22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
In this age of growing ecumenicism, many scholars are turning to the history of the sixteenth century for a fresh examination of the origins of those ideas and institutions which continue to divide the Christian community. During these years of the widely publicized meetings of an ecumenical council sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church, many are turning specifically to the canons and decrees drafted by the Council of Trent for a fresh study of the extent to which they do or must divide Christians. But fully to understand these Tridentine decisions from an ecumenical perspective requires not only a knowledge of their texts and of the debates from which they emerged. It requires also a knowledge of the hostile reactions which they aroused among the many Christians who would not accept these decisions or the authority of those who promulgated them. An interesting spectrum of such reactions can be found among French criticisms of Trent published during the sixteenth century. Of these publications, three semto me to demonstrate this proposition neatly: one by a distinguished French theologian, John Calvin; a second by a dustinguished French Jurisconsult, Charles Dumoulin; a third by a prominent French lawyer and historian, Innocent Gentillet. These works have not been ignored by such experts on the historiography of Trent as professor Jedin. But I feel they merit a more detailed and more considered examination than they have as yet received. This paper sketches some of the lines upon which such an examination might proceed.
This is a slightly revised version of a paper read at the joint session of the American Society of Church History and the American Catholic Historical Association in Philadelphia, December 29, 1963.
1. Jedin, Hubert, Das Konzil von Trient: ein Überblick über die Erforschung seiner Geschishte (Rome, 1948), pp. 44, 67–69, 71–73.Google Scholar Cf.Calenzio, Generoso, Esame Critico-Letterario delle Opereriguard-anti la Storia del Coneilio di Trento (Rome & Turin, 1869), pp. 2–3, 5–6.Google Scholar
2. A convenient copy of the Latin edition can be found in Baum, , Cunitz, , and Reuss, (ed.), Ioannis Calvini Opera, VII, pp. 365–506.Google Scholar The French edition, titled Les Actes du Concile de Trente, avec le remede contre la poison (1548), is somewhat less accessible. I have used the copy in the Folger Shakespeare Library, and all my references are to this edition, hereafter cited as Calvin, Actes.
3. I would not, however, argue that Calvin's precise definition of his doctrine of predestination was quite as rigid at this stage in his career as it was among his most devoted followers. In fact a comparison between his largely favorable reaction to Trent's condemnation in canon 23 attached to the decree of justification, of an extreme doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (Calvin, , Actes, pp. 278–280)Google Scholar, and the affirmation of such a view of perseverance by the Synod of Dort, head 5, article 6, leads me to suspect that Calvin himself might nbt have been able to subscribe completely to this most quintessentially Calvinist definition of predestination.
4. Calvin, , Actes, pp. 233–234:Google Scholar “Le Prophete ne dit pas seulenient que le juste vit de foy, mais qu'il vivra.” Cf. Habakkuk 2:4 “…but the just shall live by his faith.” (Italics mine.)
5. Smits, Luchesius, Saint Augustin dans l'oeuvre de Jean Calvin (Assen, Louvainc, Paris, 1957-1958), II, pp. 88–91Google Scholar, identifies and tabulates these references.
6. See particularly Nijenhuis, W., Calvinus Oecumenicus (the Hague, 1959), p. 247 and passimCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf., however, McNeill, John T., “Calvin as an Ecumenical Churchman,” Church History, XXXII, 4 (12. 1963), especially pp. 390-91.Google Scholar
7. Calvin, , Actes, p. 333.Google Scholar
8. Ibid., pp. 109 ff.
9. The fullest biography of Dumoulin is Julien Brodeau, La vie de Maistre Charles du Molin, in Dumoulin, Charles, Ominia quae extant opera (Paris, 1681, 5 vols.), I, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar For text of synodical condemnations of his Collatio et unio quatuor Evangelistarum, see Quick, John, Synodicon in Gallia Reformata (London, 1692, 2 vols.), I, p. 67.Google Scholar For analysis of this work, see Simon, Richard, Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam, 1693), pp. 772-74Google Scholar; cf. p. 745 for comparison to Calvin's harmony.
10. Charles Dumoulin, Conseil sur le fait du Concile de Trente; Consilium super actis Conciliis Tridentini; Pierre Grégoire, Response au Conseil donné par Charles du Molin sur la dissuasion de la publication du Concile de Trente en France, republished in Dumoulin, , Opera (1681 ed.), V, pp. 347–64, 365–93, 395–444.Google Scholar Dumoulin's brief is here-after cited as Dumoulin, Conseil. Harold Baumnn of the University of Oregon first called this work to my attention. For authoritative comment on it, see Martin, Victor, Le Gallicanisme et in réforme catholique (Paris, 1919), pp. 70–73.Google Scholar
11. Dumoulin, Conseil, articles 5 and 6, re the Pope's role; 7 and 8, re the role of the German Protestant princes. In arguing that the plaintiffs bad not been summoned (article 7), Dumoulin may well have meant that he felt they were not properly summoned. Or perhaps he was simply misinformed.
12. Ibid., article 6.
13. Ibid., article 9.
14. Ibid., article 18.
15. Ibid., articles 26 and ff.
16. Ibid., articles 38 and ff.
17. Ibid., article 64. Cf. articles 58, 59, 92 (French version), references to others of Dumoulin's works.
18. Ibid., article 99.
19. For biographical sketches, see articles in Nouvelle biographic générale, XIX, pp. 948–50Google Scholar; Eug. and Em. Haag, , La France protestante, V, pp. 247-48.Google Scholar
20. Ibid. I have used the Folger Shakespeare Library copy of the 1586 French edition; hereafter cited as Gentillet, Bureau. For another recent analysis of this work, which concentrates attention on Gentillet's remarks about French participation in Trent, see de Félice, Philippe, “A propos d'un Concile: le Bureau du Concile de Trente par Innocent Gentillet,” Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire du protestantisme français, CVIII (1962), pp. 185–191.Google Scholar
21. Gentillet, Bureau, sig. iii verso.
22. Ibid., pp. 279 ff.
23. Ibid., pp. 329 ff. For a discussion of the drafting of these petitions, see Martin, V., op. cit., pp. 219–29.Google Scholar
24. Ibid., p. 10. Gentullet's relative ireuicism is also noted by de Félice, , op. cit., p. 191.Google Scholar
