^{page 385 note 2} Alberigo, Giussepe, ‘The Council of Trent. New Views on the occasion of its Fourth Centenary’, Concilium, 7 (1965), 78–79Google Scholar. Note the paucity of references to Pole in Rückert, Hanns, Die Rechtfertigungslehre auf dem Tridentinischen Konzil, Bonn, 1925.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 3} Rev.McNabb, Vincent, , O. P., ‘Cardinal Pole's Eirenicon’, The Dublin Review, 198 (Jan.-Feb., March, 1936), p. 151Google Scholar. See Corpus Tridentinum, II.422, lines 45–51 and 423, lines 1–19 for 13th January statement by Pole on the nature of the Council.

^{page 385 note 4} ibid., pp. 152–3.

^{page 386 note 1} ibid., p. 153.

^{page 386 note 2} ibid., pp. 156 and 159.

^{page 386 note 3} Cantimori, Delio, ‘Italy and the Papacy’, The New Cambridge Modem History, Vol. II, The Reformation 1520–59, p. 270Google Scholar. For others without the Church see Delio Cantimori and Feist, E., Per la Storia degli Eretici Italiani del Secolo XVI in Europa, Reale Accademia d'ltalia, Studi e Documenti, Vol. XV, Roma, 1937Google Scholar. Included is a portion of the commentary on John 1 by Lelio Sozzini, pp. 61–78. References may be found to Philip [sic, Melanchthon?] on pp. 77 and 78.

^{page 386 note 4} Geiselmann, Josef Rupert, ‘scripture, Tradition, and the Church: An Ecumenical Problem’, Christianity Divided, edited by Callahan, Daniel J., Oberman, Heiko A. and O'Hanlon, Daniel J., S.J., , Sheed and Ward, Stagbooks, London, 1962, p. 43Google Scholar. The pertinent literature on the decree is listed in Jedin, , Trent, II, p. 52, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 5} ibid., pp. 47–48.

^{page 387 note 1} Jedin, , Trent, I, p. 367.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 2} Cajetan, Sadoleto, Marino Grimani, the Dominican Clement Araneus, Ambrosius Catharinus and Peter Martyr Vermigli. See Anderson, Marvin, ‘Luther's Sola Fide in Italy: 1542–1551’, Church History, XXXVII (1968), or 1969.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 3} F. F. Bruce refers to this in a recent (1963) commentary on Romans, citing Pole's warning. Professor Bruce comments that several Catholics held to ‘sola fide’. See Bruce, F. F., The Epistle to the Romans, Tyndale Press, London, 1963, p. 38n to p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 4} C.T. V.663, n. 2. Translated in Jedin, Seripando, 378.

^{page 388 note 1} Jedin, , Trent, II, p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 2} ibid., pp. 172–3.

^{page 388 note 3} ibid., p. 50. That is, until 1555 when Caraffa became Pope Paul IV. See McNally, Robert, ‘The Council of Trent and the German Protestants’, Theological Studies, 25(1964), 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and for the fundamental study overlooked by McNally see Stupperich, Robert, ‘Die Reformatoren und das Tridentinum’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschkhte, XLVII(1956), 20–63.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 4} ibid., p. 55.

^{page 388 note 5} ibid., p. 64. Jedin can also call this appeal to Scripture a Lutheran warning.

^{page 389 note 1} ibid., p. 69.

^{page 389 note 2} ibid., pp. 74–75.

^{page 389 note 3} ibid., p. 75.

^{page 389 note 4} Crehan, F. J., S.J., , ‘The Bible in the Roman Catholic Church From Trent to the Present Day’, The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, p. 204Google Scholar: ‘The sense of the declaration was to make the Vulgate a reliable source of dogmatic arguments for theological teaching and debate. The ground of this reliability was not its relation to the originals, close or otherwise, but the fact that it had been for so many centuries in constant use for this purpose by the church, which could not have used it for so long without engaging thereby its supreme teaching authority.’ The reaction of Pole and Seripando to this use of the Vulgata suggests their opposition to the et … et which permitted pari pietatis affectu for tradition. This final concession in terminology of the decree did not change the thing of partim … partim held by the majority. That on 6th April Bonuccio even reacted to ‘similarly’ suggests the nature of compromise read out on 8th April in the words et … et.

^{page 389 note 5} Jedin, Hubert, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent: Cardinal Seripando, Herder, St. Louis, 1947, p. 279.Google Scholar

^{page 389 note 6} ibid., p. 290, for Pole's toleration of vernacular translations.

^{page 390 note 1} ibid., p. 279.

^{page 390 note 2} Jedin, , Trent, II, pp. 83–84Google Scholar. See McNally, Robert, ‘The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles’, Theological Studies 27 (1966), 213–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 390 note 3} ibid., p. 86.

^{page 390 note 4} ibid., p. 87.

^{page 391 note 1} loc. cit., cf. Geiselmann, op. cit., p. 48. He cites the preliminary draft of 22nd March : 546 which contained the formula partim … partim. ‘This text was still before the session of 1st April 1546 and had the consent of an overwhelming majority of the Fathers of the council. Only two of them, the learned General of the Servites, Bonucci, and the Bishop of Chioggia, Jacob Nachianti, well versed in the Bible, protested energetically against this partim-partim. Six days later, in the decisive session of 8th April, there suddenly appears a modified text. The partimpartim has disappeared and been replaced by “et-et”. The records of the Council leave us, unfortunately, entirely in the dark about the events which moved the committee charged with the editing of the text to make this decisive change. With this “et” the Council avoided a decision about the relation of Scripture and Tradition; for, in view of the two conflicting theological positions represented at the Council, the question was deemed not yet right for decision.’ Geiselmann omits important data on Seripando who supported Nachianti. The et … et seems to have been substituted on 7th April so that the question might be decided in subsequent debate and decrees on Biblical Study. The second part of the 8th April decree on the Vulgata is ignored by Geiselmann. ‘six days later’ was 7th April, not 8th April. Seripando favoured a third option, the similis pietate affectus. See Lennertz, H., ‘Scriptura et traditio in decreto 4. sessionis Concilii Tridentini’, Gregorianum, 42 (1961), 517–22Google Scholar, who states the Council did not change its mind in the use of ‘simili’ and ‘pari’. Heiko Oberman finds it impossible on other grounds to accept et … et as Geiselmann explains it, for it does not allow for tradition as a viva vox euangelii. The reasons advanced by Oberman are subject to further expansion. Thepartim… partim can be explained away as a change of mind by the Council exactly because Bonucci and Nachianti received the support of Seripando and Pole. See below.

The events between 1st and 8th April are significant. Oberman, Heiko A., ‘Quo Vadis? Tradition from Irenaeus to Humani Generis’, Scottish Journal of Theology, 16 (1963), 245–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 391 note 2} See Anderson, Marvin, ‘Biblical Humanism and Catholic Reform (1501–1541): Contarini, Pole and Giberti’, Concordia Theological Monthly, XXXIX(1968), November.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 1} Giustiniani, Lorenzo, ‘Girolamo Seripando’, Biografia degli uomini illustri del Regno di Napoli ornata de'loro rispeltivi ritratti, compilata da diversi letterali nazionali, presso Nic Gervasi, Napoli, 1813–1830, Vol. I, p. 157.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 1} Jedin, , Papal Legate at the Council of Trent: Cardinal Seripando, p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 2} ibid., p. 8. Egidio had delivered a stirring address at the Fifth Lateran Council of 1512, cf. Massa, Eugenio, Egidio da Viterbo e la metodologia del sapere, Pensie humaniste et tradition chre^etienne aux xv^e et XVI^e sledes, Tomo I et II, Paris, 1950.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 3} Bart. Chioccarelli, , De lllustribus scriptoribus qui in civitate et regno Neapolis ab orbe condito ad annum usque MDCXXXXV1 floruerunt, ex officina Vic. Ursini, Neapoli, 1780, Vol. I, p. 215Google Scholar, cols, i et ii. ‘Praeter haec linguarum Graecae, et Latinae valde eruditus, scribendi elegentia turn latine, ac Italice, turn Graece praestans; vir nedum singularis doctrinae, sed prudentiae etiam, ac vitae integritatis.’ A list of his works may be found in Chioccarelli, p. 216.

^{page 393 note 4} Jedin, op. cit., p. 48. On Egidio see O'Malley, John W., S.J., , ‘Historical Thought and the Reform Crisis of the early sixteenth century’, Theological Studies, 28(1967), 531–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 393 note 5} ibid., pp. 49 and 69.

^{page 393 note 6} ibid., p. 73. Now see Forster, Anselm, Gesetz und Evangelium bei Girolamo Seripando, Paderborn, 1963.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 7} ibid., p. 88.

^{page 393 note 8} ibid., p. 91.

^{page 394 note 1} ibid., p. 141. While visiting Naples, Seripando delivered a brilliant sermon on a Corinthians 4.6 to which he attached a bill of reform promulgating a programme of study. ibid., pp. 138–9.

^{page 394 note 2} Giov.Tafuri, Bernardino, Istoria degli Scrittori nati nel Regno di Napoli, stamp, di Fel. Carlo Mosca: pergli Severini, 1744–1770, Vol. III, p. 198.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 3} Jedin, , Seripando, p. 263Google Scholar. Simultaneous discussion of dogma and reform was voted, ‘principally because he believed that the most serious charges of the Protestants against the Church belonged to the field of dogma since they declared that in the church the true gospel had been distorted’.

^{page 394 note 4} C.T., V.169, lines 18–21. ‘Duplex enim est reformatio, exterior et interior; dogmata autem pertinent ad reformationem interiorem, quae potior est et magis attendenda, cum exterior facilior fiere possit, etiam sine concilio.’4

^{page 394 note 5} C.T., I.23, line 2I.

^{page 394 note 6} C.T., XII.488, lines 24–29. ‘Respondeo: Quis ignorat varia esse Spiritus Sancti dona? Non dedit horum librorum auctoribus nisi donum scribendi doctrinam et regulum morum. At illus (dedit) donum scribendi doctrinam et regulam fidei. Lege de hoc Paulum pirima Corinthiorum cap. 12 (4 seqq.), ubi varia numerat, Spiritus Sancti dona: Nonne etiam, ut Ambrosius ait veritas, a quacumque dicitur a Spiritu sancto est? et tamen veritatibus, quae sunt apud Platonem, non convincuntur haeretici?’

^{page 395 note 1} C.T., XII.518. lines 10–13. ‘Traditiones hae scriptae quo loco habendae sint, traditiones, quae ad fidem non pertinent, satis declarant. Nam, cum magna ex parte abrogatae sint, concludere possumus, quod divino quidem verbo proximae sunt, sed longo proximae intervallo. «verbum enim Domini manet in aeternum», cui nee «addere nee demere» quicquam licet.’

^{page 395 note 2} C.T., I.500, lines 17–23. ‘Primo circa editionem, quia non omnes textussunt conformes, imo plures sunt corrupti. Ideo erit bonum correctionem committere peritis deputandis. Et quia correctio veteris testamenti est principaliter consideranda circa hebraeum et novi testamenti circa graecum, a quibus respective ut plurimum aeditio latina emanavit, ideo deputandi sint docti in hebraeo et graeco omnibus. Et bonum esset habere textus antiquas tarn in latino, quam in hebraeo et graeco, qui verisimiliter essent et reputarentur correcti.’

^{page 395 note 3} C.T., I.506, lines 12–16. ‘Nam quam plures et fere omnes etiam ex his, qui se theologos esse profitentur, qui quicquid sacrarum litterarum habeant id totum didicerunt non ex ipso sacrorum librorum fonte, sed doctores sacros legendo ex erorum allegationibus, et non solum ipsi dum dicunt male discunt, sed alios docentes illos in eundem errorem trahunt.’

^{page 395 note 4} C.T., I.507, lines 13–18. ‘Generalis Erenitarum inquit: Corrigendi quidem sunt libri sacri, non autem noviter edantur, sed vulgata editio purgetur turn ex Graeco, turn ex Hebraeco. Deputationes vero in praesentiarum/faciendae sunt, et his postea successive addi poterunt alii viri doctrina praestantes, qui cum opus suum perfecerint, S^mo D.N. porrigerent confirmandum. De iudicio vero ecclesiae et scripturarum in aliud tempus differendum videtur.’

^{page 396 note 1} C.T., V.65, lines 29–34. ‘Cardinalis Polus defendit, plures editiones haberi non esse abusum (cum de his fieret quaestio); est tamen abusus, quod omnes habeantur authenticae; dedit exemplum de vasis auresis et ligneis, quod si aureum unum confiteatur, aliud non reiicit. 70 etiam non sunt abiiciendi, turn ab antiquitatem, etc. Quid se di novo aliqua ediretur, quae vulgatam iuvare posset? Neque latina tantum est, approbanda, sed graeca et hebraica, quia debemus pro omnibus ecclesiis providere.’

^{page 396 note 2} C. T., V.64, lines 34–39. See Vosté, J. M., ‘Vulgato in Concilio Tridentino’, Franciscan Studies, 6(1946), 418–36Google Scholar. Vosté has no reference to Pole or Seripando.

^{page 396 note 3} C.T., V.66, line 40.

^{page 396 note 4} C.T., V.66, lines 3–6. ‘(Utrum placeat, habere unam editionem veteram el vulgatam in uno quoque idiomate <sc. graeco, hebraeo et latino, qui omnes, utantur pro authentice in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus et praedicationibus et quod nemo illam reiicere audeat aut illi contradicere?)’

^{page 396 note 5} Jedin, , Trent, II, p. 92.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 1} loc. cit.

^{page 397 note 2} Jedin, , Seripando, p. 299.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 3} Jedin, op. cit., pp. 96–97.

^{page 398 note 1} C.T., I.23, line 21. That support was given to study of the original texts is not denied by such a line of reasoning. When in 1561 Seripando attempted to have the decree revised, not yet proclaimed by the Pope, it may well have been to identify the Vettts et Vulgata editio with the Vetus Latina. Jedin's suggestion that Seripando wished to make use of Latin biblical texts handed down by the Fathers for dogmatic purposes could well be the same as defining those texts as part of the Vetus Latina. The number of separate texts so preserved could not be as impressive as the removal of the restriction placed on study of the original Greek and Hebrew by such revision. See Jedin, Seripando, p. 98, and J. M. Voste, ‘De revisione textus graeci Novi Testamenti ad votum concilii Tridentini facta’, Biblica, XXIV (1943), 304–7

^{page 398 note 2} C.T., II.419, lines 15–23. ‘Cogitavi denique non esse in sancto synodo tractandas controversias, quae ad communem christianorum omnium salutem pertinerent, quemadmodum theologicae questiones hactenus in scholis tractatae sunt, ea verborum et sententiarum obscuritate, ut praeter eos ipsos, qui haec tractarent, nemo quicquam intelligere posset, quinimmo nee ipsis etiam inter ipsos disputatoribus in loquendi formulis satis conveniebat. Expectant animae Christi Iesu sanguine redemptae, spinosis et inutilibus quaestionibus amputatis, verborum inanibus pugnis reiectis, profanis vocum novitatibus (1 Tim. 6.20) explosis, liquidam, placatam, priscam scientiam salutis in remissionem peccatorum suorum.’

^{page 398 note 3} Jedin's work is magisterial. His suggestions have been followed within the framework suggested by this author, that ‘sola fide’ and ‘sola scriptura’ are linked by identification of doctrinal traditions with works in the process of justification. Wherever possible, C. T. references have been checked. One notices that in Trent, II, Jedin draws heavily upon his biography of Seripando. Such a study of Seripando and Pole seems a proper way to approach Trent since justification involved the members of the Council, as Pole and Seripando were wont to suggest time and again. Jedin's reference in Seripando, p. 349, to C. T., II.430, line 2 as a statement on ‘duplex iustitia’ is wrong.

^{page 399 note 1} Jedin, , Trent, II, p. 279Google Scholar, cf. p. 280n, where he rightly accepts Schenk's protest that the illness was diplomatic. The doctrinal motive must also be considered. Notice that in his biography of Seripando, Jedin denied that Seripando was influenced by ‘duplex iustitia’. See below.

^{page 399 note 2} C.T., X.701, n. 1.

^{page 399 note 3} See C.T., V.821–8. See the helpful chart in Ruchert, op. cit., 264–5.

^{page 399 note 4} Jedin, , Seripando, pp. 348–9.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 5} C.T., V.486, lines 20–28. 'sunt et alia, de quibus secus ego sentio non meo quidem iudicio, sed sanctorum catholicae ecclesiae doctorum quale est illud: Iustitia fidei dicitur, quia fides prima datur et. Quanto verius Augustinus, quern docta sequitur theologorum schola, qui iustitiam comparatione ad actum credendi atque ad actum iustificandi, non ad ordinem accipiendi definivit, dicens6 Iustitia ex fide est, qua credimus iustificari, hoc est iustos fieri gratia Dei per Iesum Christum vel qua credimus iustitiam nobis divinitus dari, non nostris viribus in nobis fieri Cui iustitiam ex lege opposuit et eius esse definivit, qui arbitrii sui viribus legem impleturum esse confidit nee fide recurrit ad spiritum vivificantem, ne rerum factum littera occidit.’

The reference (n.5) is to Epist. 186 (al, 106), c. 3, n. 8; P.L., 33,819, cf. col., 818.

^{page 399 note 1} Jedin, , Seripando, p. 359.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 1} ibid., p. 363.

^{page 400 note 2} Jedin, , Trent, II, p. 185Google Scholar. On the period 5th-i3th July 1546 see Olazaran, J., ‘Nuevos Documentos tridentinos sobre la justificación’, Archivo Teologico Granadino, 12(1949), 182–206.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 3} ibid., p. 187.

^{page 401 note 1} ibid., p. 188.

^{page 401 note 2} loc. cit.

^{page 401 note 3} Jedin, , Seripando, p. 337.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 4} loc. cit. See Pas, P., ‘La Doctrine de la Double Justice au Concile de Trent’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 30(1954), 24–26Google Scholar, for discussion of 8th October 5th November, 1546.

^{page 401 note 5} ibid., p. 363.

^{page 401 note 6} loc. cit.

^{page 401 note 7} Jedin, , Trent, II, p. 239.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 1} Jedin, , Seripando, p. 376Google Scholar. On the 16th October note of Salmarón see Alazarán, J., En el IV Centenario de un voto tridentino del jesuita Alfonso Salmarón sobre la doble justicia', Estudios Edesiasticos, 20(1946), 211–40.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 2} Psalm 142.2: ‘(Cum servo tua, quia non iustificabitur omnis vivens)’. C.T., XII.672, lines 2–3. Cf. C.T., XII.671, lines 34–35: ‘Nunquam vere dici potest, hominem coram Deo iustificari ex operibus tarn extra gratiam factis, que nonnisi peccato sunt, quam in gratia, que, etsi, quatenus quidem ab ilia proveniunt, et bona dicuntur et sunt, quia tamen in nobis et a nobis fiunt, qui ex nobis ipsis semper mali sumus, nunquam sic bona esse possunt, ut per ea coram Deo iustificemur.’ (to 672, lines 1–2.)

^{page 402 note 3} C.T., XII.672, lines 33–39.

^{page 402 note 4} C.T., XII.672.

^{page 402 note 5} cf. C. T., XII.672, line 48 where Romans 7.25 is translated as ‘Gratias ago Deo’! One verse is not conclusive, but to define justification at this time in this way by appeal to experience (tropology) and Scripture (Christology) placed Pole very close to the Lutheran position. Could it represent the same experience as that of Luther? To contradict Trent took as much courage as to be censured at Worms.

^{page 403 note 1} Jedin, , Trent, II, 187Google Scholar. Tract in C.T., XII.613–36.

^{page 403 note 2} Jedin, op. cit., 189. Proof that the historical situation conditioned the theological statements at Trent. Seripando submitted himself to the judgment of the council.

^{page 403 note 3} C.T., XII.630–1, line 4.

^{page 403 note 4} ad loc. ‘Et primus soli fidei tribuitur.’

^{page 403 note 5} quaest. cit.

^{page 403 note 6} P.L., 44, 243. Seripando also cites Augustine from P.L., 40, 88: «iustificatus per fidem iuste operatur, sed ad fidei iustificationem non pervenit iuste antea operatus, sed sola gratia Dei Iustificatio autem per fidem quid est nisi peccatorum remissio?»

^{page 403 note 7} C.T., V.580, lines 44–46. ‘Let it lead us not to the perfection of our justice, but to the mercy of God; not to our merits, but let us turn to the way of God by turning our eyes through our Lord Christ.’

^{page 404 note 1} C.T., V.663, n.2. Translation by Jedin, Seripando, 378.

^{page 404 note 2} See Pascoe, Louis B., ‘The Council of Trent and Biblical Study’, Catholic Historical Review, 52 (1966), 18–38Google Scholar. On the Franciscan school see Oberman, Heiko, ‘Das tridentinische Rechtfertigungsdekret im Lichte spatmittelalterlicher Theologie’, Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche, 61 (1964), 251–82Google Scholar. The Dominican position is surveyed in Walz, A., ‘La polemica Domenicana pretridentina (1508–1545)’, Sapienza, 9 (1956), 469–87Google Scholar. Now see Becker, Karl, Die Rechtfertigungslehre nach Domingo de Soto, Rome, Gregorian University, 1967 (Analecta Gregoriana, 156)Google Scholar, and Daunis, Roberto, ‘schrift und Tradition in Trient und in der moderne romisch-katholisichen Theologie’, Ketygma und Dogma 13 (1967), 132–58.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 1} Jedin, Hubert, ‘The Council of Trent and Reunion: Historical Notes’, The Heythrop Journal, Vol. III, Number 1, January 1962, p. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 2} Forster, op. cit., 48, n. 166.

^{page 405 note 3} Schillebeeckx, Edward, ‘The Tridentine Decree on Justification: A New View’, Concilium, 5(1965), 177Google Scholar. See above, on Oberman.

^{page 406 note 1} Rupp, Gordon, ‘Patterns of Salvation in the First Age of the Reformation’, Archivfur Reformationsgeschichte, 57 (1966), 65.Google Scholar