and indifferent. And whereas the language used by the Saviour, in instituting the sacrament, was ordinarily alleged on the other side, it was affirmed that when Jesus said, "Drink ye all of it," he spoke to his apostles, as such, and that therefore the interpretation of the words must be restricted to the successors of the apos tles, namely, the priesthood. James Payva d' Andrada asserted, that in receiving the bread the apostles represented the universal church, but that when Christ said, "Do this in remembrance of me" he consecrated and ordained them priests, in which capacity they afterwards partook of the wine! The 6th chapter of John was

adduced: it was maintained that sacramental communion is there described, and much stress was laid on the words, "Whosoever eateth of this bread shall live for ever." Some observed that the Saviour used no wine in his communion with the disciples at Emmaus, and that Paul blessed the bread only when he was in the ship; and others said that the eucharist was prefigured by the manna, which consisted of only one kind. 8 1

But although the divines were entirely agreed in defending the church from the imputation of error, in prohibiting the cup, there was great diversity of sentiment among them respecting the policy or propriety of granting it in certain cases. This was the second ar ticle of inquiry. The opponents of concession denied the necessity or expediency of any alteration, and declaimed at great length on the evil that would result. therefrom. They said that people would lose their reverence for the holy sacraments; that the difference between the clergy and laity would be almost destroyed; that if the petitioners succeeded in this particular, they would soon advance further, and present other demands; in short, that Providence had intended the existing custom to constitute the visible mark of distinction between Catholics and heretics, and that if it were taken away, Protestants would creep into the church-a "little leaven would leaven the whole lump"-and irreparable injury be sustained. To this it was replied, that it was very uncharitable thus to misinterpret the pious requests and purposes of their weaker brethren, and to cast sus

#1 Pallav, 1. xvii. e. 6. Sarpi, l. vi. s. 30.

picion on their principles, characters, or motives; that since human laws admitted of alteration, (and the prohibition of the cup was confessedly a human law,) there would be nothing novel or unseemly in the concession proposed; that legislators had always found it necessary to consult times and circumstances; and that in the present instance tremendous risk would be incurred by refusing the desired indulgence. Such, in substance, were the arguments employed in this controversy.— Both parties maintained their opinions with much warmth, and there appeared scarcely any hope of entire unanimity. $2

Little was said on the third article, respecting the conditions on which the cup might be granted, as the previous question was left unsettled. In answering the question, Whether he who communes in one kind only receives less benefit than he who communes in both kinds" (the fourth article,) some said that more is received in partaking the wine, because the communicant is then in a better state of preparation having already received the bread; and some, because the effects of sacraments are proportioned to that which they signify, and the signification is expressed by the sign; therefore, said they, the more signs, the more grace. But the majority held the contrary, and affirmed that there is a perfect equality in both cases. The fifth article, relative to giving the eucharist to children, was soon decided, it being the general opinion that it is by no means necessary, since otherwise baptism would not be suffi cient for salvation. Besides, it was observed, infants cannot examine themselves, nor discern the Lord's body, nor distinguish between sacramental and common bread. 83

Those who advocated the concession of the cup to the laity, were warmly seconded by some of the ambassadors. Baumgartner, the Bavarian envoy, led the way. On his introduction to the council, June 27, he delivered a long speech that proved highly offensive to the legates and their adherents. He said that Bavaria was overrun with heresy of every description; that the con

82 Pallav. ut sup. Sarpi, ut sup. s. 31,
83 Pallav. and Sarpi, ut sup.

tagion was not confined to the lower orders, but had seized the nobility and middle ranks, so that scarcely a city or town was uninfected. He affirmed that the evil was greatly aggravated by the shameful conduct of the clergy, great numbers of whom indulged in gluttony, drunkenness, and all kinds of vice, with unblushing effrontery, as if in open contempt of God and man, and lived in flagrant violation of their vows of chastity; so that out of a hundred priests, not more than three or four could be found who did not openly keep concubines, or had not contracted public or clandestine marriages. He added, that the general discontent was still further increased, by the prohibition of the cup to the laity, on which account many had joined the sectaries, who administered the communion in both kinds; that the Bavarians loudly complained of being deprived of a privilege which belonged to them by the express appointment of God himself; that the dissatisfaction arising from this cause almost approached to sedition; and that it would be impossible to preserve the peace of the country unless some relief were quickly afforded. Till then, it would be wholly unavailing to publish decrees on doctrine: the church must be purified before she could resist her assailants with any well-grounded hopes of

success.

The imperial ambassadors followed. They presented a memorial on the state of Bohemia to this effect: that ever since the council of Constance the Bohemians had practised communion in both kinds, and had adhered to the custom with such tenacity, that neither arguments nor arms could induce them to relinquish it; that in other respects they differed little from the Catholic church, and would probably return to her communion, if they were indulged in this particular, but that a refusal would cause them to join the Lutherans or other sectaries, and probably be attended with dangerous consequences; that the fathers ought not to wonder at their firm adherence to this practice, since many learned Catholics maintained the superior efficacy of communion in both kinds, and in Austria, Moravia, Silesia, and other parts of Germany, large bodies of men, faithful members of the church of Rome, were earnestly desiring

the privilege-further, that the condition of Hungary was extremely perilous, the inhabitants of that country having so zealously espoused the new opinions on this subject, that many priests were compelled by force to administer the cup to the laity.

The French ambassadors appeared on the same side. In a remonstrance presented by them, they protested against any decree being issued that should interfere with the privileges of their sovereign or his subjects; for the kings of France had always received the communion in both kinds at their coronation, and several monasteries in that kingdom had followed the same practice from time immemorial. And they strongly recommended the adoption of lenient and conciliatory measures in those things which depended on the authority of the church, and were therefore confessedly susceptible of alteration. 84

But the denial of the cup was predetermined at Rome. The legates were aware of this, and endeavoured to persuade the ambassadors to agree to a postponement of the decision on this subject, for which a plausible pretext was found in the manifest differences of opinion existing among the prelates and divines. They succeeded, but not without great difficulty, nor till they had engaged that the undecided points should be mentioned in the decree, with a promise that they should be shortly settled. Having accomplished this, they prepared for the approaching session. A decree, with accompanying canons, was submitted to the fathers for their final approval, as also a decree on reformation: from this latter, however, the subject of residence was excluded, by the Pope's express injunction. And yet the Council of Trent was free! 85

The twenty-first session was held on the day appointed, July 16, 1562. Its doctrinal decree was as follows:

Seeing that many and monstrous errors concerning the awful and most holy sacrament of the eucharist, are

84 Pallav. l. xvii. c. 4. 7. Sarpi, 1. vi. s. 34, 35. Le Plat, v. p. 335-350, 366.

85 Pallav. ut sup. c. 7.

by the arts of the wicked spirit disseminated in different places; through which, in some provinces, many seem to have departed from the faith and obedience of the Catholic church:-the sacred, holy, ecumenical, and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled, &c. hath judged proper to explain in this place the doctrine of communion, in both kinds, and of children. Wherefore, all Christ's faithful are strictly enjoined, that henceforth they dare not believe, teach or preach, otherwise than is explained and defined in this decree.

"CHAP. I. That the laity and non-officiating "clergy are not bound by the divine law to receive the communion in both kinds.

"The sacred council therefore, taught by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and piety, and following the judgment and practice of the church, doth declare and teach that the laity and non-officiating clergy are not bound by any divine precept to receive the sacrament of the eucharist in both kinds; nor can any one who holds the true faith indulge the slightest doubt that communion in either kind is sufficient to salvation. For although Christ the Lord did in the last supper institute this venerable sacrament of the eucharist in the species of bread and wine, and thus delivered it to the apostles; yet it does not thence follow that all the faithful in Christ are bound by divine statute to receive both kinds. Nor can it be fairly proved from the discourse recorded in the 6th chapter of John, that communion in both kinds is commanded by the Lord, howsoever the same may have been interpreted by various holy fathers and doctors.— For he who said, 'Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you' (v. 54.,) said also, 'If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever' (v. 52. ;) and he who said, 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life' (v. 55.,) said also, 'The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world' (v. 52. ;) and lastly, he who said, 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him' (v. 57.,)