164 THE MIDDLE AGES. A.D. 1294-1517.
who gave his authority to these articles, afterwards revoked them, they remain a platform of Gallicanism as against the ultramontane theorj^ of the infallibility and supreme authority of the pope, and may furnish in the future the basis of a settlement of the papal question in the Catholic communion. ^
In the deliverance known as Frequens, passed Oct. 9, 1417, the councJLjdecreed that a general council should meet in five years, then in seven years, and thereafter perpetually every ten year§.2 This action was prompted by Martin in the bull Frequens, Oct. 9, 1417. On completing its fortyfifth session it was adjourned by Martin, April 22,^1418.. The Basel-Ferrara and the Tridentine councils sat a longer time, as did also the Protestant Westminster Assembly, 1643-1648. Before breaking away from Constance, the pope granted Sigismund a tenth for one year to reimburse him for the expense he had been to on account of the synod.
The Council of Constance was the most important synod of the Middle Ages, and more fairly represented the sentiments of Western Christendom than any other council which has ever sat. It furnished an arena of free debate upon interests whose importance was felt by all the nations of Western Europe, and which united them. It was not restricted by a programme prepared by a pope, as the Vatican council of 1870 was. It had freedom and exercised it. While the dogma of transubstantiation enacted by the 4th Lateran, 1215, and the dogma of papal infallibility passed by the Vatican council injected elements of permanent division into the Church, tlia_C.QUilcil.ofJI|o_nstance unified Latin Christendom and ended the schism which had been a cause of scandal for forty years. The validity of its decree putting an oecumenical council above the pope, after being disputed for ceivturies, was officially set aside by the conciliar vote of 187Q. For Protestants the decision at Constance is an onward step
1 See art. OalUkanis^nus, in Herzog, and Der Ursprung dcr rfaUiknn. FreiheitPn, in Hist. Zritschriff, 1003, pp. 104-21.5.
2 Creighton, I. :50.3, after ijiving the proper citation from Hardt, IV. 1432, makes the mistake of saying tliat the next council was appointed for seven years, and the succeeding councils every five years thereafter.
§ 16. THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. 1414-1418. 165
towards a right definition of the final seat of religious authority. Jt remained^ for LiitlieJ:, forced to the wall by Eck at Leipzig, and on the ground of the error committed by the Council of Constance, in condemning the godly man, John Huss, to deny the infallibility of councils and to place the seat of infallible authority in the Scriptures, as intoi*preted by conscience.^
Note on the (Ecumenical Character of the Council of Constance.
Modern Roman Catholic historians deny the oecumenical character and authority of the Council of Constance, except its four last, 42d-45th sessions, which were presided over by Pope Martin V., or at least all of it till the moment of Gregory XII. 's bull giving to the council his approval, that is, after John had fled and ceased to preside. Hergenrother-Kirsch, II. 802, says that before Gregory's authorization the council was without a head, did not represent the Roman Church, and sat against the will of the cardinals, by whom he meant Gregory's cardinals. Salembier, p. 317, says, II ii'est devenu cecumenique qii'apres la trente-cinquihne session, lorsque Gregoire XII. eut donne sa demission, etc. Pastor, I. 198 sq., warmly advocates the same view, and declares that when the council in its 4th and 5th sessions announced its superiority over the pope, it was not yet an oecumenical gathering. This dogma, he says, was intended to set up a new principle which revolutionized the old Catholic doctrine of the Church. Philip Hergenrother, in Katholisches Kirchenrecht, p. 344 sq., expresses the same judgment. The council was not a legitimate council till after Gregory's resignation.
The wisdom of the council in securing the resignation of Gregory and deposing John and Benedict is not questioned. The validity of its act in electing Martin V., though the papal regulation limiting the right of voting to the cardinals was set aside, is also acknowledged on the ground that the council at the time of Martin's election was sitting by Gregory's sanction, and Gregory was true pope until he abdicated.
A serious objection to the view, setting aside this action of the 4th and 5th sessions, is offered by the formal statement made by Martin V. At the final meeting of the council and after its adjournment had been pronounced, a tumultuous discussion was precipitated over the tract concerning the affairs of Poland and Lithuania by the Dominican, Falkenberg, which was written in defence of the Teutonic Knights, and justified the killing of the Polish king and all his subjects. It had been the subject of discussion in the nations, and its heresies were declared to be so glaring that, if they remained uncondemned by the council, that body would go down to posterity as defective in its testimony for orthodoxy. It was during the tumultuous debate, and after Martin had adjourned the council, that he uttered the words which, on their face, sanction whatever was done in council in a conciliar way. Putting an end to the tumult, he announced he would maintain all the decrees passed by the council in matters of faith in a conciliar way — omnia et singula