"CHAP. IV. That sacramental communion is not obligatory on

children.

"Lastly, the same holy council teaches, that the sacramental communion of the eucharist is not necessarily obligatory on children, who have not attained the use of reason. For being regenerated in the laver of baptism, and incorporated into Christ, they cannot lose the gracious state of children of God, which was acquired at that time. Nevertheless, antiquity is not to be condemned on account of that practice having been formerly observed in some places. For though the holy fathers had sufficient grounds for the custom in the then existing state of things, yet it must be without doubt believed that they did not attend to it, as necessary to salvation.*

"Canon 1. Whoever shall affirm, that all and every one of Christ's faithful are bound by divine command to receive the most holy sacrament of the eucharist in both kinds, as necessary to salvation: let him be accursed.

"2. Whoever shall affirm, that the holy Catholic church had not just grounds and reasons for restricting the laity and non-officiating clergy to communion in the species of bread only, or that she hath erred therein : let him be accursed.

"3. Whoever shall deny, that Christ, whole and entire, the fountain and author of every grace, is received under the one species of bread; because, as some falsely affirm, he is not then received, according to his own institution, in both kinds : let him be accursed.

"4. Whoever shall affirm, that the communion of the eucharist is necessary to children, before they reach the years of discretion: let him be accursed.

"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thess. ii. 4.) Such is the apostolic description of the "man of sin;" the decree just quoted presents an apt illustration of it. It was not enough to "make the commandment

*The student in ecclesiastical history need not be reminded that this is contrary to fact. See Mosheim, cent. 111. part 2. chap. 4.

of God of none effect by tradition;" the church of Rome has added to it the impiety of mutilating an express ordinance. And the audacity is equal to the impiety :-first, the council confesses that the Saviour instituted the sacrament in both kinds, and then dares to assert that the church had "weighty and just causes" for altering the divine institution, as if the church were wiser than Christ! After this, what is safe?

Transubstantiation and communion in one kind are ingeniously dovetailed together. Good Catholics are required to believe that Christ, whole and entire, his body and blood, soul and divinity, is contained in either species, and in the smallest particles of each. If this be true, it necessarily follows, that whether the communicant receive the bread or the wine, he enjoys the full benefit of the sacrament. But it is true, says the church, and communion in one kind is adduced as overwhelming proof. Excellent logic! An absurd and monstrous dogma is promulgated; to support it, a Christian ordinance is cut in twain; transubstantiation justifies communion in one kind, and communion in one kind proves the truth of transubstantiation! Who can withstand such arguments?

Assurance often increases in proportion to the weakness of the cause, and the boldest and most confident tone is sometimes adopted, when there is the greatest deficiency of evidence. This is clearly seen in the discussion of the present subject. Nothing can be plainer or more express than the testimony of scripture. That testimony is impiously perverted or denied. By the method of interpretation employed by Roman-catholic writers, it may be easily proved that neither the bread nor the wine is to be received by the laity; but that the Lord's supper belongs exclusively to the priesthood.* And, indeed, the exaltation of the clerical order is the natural result, as it was probably the chief design, of this corruption. How greatly must they be reverenced, at whose word so wondrous a transmutation is accomplished, and who only are permitted to touch the sacred cup, or taste the consecrated wine!

Vide Bellarmin. de Eucharist. 1. iv. c. 25. The whole chapter is a fine specimen of jesuitical sophistry.

The reformation enacted at the twenty-first session was superficial and unimportant. It was decreed that bishops should require no fees for collating or inducting priests; that ordination should not be granted unless a benefice was actually possessed; that large parishes should be provided with additional priests, and small ones be united in perpetuity; that coadjutors should be appointed to ignorant clergymen, &c. The very name and office of the papal collectors, who had for so many years carried on the gainful traffic of indulgences, were declared to be abolished; and it was enacted that henceforth all spiritual privileges of that kind should be dispensed freely, and that voluntary alms should be substituted for compulsory payment. It will be seen hereafter that the sale of indulgences continues to the present day, notwithstanding this decree.

Pallav. I. xvii. c. 11. Sarpi, l. vi. s. 39. Pius IV. was as averse to reformation as any of his predecessors had been. The French ambassadors continually complained of his interference, and lamented the subjection and thraldom of the council. Nothing was suffered to be advanced that might prove prejudicial to the profit or authority of the court of Rome.-Le Plat, v. pp. 391-398.

249

CHAPTER XI.

THE MASS.

Discussions on the Mass-Debates on the Concession of the Cup to the Laity -Division on that Question-Subsequent Determination to refer it to the Pope-TWENTY-SECOND SESSION-Decree on the Mass-Reflections.

THE mass was the subject proposed for the next session.* This point had been fully discussed at the former sitting of the council, but the publication of the decree was prevented by the unexpected and abrupt termination of the proceedings. Some advised the adoption of that decree, after suitable revision; this, however, was opposed by the legates, and it was generally judged more becoming the dignity of the council to examine the whole subject de novo, especially as the number of the prelates was now so much greater, being nearly two hundred, more than three times as many as were assembled under Julius III.

Thirteen articles were submitted to the divines for examination. Their discussions occupied but little time, as scarcely any difference of opinion existed, and no Protestants were there to object or dispute. The principal point to be proved

The "mass" is the "liturgy of the Catholic church, and consists of the consecration of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. And the offering up this same body and blood to God, by the ministry of the priest, for a perpetual memorial of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross, and a continuation of the same till the end of the world."-Challoner's "Catholic Christian Instructed," p. 154. "High mass" is the same service, accompanied by all the ceremonies which custom and authority have annexed to its celebration. An account of these may be seen in the fourth volume of Geddes' "Tracts against Popery." In the early ages of the church, the congregation was dismissed before the celebration of the Lord's Supper, none but the communicants being suffered to remain. " Ita missa est," said the officiating minister, and immediately the congregation withdrew the term thus employed was used in process of time to designate the solemn service about to be performed; it was called "missa,” the mass.

was, that the mass is really a sacrifice,—that is, that the Lord's supper is not merely a commemoration of the Saviour's passion, but an actual offering of his body and blood by the hands of the priest. One extract will suffice to shew what kind of argument and evidence was employed in support of this tenet. Melchior Cornelio, a Portuguese divine, reasoned thus:"When the eucharist is carried to the sick, or is preserved for use, it is a sacrament; but when it is offered on the altar, it is a sacrifice. Now, the devil is constantly endeavouring to alienate the minds of the heretics from the mass; therefore, the mass is not an abomination, as Luther affirms, because the devil does not hate abominations, but cherishes them. Further, in Isa. Ixvi. 21, God promises to take priests from among the Gentiles; but they cannot be priests without a sacrifice, and that sacrifice is the mass. Again, it was prophesied by Malachi, that in every place a pure offering' should be presented; this is not to be understood of spiritual sacrifices,-that is, prayers, as Jerome interprets it, but of the sacrifice of the mass, since the prayers of the faithful are many, and one offering only is there spoken of. It was said of the Messiah, that he should be a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek; but Melchisedek offered bread and wine; therefore Christ, in instituting the eucharist, did the same, and offered himself. And forasmuch as he said to the apostles, Do this,' he thereby directed them to do as he himself had done, and therefore, since the eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice, he thus constituted them priests, and enjoined them and their successors to offer that sacrifice continually, for themselves and for the sins of others."*

6

Yet there were some who opposed these sentiments. They denied that the eucharist, when instituted by Christ, was a sacrifice, and strenuously maintained that if the Saviour really offered himself in the supper, his sacrifice on the cross was useless and of none effect. Francis Foreiro, also a Portuguese divine, ventured even to impugn the received interpretation of those passages of Scripture which had been alleged in support of the common opinion. He avowed his firm belief in the sacrifice of the mass, but said, that the proof should be drawn

* Pallav. 1. xviii. c. 2. s. 1. Sarpi, 1. vi. s. 44. Le Plat, v. p. 424.