and introduced into the council a debauched woman, whom they had bribed to assert that she had been ravished by him. The utter falsehood of the charge was, however, triumphantly proved; for St Athanasius having deputed one of his priests, named Timothy, to reply for him, the woman, who was ignorant even of the person of the holy bishop, mistaking Timothy for him, declared that he was the man who had offered violence to her at such a time and place.

Neither were his accusers more successful in their endeavour to fix upon him the murder of Arsenius, who, in the midst of their false statements, appeared before the council alive. Foiled in both these infamous attempts, the Arians were filled with fury, and attempted his life, in which they were prevented only by the officers of Constantine. Nothing now remained but the charge of having broken the chalice, and there being no proof ready, and the clergy of the country where the offence was said to have taken place having solemnly sworn to the falsehood of the charge, a deputation of Arians was sent under pretence of making inquiry on the spot (in the Mareotis), but in reality to get up a charge against him. In the meantime Athanasius, seeing that his condemnation, by fair means or foul, was resolved, withdrew from Tyre. The deputies upon their return declared that they had found the charge correct; and upon this statement sentence of deposition was pronounced, on the plea of his having been convicted of a part of the accusation brought against him.

More than fifty bishops protested against the acts of this assembly.—Tom. ii. Conc. p. 435.

Copyright ©1999-2018 e-Catholic2000.com