PART II.

SYMBOLICAL WRITINGS OF CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS.

I. -The Catholic Formularies.

BEFORE we proceed to the treatment of our subject, we must enquire into the public confessions of Catholics as well as Protestants. It is a matter of course that those formularies only are here understood, wherein the peculiar and opposite doctrines of the two confessions are set forth, and not by any means those, wherein the elder class of Protestants, in accordance with Catholics, have expressed a common belief. The Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, and in general all the doctrinal decrees, which the first four general councils have laid down in respect to the Trinity, and to the person of Christ, those Protestants, who are faithful to their Church, recognize in common with Catholics; and on this point the Lutherans, at the commencement of the Augsburg confession, as well as in the Smalcald articles, solemnly declared their belief. Not less explicit and public were the declarations of the Reformed. These formularies constitute the common property of the separate Churches-the precious dowry which the overwise daughters carried away with them from the maternal house to their new settlements: they cannot accordingly be matter of discussion here, where we have only to speak of the disputes which occasioned the separation, but not of those remaining bonds of union, to which the severed yet cling. We shall first speak of those writings, wherein, at the springing up

of dissensions, the Catholic Church declared her primitive domestic laws.

1. The Council of Trent. Soon after the commencement of the controversies, of which Luther was the author, but whereof the cause lay hidden in the whole spirit of that age, the desire from many quarters was expressed, and by the Emperor Charles V. warmly represented to the Papal court, that a general council should undertake the settlement of these disputes. But the very complicated nature of the matters themselves, as well as numerous obstacles of a peculiar kind, which have seldom been impartially appreciated, did not permit the opening of the council earlier than the year 1545, under pope Paul III. After several long interruptions, one of which lasted ten years, the council, in the year 1563, under the pontificate of Pius IV, was, on the close of the twenty-fifth session, happily concluded. The decrees regard dogma and discipline. Those regarding the former, are set forth, partly in the form of treatises, separately entitled decretum or doctrina, partly in the form of short propositions, called canones. The former describe, sometimes very circumstantially, the Catholic doctrine; the latter declare in terse and pithy terms against the prevailing errors in doctrine. The disciplinary ordinances, with the title Decretum de Reformatione, will but rarely engage our attention.

2. The second writing, which we must here name, is the Tridentine or Roman catechism, with the title Catechismus Romanus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini. The fathers of the Church, assembled at Trent, felt, themselves, the want of a good catechism for general use, although very serviceable works of that kind were then not altogether wanting. These, even during the celebration of the council, increased to a great quantity.

VOL. I.

2

None, however, gave perfect satisfaction; and it was resolved, that one should be composed and published by the council itself. In fact, the council examined the outline of one prepared by a committee; but this, for want of practical utility and general intelligibleness, it was compelled to reject. At length, when the august assembly was on the point of being dissolved, it saw the necessity of renouncing the publication of a catechism, and of concurring in the proposal of the Papal legates, to leave to the Holy See the preparation of such a work. The holy father selected, for this important task, three distinguished theologians, namely, Leonardo Marino, archbishop of Lanciano; Egidio Foscarari, bishop of Modena; and Francisco Fureiro, a Portuguese Dominican. They were assisted by three cardinals, and the celebrated philologist, Paulus Manutius, who was to give the last finish to the Latin diction and style of the work.

It appeared in the year 1566, under pope Pius IV, and, as a proof of its excellence, the various provinces of the Church, some even by numerous synodal decrees, -hastened publicly to introduce it. This favourable reception, in fact, it fully deserved, from the pure evangelical spirit which was found to pervade it; from the unction and clearness with which it was written, and from that happy exclusion of scholastic opinions, and avoidance of scholastic forms, which was generally desired. It was, nevertheless, designed merely as a manual for pastors in the ministry, and not to be a substitute for children's catechisms, although the originally continuous form of its exposition was afterwards broken up into questions and answers.

But now it may be asked, whether it possess really a symbolical authority and symbolical character? This question cannot be answered precisely in the

affirmative; for, in the first place, it was neither published, nor sanctioned, but only occasioned, by the Council of Trent. Secondly, according to the destination prescribed by the Council of Trent, it was not, like regular formularies, to be made to oppose any theological error, but only to apply to practical use the symbol of faith already put forth. Hence, it answers for other wants, and is accordingly constructed in a manner far different, from public confessions of faith. This work, also, does not confine itself to those points of belief merely, which, in opposition to the Protestant communities, the Catholic Church holds; but it embraces all the doctrines of the Gospel; and hence it might be named (if the usage of speech and the peculiar objects of all formularies were compatible with such a denomination), a confession of the Christian Church in opposition to all non-Christian creeds. If, from the reason first stated, the Roman catechism be devoid of a formal universal sanction of the Church, so it wants, from the second reason assigned, all the internal qualities and the special aim which formularies are wont to have. In the third place, it is worthy of notice, that on one occasion, in a controversy touching the relation of grace to freedom, the Jesuits asserted before the supreme authorities of the Church, that the catechism possessed not a Symbolical character; and no declaration in contradiction to their opinion was pronounced.

But, if we refuse to the Roman catechism the character of a public confession, we by no means deny it a great authority, which, even from the very circumstance that it was composed by order of the Council of Trent, undoubtedly belongs to it. In the next place, as we have said, it enjoys a very general approbation from the

teaching Church, and can especially exhibit the many recommendations, which on various occasions the sovereign pontiffs have bestowed on it. We shall accordingly often refer to it, and use it as a very important voucher for Catholic doctrine; particularly where the declarations of the Council of Trent are not sufficiently ample and detailed.

3. The Professio Fidei Tridentina, stands in a similar relation.

4. Shortly after the times of the Council of Trent, and in part during its celebration, there arose within the Catholic Church doctrinal controversies, referring mostly to the relation between grace and freedom, and to subjects of a kindred nature; and hence, even for our purposes, they are not without importance. For the settlement of the dispute, the Apostolic See saw itself forced to issue several constitutions, wherein it was obliged to enter into the examination of the matter in debate. To these constitutions belong especially the bulls, published by Innocent X, against the five propositions of Jansenius, and the bull Unigenitus, by Clement XI. We may undoubtedly say of these constitutions, that they possess no symbolical character, for they only note certain propositions as erroneous, and do not set forth the doctrine opposed to the error, but suppose it to be already known. But a formulary of faith must not merely reject error; it must state doctrine. As the aforesaid bulls, however, rigidly adhere to the decisions of Trent, and are composed quite in their spirit; as they moreover have reference to many important questions, and settle, though only in a negative way, these questions in the sense of the above-named decrees; we shall occasionally recur to them, and illustrate by their aid many a Catholic dogma.