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 sufficient for salvation. Besides, it was observed, infants cannot examine themselves, nor discern the Lord's body, nor distinguish between sacramental and common bread.*

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 contagion 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 * Pallav. and Sarpi, ut sup.

R

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 wellgrounded 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.*

* Pallav. 1. xvii. c. 4, 7. Sarpi, 1. vi. s. 34, 35. Le Plat, v. pp. 335— 350, 366.

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!*

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 by the arts of the wicked spirit disseminated in different places; through which, in some provinces, it appears that many have departed from the faith and obedience of the Catholic church-the sacred, holy, œcumenical, 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 presume not to 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

*Pallav. ut sup. c. 7.

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,) said nevertheless, 'He that eateth this bread shall live for ever,' (v. 59.)

6

6

"CHAP. II. Of the power of the church regarding the dispensation of the sacrament of the eucharist.

"The council further declares, that in the dispensation of the sacraments, the church hath always possessed the power, so that their substance was preserved, of making such appointments and alterations, according to the change of things, times, and places, as it should judge would best promote the benefit of the recipients, and the veneration due to the sacraments themselves. Which, indeed, the apostle seems to have not obscurely intimated, when he said, 'Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God,' (1 Cor. iv. 1.) For it is sufficiently plain, that he himself used this power, not only in other respects, but also with regard to this sacrament, because, when he had given various directions respecting its use, he added, And the

* Various interpretations are here admitted; what then becomes of the "unanimous consent of the fathers," by which, as the council decreed in the fourth session, the explanation of Scripture is to be regulated?

rest I will set in order when I come.' (1 Cor. xi. 34.) Wherefore, though from the beginning of the Christian religion the use of both kinds was not infrequent, yet when in process of time that practise was for weighty and just causes changed, holy mother church, recognising her acknowledged authority in the administration of the sacraments, approved the custom of communion in one kind, and commanded it to be observed as law; to condemn or alter which at pleasure, without the authority of the church itself, is not lawful.*

"CHAP. III. That the true sacrament, and Christ whole and entire, is received under either kind.

"Moreover, the council declares, that though our Redeemer, as has been before said, did in the last supper institute this sacrament in two kinds, and thus delivered it to the apostles, it must nevertheless be granted that the true sacrament, and Christ whole and entire, is received in either kind by itself; and therefore that, as far as regards the fruit of the sacrament, those who receive one kind only are not deprived of any grace that is necessary to salvation.

"The church, no doubt, was influenced by numerous and cogent reasons, not only to approve, but confirm by solemn decree, the general practice of communicating under one species. In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid accident or indignity, which must become almost inevitable, if the chalice were administered in a crowded assembly. In the next place, the holy eucharist should be at all times in readiness for the sick, and if the species of wine remained long unconsumed, it were to be apprehended, that it may become vapid. Besides, there are many who cannot bear the taste or smell of wine; lest, therefore, what is intended for the nutriment of the soul should prove noxious to the health of the body, the church, in her wisdom, has sanctioned its administration under the species of bread alone. We may also observe, that in many places wine is extremely scarce, nor can it be brought from distant countries without incurring very heavy expense, and encountering very tedious and difficult journeys. Finally, a circumstance which principally influenced the church in establishing this practice, means were to be devised to crush the heresy which denied that Christ, whole and entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body is contained under the species of bread, without the blood, and the blood under the species of wine, without the body. This object was obtained by communion under the species of bread alone, which places, as it were, sensibly before our eyes the truth of the Catholic faith."-Catechism, p. 244.