to quench. The archbishop of Rossano protested against alterations and novelties. He observed that the custom of communing in one kind only had been introduced as a remedy against the errors of Nestorius, who taught that the body of Christ only was contained in the bread, and his blood only in the wine. By restricting the laity to one kind the church instructed them that both the body and the blood of the Saviour are contained in the bread; but the present demand would tend to revive that long-forgotten heresy. Many evils and inconveniences were now prevented: for instance, the blood of the Redeemer was preserved from the indignity it would endure by spilling the wine on the ground, or suffering it to become sour. How could such evils be avoided, if the general use of the cup were granted? And besides, what vast quantities of wine would be required for large and populous parishes! Some advised to send a deputation to Germany with full power to act as the welfare and safety of the church seemed to require, after diligent and accurate investigation. Others recommended the concession, under certain restrictions and conditions, 96 and thought that the desire might be regarded as a weakness, and indulged, as Moses permitted divorce to the Jews. But those who held the opposite opinion, said that though it would be dangerous to refuse, it would be still more so to concede the heretics would triumph-Catholics would be offended— a few might be gained, but more would be lost—and their adversaries would taunt them for their changeable 96 The following conditions were proposed by the cardinal of Mantua:-1. That those to whom the concession should be granted should cordially receive and hold all the doctrines and ceremonies of the Roman church, and all the decrees of the council of Trent, as well those which were yet to be passed as those which had been already published:-2. That their priests should believe and teach that communion in one kind is not only not foreign to the divine command; but laudable and binding, unless the church otherwise determine; and that such as maintained the contrary sentiment should not enjoy the proposed privilege, but be treated as heretics :--3 & 4. That they should render due obedience and reverence to the Pope, and to their archbishops and bishops :-5. That the privilege should only be bestowed on such as confessed to the priest, according to the custom of the church :-6. That great care should be taken to prevent sacrilege and profanation. Le Plat, v. p. 455. Certainly this was not the way to gain the heretics or conciliate the discontented. ness and indecision. The abbot of Preval spoke with great warmth, and even ventured to say that the demand of the cup savoured of heresy and mortal sin, for which he was sharply reproved by the cardinal of Mantua, and compelled to ask pardon on his knees. 97 Foscarari, bishop of Modena, laboured to prove that though the concession was manifestly evil, it was nevertheless necessary, and required by the state of the times. He supported his argument, as did many more, by the authority of the council of Basle and of Paul III. The bishop of Leira spoke on the same side, and dwelt much on the opinions expressed by the emperor and his ambassadors, that this was the only way to restore peace to the church and check the inroads of heresy. Some had said that the council should imitate the father, who, though he forgave his prodigal son, waited till he came to repentance: but he thought they should rather resemble the shepherd described in the gospel, who traversed mountains and deserts in search of the wandering sheep, and when he had found it bore it joyfully on his shoulders to the fold and he adverted to the apostolic exhortation, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye," as furnishing ample direction and authority. Others, who held the same views, adduced the example of the apostle Paul in circumcising Timothy. Drascovitch twice addressed the fathers. In his second speech he briefly alleged the arguments that had been adduced for the concession, and replied to his opponents, exposing with much energy and point the false reasonings, needless alarms and frivolous objections that had been urged in the course of the debate. He implored the assembly to have compassion on the churches of Germany, and to show some regard to the solicitations of a powerful monarch, [the emperor] whose ardent desire for the restoration of peace and union had impelled him to press this request, and who felt so 97 Although the Abbot sided with the anti-reformists on this question, his opinions on other subjects, particularly the superiority of the council to the Pope, were so little in accordance with those of the legates that they procured his recall, on pretence of business con nected with the order to which he belonged. He saw through the artifice, and felt it so keenly that he died of vexation and grief, before he could leave Trent. keenly on the subject that he never spoke of it without tears. In conclusion he repeated what he had said before, that if the cup were now refused it had been better that the council had never been held, for that multitudes who had been kept in obedience to the Pope by the hope of obtaining this privilege would rend themselves from his authority when they saw that their hope was lost. Lainez, the Jesuit, spoke last, with much severity and haughtiness. He denied that any adequate cause for the required concession existed. As for those who asked it, he would have them treated as disobedient sons of the church and supporters of heresy, and would visit their obstinacy and pride with a direct refusal. Neither did he conceive that there was any ground for the alarms by which so many were afflicted. Let the fathers put their trust in the Son of God, in whose cause they were engaged; his church might be diminished in number, but it could not perish.9 98 On the evening of the tenth day (Sept. 9.) a division took place. It exhibited an extraordinary variety of opinion, proving that the fathers felt themselves placed in a very difficult situation. One hundred and sixtysix votes were thus divided; twenty-nine approved of the concession; thirty one were on the same side, but wished the execution of the proposed decree to be committed to the discretion and will of the Pope-thirtyeight opposed it altogether-twenty-four referred the whole matter absolutely to the Pope; nineteen inclined to the concession, as far as the Bohemians and Hungarians were concerned; but denied it to all othersfourteen desired the further postponement of the subject—and eleven were undecided, or neutral. From this chaos of sentiments it was obviously impossible to frame a decree.99 During the progress of these discussions the French ambassadors renewed their endeavours for the postponement of the session. They had ascertained that the cardinal of Lorraine and the prelates who were to ac 98 Pallav. 1. xviii. c. 4. Sarpi, 1. vi. s. 63. The celebrated Andrew Dudith delivered a long and eloquent speech in favour of concession, which Le Plat has preserved, v. p. 472-488. 99 Pallav. and Sarpi, ut sup. company him could not arrive before the middle of October. But meanwhile intelligence of the views and disposition of the French had reached Trent, and occasioned no inconsiderable alarm. It was strongly suspected that they would vigorously support the friends of reform, and resist the encroachments of papal power and authority; of the cardinal of Lorraine it was said that he not only intended to advocate the concession of the cup, but also the removal of the images from the churches. Instead, therefore, of yielding to the request of the ambassadors, the legates were stimulated by their fears to unusual activity, and hurried on the business of the council with a precipitancy that was sadly inconsistent with the dignity of the assembly, and totally destructive of calm and sober deliberation. Lanssac remonstrated and threatened, but it was all in vain.1 A reforming decree had been prepared under the superintendence of Simonetta, to whom that department was assigned. As might have been expected, it was extremely superficial, and fell far short of the wishes and demands of the friends of pure discipline. With the exception of the first chapter, which contained some enactments relative to the characters and lives of the clergy (useful and salutary, if put in force,) it consisted only of articles of minor importance, and mostly destitute of general interest. The prelates received it with much discontent, and some of them uttered their complaints in free and bold language. A second decree, relative to certain abuses in the celebration of mass, passed almost sub silentio.2 The question of the cup was still undecided, as nothing certain could be gathered from the division on that subject. But by dint of artful management and active intrigue the legates had persuaded a majority of the fathers to agree that it should be entirely referred to the Pope-a crafty expedient, adopted to neutralize the opposition of the reforming bishops, and procure a tacit acknowledgment of the inferiority of the council to the infallible head of the church. This was proposed by the cardinal of Mantua at a congregation held on the 1 Pallav. 1. xviii. c. 7. Sarpi, s. 51. Le Plat, v. p. 470, 488. morning of the day before the session. It was the easiest way to get rid of a troublesome difficulty; the fathers disregarded the censure they would deservedly incur for leaving unsettled one of the most important questions which they were convened to decide, and on a division ninety-eight voted in the affirmative, and thirtyeight only in the negative. 3 The twenty-second session was held Sept. 17, 1562, when the following decree was passed respecting the mass "That the ancient, complete and perfect faith and doctrine of the holy Catholic church respecting the great mystery of the eucharist may be retained and preserved in its purity, and all errors and heresies be banished away-the sacred, holy, œcumenical and general council of Trent, lawfully assembled, &c. instructed by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, teaches, declares, and hereby decrees to be announced to all Christian people, how far the same is to be regarded as a true and proper sacrifice. "CHAP. I. Of the institution of the most holy sacrifice of the mass. "Since there was no perfection under the first testament, as the Apostle Paul testifies, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood, it behoved God, the Father of mercies, to ordain that another priest should arise, after the order of Melchizedek, even our Lord Jesus Christ, who might complete and bring to perfec 3 Pallav. ut sup. c. 8. Drascovitch had previously proposed that in referring the question to the Pope the council should declare in favour of the concession, leaving the conditions to be fixed by his Holiness; sixty-nine voted for this proposition, and seventy-nine against it. The Imperial and French ambassadors remonstrated with the legates on the insignificance of the reform about to be enacted, and demanded that the next session should be wholly occupied with reformation. But the legates were not to be turned from their purpose: doctrine and discipline, they said, must continue to be treated at the same time: but the ambassadors might be assured of their good intentions, and any suggestions they might be disposed to offer should be willingly heard and respectfully considered; so they were dismissed, with fair speeches, and promises light as air. Le Plat, v. p. 505--508. |