exists entire under each form; and that the custom of the Church is to be held as a law*." All this was still of no avail. The opinions of men had taken a decided course, and they moved onwards. Extreme dissatisfaction, indeed, had spread far and wide, and loud were the complaints proceeding from all quarters, when the Council of Trent was convened; and during the protracted existence of the Council, from 1545 to 1563, there was perhaps no question approached with greater solicitude, or debated with greater zeal, than that of giving or withholding the cup from the laity. Such had been the operation of the grievance felt by the people in this matter, that scarcely any thing threatened greater danger; the apparent danger arising, not only from the declared reformers, but from those also who were anxious not to be driven into a coalition with men of violent measures. The King of France was displeased with the communion in one kind; the Emperor still more so; and the Duke of Bavaria declared that by nothing, but concession on that point, could his subjects be kept quiet. After much reluctance, on the part of the Council, to interfere in the matter, and various postponements of the enquiry a discussion of the subject, and others closely connected with it, began, and lasted for several days. On the one hand, the advocates for

* "Eucharistiam sub unâ specie a laicis suscipiendam; Christum integrum esse sub alteruterâ specie; et consuetudinem Ecclesiæ pro lege habendam." Sess. 30.

communion in both kinds represented, as politicians, the murmurs of the people, and the disastrous consequences which might be expected unless that point were conceded—and, as divines, adduced arguments from the Institution; from primitive practice; and from the 6th chapter of St John; in favour of their own views. On the other hand, the advocates for communion in one kind dwelt upon the immunity from error in the decisions of Councils; appealed to the Decrees of the Councils of Constance and Basil; and contended, that, in accordance with Augustine and other great fathers, the 6th chapter of St John was to be interpreted spiritually. The situation of the Legates, upon whom devolved the duty of drawing up the final decrees, was, in this manner, truly embarrassing; and great must have been their perplexity. They were, however, men of the world-not easily thrown off their guard; and amidst so many conflicting sentiments, appear to have resolved upon trying the effect of a cautious application of the grand principle of compromise. When therefore they had concocted their declarations and their canons, the result was as follows:

The Council so far stood by the Decrees of the Councils of Constance and Basil and their supporters, as to anathematize "any man who should say that all and singular of the faithful are obliged by Divine Precept, or as necessary to salvation, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds."

The Council so far stood by the advocates for the communion in both kinds, as to declare that"As to the Two Articles which were formerly proposed, and which still remain to be examined, namely, Whether the reasons which induced the Church to give the Eucharist to the laity, and to the non-celebrating clergy, under the species of bread alone, ought still to be so adhered to, as that the use of the cup ought to be allowed to no man whatsoever: and supposing that it should be thought convenient upon reasonable causes, and such as are founded upon Christian charity, to grant the use of the cup to some particular nation or kingdom, Whether the concession should be made with any conditions, and what those conditions ought to be? The holy Council reserves the examination and determination of these Articles to another time-to wit, to the first occasion that shall be presented." In the subsequent session of the Council, the whole matter, integrum negotium, was referred to the Pope, as alone able to settle the dispute.

The Council so far stood by the divines, who supported opposite interpretations of the 6th chapter of St John, that, like the umpire in ancient pastorals, it deemed the speakers on each side "equal in argument and prepared to answer;" declared that neither interpretation was adverse to the doctrine of communion in one kind; and far from giving the preference to either, sagely decided that there would be no small detriment to the heretics,

and at the same time, special advantage to the Church, in retaining them both*.

The decisions of the Council were of course prepared by certain leading men; and every one must be struck with admiration of the adroitness with which those great masters of political tactics contrived to extricate themselves from the difficulties by which they were encompassed. Nothing, however, but an imagination like that which-with the assistance of hermeneutical principles, such as we have already described-metamorphosed the peo

*The canon respecting communion in both kinds was thus expressed: "Si quis dixerit, ex Dei præcepto, vel necessitate salutis, omnes et singulos Christi fideles utramque speciem sanctissimi Eucharistiæ Sacramenti sumere debere: anathema esto."

The declaration to the advocates of communion in both kinds was in these terms: "Duos verò articulos aliàs propositos, nondum tamen discussos, videlicet: An rationes, quibus sancta Catholica Ecclesia adducta fuit, ut communicaret laicos, atque etiam non-celebrantes sacerdotes, sub unâ tantum specie, ita sint retinendæ, ut nullâ ratione Calicis usus cuiquam sit permittendus: et, An, si honestis et Christianæ charitati consentaneis rationibus concedendus alicui, vel nationi vel regno, Calicis usus videatur, sub aliquibus rationibus concedendus sit; et quænam sint illæ: Eadem sancta Synodus in aliud tempus, oblatâ sibi quam primum occasione, examinandos atque definiendos reservat." The matter was afterwards referred to the Pope in similar terms.

The conclusion, respecting the 6th chapter of St John, appeared in these words: "Sed neque ex sermone illo, apud Joannem sexto, rectè colligitur, utriusque speciei communionem a Domino præceptam esse, utcunque juxta varias sanctorum patrum et doctorum interpretationes intelligatur." As to the retaining of both interpretations, "the following adjudication" (to adopt Dr Wiseman's language) "was given:" "Cum eâ geminæ interpretationis opulentiâ de S. Joannis testimonio Ecclesia frueretur, quarum utraque probationem ab hæreticis inde deductam impugnabat, ad unius tantummodo paupertatem non esse redigendam." These things occurred in the twenty-first session of the Council.

ple of Capernaum, in the manner we have seenappears equal to the task of proving, from the conduct of "the holy Synod" in this matter, "how far it was from merely seeking to impose doctrines, without sufficient proof to satisfy the conditions" of the principle of faith, for which Dr Wiseman contends. There is indeed a sense-but not a sense exactly falling in with the learned author's views-in which the Council did not, by any means, "blindly decree whatever it listed, without any consideration of grounds or arguments." Grounds and arguments in abundance were presented for consideration; but the reader shall judge for himself of the extent to which they can be supposed to have led to a decision, on reasons drawn from Scripture and antiquity. Unless I greatly mistake, the most effective arguments of all were those advanced on the part of the Masters of many Legions.

The proceedings of the Council of Trent, in this matter, enable us to infer, that the countenance given by the Church of Rome, to Dr Wiseman's interpretation of the 6th chapter of St John, is of a very ambiguous kind; although the learned author, in his four lectures on the subject, has left sufficient indications of a wish that the reader should form a different opinion. Taking into account the exemplary caution of the Council of Trent, I cannot but think that he would have acted more wisely, by engaging in this part of the controversy with less zeal. In the remaining lectures, he is fully entitled,