classes, of which the fourth was devoted to the bearing of the subject on the clergy, consisting of two propositionsthe fifth and sixth-artfully drawn up to justify rejection, while preserving the appearance of presenting the subject for deliberation-That matrimony was preferable to celibacy, and that God bestowed grace on the married rather than on the single.-That the priests of the Western Church could lawfully contract marriage, notwithstanding the canons; that to deny this was to condemn matrimony, and that all were at liberty to marry who did not feel themselves graced with the gift of chastity.'

The disputation on the various questions connected with matrimony commenced the next day, and was continued at intervals for six months. Meanwhile there were negotiations on foot between Rome and Vienna, negotiations complicated by various factors. The Pope and the Curia were wrathful at the reforms enacted and projected by the council, and were anxious to dissolve it at any cost, while the Emperor Ferdinand was resolved to prolong its sessions until he should obtain his desires. Then he had had his son Maximilian, King of Bohemia, elected as King of the Romans, 24 November, 1562, sorely against the will of Pius IV., who had vainly threatened to deprive the Lutheran electors of their votes and then secretly to restore them on condition of their electing Philip II. of Spain. Failing in this, as the Holy See claimed the right of confirming the election, he demanded that Maximilian should take an oath practically of allegiance to Rome, which was naturally refused. Maximilian, in fact, had long been suspected of Lutheran proclivities; in 1557 we find him described as keeping a married Lutheran preacher, while the most influential members of his court were Lutherans, and he felt the necessity of friendly relations with the

1 Art. v.-Lettere del Arcivesc. Calini (Baluz et Mansi IV. 295).—Le Plat, V. 674.

Lutheran princes, whose support was indispensable against the Turk. The ecclesiastical electors (Mainz, Trèves, and Cologne) had hesitated to give him their votes till they had assurances which satisfied them, but not the more incredulous Curia. Philip II. seems to have had no aspirations for the imperial crown, but he was fanatically opposed to any concessions to the heretics, whether these concerned the use of the cup or priestly marriage, and through his representatives at Rome and Trent he ceaselessly brought to bear against them the utmost weight of his great influence.1

Our knowledge of the moves in this complicated game is but fragmentary. We hear of a letter, in April 1562, in which Ferdinand claims priestly marriage as a thing promised to him by Pius in order to have an end put to the council, and other letters in which he threatens that if his requests are denied he will assemble a national council and proclaim an Interim worse than that of Charles V.; or else that Germany would withdraw from the Roman obedience, as there was no other remedy to satisfy his people. These threats greatly troubled the Pope, who begged Philip to send to Germany a personage of importance to represent that if Ferdinand separated himself from the Holy See he would become a heretic and his children would be incapacitated from inheriting his dominions. Not relying on Philip's intervention, in May he sent Cardinal Morone ostensibly as legate to the council, but with instructions to tarry there only twenty-four hours, and hasten to Vienna. In reporting this to Philip, his ambassador Vargas expresses the liveliest apprehensions that it would result in the concession of the cup to the laity and marriage to priests, so earnestly demanded by the Germans and

1 Döllinger, Beiträge zur politischen, kirchlichen und Cultur-Geschichte, I. 241–3, 329–40, 397–8, 526–9, 554 (Regensburg, 1862).

This is a series of despatches between Philip and his envoys which throw much light on the secret history of this tortuous diplomacy.

French, for the Pope had shown himself so yielding and so inclined to make the grant, and he could readily control the council if he did not care himself to take the responsibility of what would set the world ablaze. What terms were reached between Ferdinand and Morone it would be impossible to say, but that a bargain was concluded was generally understood. In fact, in March 1564 Pius admitted in consistory that he had made promises to Ferdinand in order to hasten the dissolution of the council.1 Possibly it was in concert with this that, as reported in August 1563 by the nuncio Delfini from Vienna, the three ecclesiastical electors, the Archbishop of Salzburg, and the Duke of Bavaria held a conference, in which it was resolved to unite with the Emperor in an appeal for bulls permitting priestly marriage and communion in both elements.2 In pursuance of this, early in September Ferdinand wrote to his ambassadors at Trent that he had called together in Vienna the deputies of the electors and princes of the empire, who, after mature deliberation, had determined to ask these concessions of the Pope and not of the council. He enclosed a protocol of the demand, but as it was not fully settled, it was to be communicated to no one but to Philip's ambassador, the Count of Luna, whereupon Philip persuaded him to withhold it until after the council should be dissolved. A further move in the game, with the same purpose, was a promise, later in the autumn, by Pius, that when the council should be out of the

1 Döllinger, op. cit. pp. 523, 545-6, 555.

way he

2 Lettere del Nunzio Visconti, n. LXIX (Ed. Amstelod. II. 299). This and the concluding letters are not in Mansi's edition.

Sarpi tells us (Istoria del Concilio Tridentino, Lib. VIII. Ed. Helmstat, II. 315) that in the spring of 1563 the Bavarians rose in revolt and demanded the cup and priestly marriage, when the Duke was obliged to make a promise to his Diet that, if the concessions were not made in June by either the council or the Pope he would himself grant them. The threatened defection of this Catholic stronghold caused such alarm that the legates despatched Niccolo Ormanetto to the Duke to induce him to withdraw his promise, under a pledge that the council would take such action as would satisfy his people.

3 Pallavicini, Lib. XXII. cap. 10.—Döllinger, I. 568.

would send a legate, with full powers to dispense in the matters of the cup, of clerical marriage, and of the retention of Church lands, while Maximilian should treat with the Protestants for their return to the Church under these concessions.1

Evidently the honest Germans were ill fitted to cope with Italian diplomacy. Relying on papal promises, they held their hands off from the council, which enabled the Pope to control it absolutely through his legates. Accordingly it went on its accustomed way to render the breach with Protestantism as impassable as possible. Pallavicini doubtless correctly represents its views when he remarks, concerning the princes who exerted themselves to secure sacerdotal marriage, that they seemed to consider that the council had been convoked for the purpose not of condemning but of contenting the heretics, whom they proposed to convert by gratifying in place of repressing their contumacious desires.3

This,

minute

The result of thus skilfully shielding the council from all pressure from Germany and France was that the question of retaining sacerdotal celibacy was prevented from becoming the subject of serious debate. indeed, was a foregone conclusion. In the account, transmitted from day to day by Archbishop Calini to Cardinal Cornaro, in which all the details of internal discussion and external intrigue attainable by a quick-witted member of the council were reported, there is no allusion to the matter. No debates or diversity of opinion are mentioned, no intimation that the matter was regarded as open to a doubt, and even the appeals made by the Emperor and other potentates are passed over in

silence, for the very sufficient reason that the papal legates, who controlled all the business of the council, refused to allow them to be read. In their reply to the Emperor's remonstrances, indeed, they declared that to have such a subject publicly broached in the council would create a fearful scandal throughout Christendom, and Pius IV. approved of their answer as the best that could be given. It is no wonder, therefore, that in the correspondence of the nuncio Visconti the only allusion to the matter is a simple reference, under date of 22 March, 1563, to the demand previously made by the Duke of Bavaria.3

2

In fact, when, on March 4, the 5th and 6th articles were reached, they were both unanimously pronounced heretical without any prolonged debate. Doctor Juan de Ludeña pronounced a "disputation" on the subject, the tone of which showed that the result was already decided, and that the only disposition of the council was to vilify those who desired the abrogation of celibacy. A discussion, however, then arose as to the power of the Pope to dispense the clergy, both regular and secular, from the obligation of celibacy, and on this point there was considerable diversity of opinion, occupying numerous successive meetings in its settlement. The majority were in favour of the papal power, and its exercise in the existing condition of the Church was even recommended by those who recognised the evils of the system, but shrank from the responsibility of themselves introducing the innovation.

1 See the apologetic letter of the nuncio to the Emperor, 19 January, 1562 (Le Plat, op. cit. V. 320). Ferdinand remonstrated earnestly, but did not venture to rebel against their decision (Ibid. 351--60).

2 Ibid. p. 388.

3 Lettere del Nunzio Visconti (Baluz. et Mansi, III. 453).

4 Disputat. Joann. de Ludegna (Harduin. X. 359). The learned doctor presents his argument in the form of a colloquy between himself and Calvin, and its spirit may be gathered from the first speech of Calvin, in which he is made to declare that he is endeavouring to find arguments with which to defend himself and his apostate strumpets.