ments, however obnoxious or unpalatable they might be in any quarter. Their first impressions on reaching the seat of the council may be gathered from the language used by Lanssac, in a letter written the day after his arrival to De Lisle, the French ambassador at Rome. He expressed his fear that little advantage would be derived from the assembly, unless the Pope would suffer the deliberations and votes of the fathers to be entirely free, and no more send the Holy Spirit in a travelling bag from Rome to Trent !* The phrase was homely, but the description was just; and the ambassador's pleasantry exhibited an accurate view of the manner in which the decisions of the council were commonly framed. On the 26th of May, the ambassadors were admitted to a public audience, at a general congregation. Pibrac addressed the fathers in a long and powerful speech, which was heard with great impatience by the legates and their adherents. He described the miserable condition of France, torn by intestine religious contention, and bleeding, as it were, at every pore. Relief and cure were sought at their hands: if they failed, the case was desperate. He reminded them, that as their undertaking was of the most important and serious character, it particularly exposed them to the machinations of the great adversary, who would strive to the utmost to turn them aside from the honourable career of reform, by magnifying the difficulties and sacrifices inseparable from such a course; and he dwelt at great length on the advantages that would accrue from preserving their freedom inviolate, and stoutly resisting all attempts to interfere with their just authority. In a subsequent interview with the legates, the ambassadors apologized for the continued absence of the French bishops, very few of whom were yet at Trent: the doctrines of the reformation were making such progress that they considered it extremely dangerous to leave their sees. They also strongly solicited a declaration, to the effect, that the council was an entirely new one, and not a continuation of the former sittings. The legates accepted the apology, but evaded the request.† The arrival of the French ambassadors was hailed with much *Le Plat, v. p. 169. ↑ Pallav. 1. xvi. c. 11, 12. Sarpi, 1. vi. s. 24. Le Plat, v. pp. 175–184. pleasure by the reforming party, who greatly needed their patronage and assistance. They were subjected to continual reproach, mortification, and insult. The crooked dealings of the legates excited their suspicions, and inflamed their indignation. They knew and felt that the council was not free: forty prelates, pensioned by the Pope, were already at Trent, and more were expected. If they followed the dictates of their consciences, they were stigmatized as turbulent spirits, and persecuted in every possible way. Angry letters were sent from Rome to terrify them into compliance with the Pope's will. They were treated as movers of sedition, and charged with aiming at the subversion of the holy see. The legate Simonetta had a number of bishops under his control to contradict and browbeat every free speaker, and bear him down by clamour; while, on the other hand, the partisans of the Pontiff were caressed and rewarded.* There was reason to fear that no real amendment in things ecclesiastical would be allowed; for though the Pope affected great concern for reform at Rome, he was extremely unwilling that anything of the kind should be originated at Trent, and did not conceal his displeasure at the conduct of those who were not obsequious enough to render implicit obedience to his commands. But by Lanssac and his companions the frowns of the Pontiff were disregarded, if not despised: they did not scruple to write or speak of him and his measures with the most provoking indifference and freedom; his power excited no alarm-even his office was treated with small respect or reverence.+ Thirty-one bishops, chiefly Italians, who had voted on the affirmative side of the question of residence, finding in what light their conduct was viewed at Rome, wrote an apologetical letter to the Pope. It was couched in a strain of abject and servile flattery. They entreated his holiness to believe that their votes were given conscientiously, and that they had no intention to infringe on his rights, having in fact supposed that he himself held the same opinion as they had expressed. They hoped he would indulge no suspicions respecting them, and assured him that they were willing to make any sacrifice for the honour and advantage of the apostolic see; in short, they apologized for the liberty they had taken in thinking and acting for themselves, and sought the holy father's forgiveness for so great presumption.—Pallav. l. xvi. c. 2, 8. Sarpi, 1. vi. s. 28. Le Plat, v. p. 299. + The Pope was very angry with the French ambassadors. It seemed to him, he said, that they behaved as if they were Huguenots. They maintained Intrigue still hindered the business of the council, and involved the legates in constant perplexity. The King of Spain urged them to declare the "continuation," and threatened to withdraw his ambassadors if his request were not granted. The Emperor and the King of France persevered in their resistance to that measure. A decision of the question of residence was warmly pressed by the reforming bishops, whose numbers and resolute spirit occasioned no little vexation; and their difficulties were increased by the countenance given to the opposition by the ambassadors. These circumstances induced them to listen to the urgent applications made for further postponement. The twentieth session was held June 4th, when it was decreed that the next session should be celebrated on the 16th of July. But the decree did not pass unanimously: thirty-six prelates refused to give their sanction, some demanding the decision of the question of residence, the superiority of the council to the Roman Pontiff, they neglected the sacrament, and it was reported that Lanssac had said to some bishops whom he had invited to dine with him, that there would come so many prelates from France and Germany that they should drive away the Romish idol!-Le Plat, v. pp. 329, 333. * A memorial was presented to the legates by the imperial ambassadors, containing the Emperor's wishes with regard to reformation. It included, among others, the following demands: that the Pope should reform himself and his court; that no more scandalous dispensations should be given ;—that the ancient canons against simony should be renewed ;-that the number of human precepts in things spiritual should be lessened, and prelatical constitutions no longer placed on a level with the divine commands ;—that the breviaries and missals should be purified ;—that prayers faithfully translated into the vernacular tongues should be interspersed in the services of the church; that means should be devised for the restoration of the clergy and the monastic orders to primitive purity;—and that it should be considered whether the clergy might not be permitted to marry, and the cup be granted to the laity. The legates were alarmed, and exasperated at this memorial, ("vehementer eo sunt commoti," says Pallavicini-" qu'ils sont trouvés de bien dûre digestion," observes Lanssac :) they quickly perceived how dangerous it would be to suffer its introduction to the council, and persuaded the ambassadors to wait till they had negotiated with the Emperor. Delphino was at the imperial court; he assured Ferdinand that if he persisted in requiring the memorial to be presented, a dissolution of the council would be the consequence. The Emperor yielded, and that important document was suppressed!—Pallav. l. xvii. c. 1. Sarpi, 1. vi. s. 28. Le Plat, v. pp. 262 -268. others that the continuation of the council should be declared. This was the fourth session since the re-opening of the assembly, and as yet nothing whatever had been effected: the delay was caused by the collision of opposing interests, and the Pope's determined opposition to freedom and reform.* It will be remembered, that when the decree concerning the eucharist was passed, the question of communion in both kinds was left undecided. The legates now determined to bring forward that question. The French ambassadors would have opposed it, but yielded to the importunities of the imperials, who entertained sanguine hopes of the concession of the cup to the laity, and were willing to believe that such a measure would greatly facilitate the restoration of the heretics to the church. Five articles of inquiry were submitted to the divines. On the first,-viz., "whether all Christians are bound by divine command to receive the eucharist in both kinds," they unanimously decided in the negative. "The church cannot err," said Alphonso Salmeron, a Jesuit sent to the council by the Pope; "but for the last three hundred years the church has absolutely prohibited the use of the cup to the laity, and the custom of communion in one kind only was known to exist even long before that period, and must have been derived from apostolic usage; therefore communion in both kinds is not a divine command." Others said, that the bread and wine were both essential to the eucharist as a sacrifice, (referring to the mass,) but not as a sacrament; and that the church had power to alter such things as were accidental 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 apostles, 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 * Pallav. 1. xvi. c. 12. Sarpi, 1. vi. s. 26. 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." 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 article 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 suspicion 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.† * Pallav. 1. xvii. c. 6. Sarpi, 1. vi. s. 30. |