portion of the decree discovers pretty plainly how the first part is to be understood.

The decrees were received with little hesitation, although with some. The next session was appointed to be held on the 17th of September ensuing.

The number present appears in the Diary, and in Le Plat, but the presidents, cardinal, and ambassadors of the princes alone are specified. The prelates amounted to 177. The theologians were 95.

In the letter written by Visconti on the same day he gives an account of the session and reckons the prelates at 175. In the latter part, in cipher, he enters into particulars, which substantially, and rather minutely agree with the narration above. Of the proposed addition of the archbishop of Granada he says, that had it been proposed at a suitable time, and not so near the session it would have been almost unanimously adopted. As it was, about 62, (it certainly should be 12,) answered non placet. Several other particulars are mentioned; and the sudden* proposal of some motions is censured by him.

SESSION XXII.

PREPARATIONS-SESSION.

Doctrine: Sacrifice of the Mass-Reformation: Ecclesiastical Regulations. THE first event of importance, with which the present portion of this history is concerned, is, the apparently confirmed reconciliation of the two alienated legates. Another affair of some importance was, a letter of the king of Spain to his wishes to doubt whether there were such things as indulgences for a hundred and more years. Dr. Milner doubts, whether there were such a vile book as the Taxæ Pœnitentiariæ. Our great naval hero, Nelson, when before Copenhagen, was told, that the admiral in chief gave signal to withdraw. He turned, and, putting his hand over his effective eye, said, I see no signal. No system, moral or religious, teaches the art of looking at things with the blind eye so completely as the Roman Catholic.

cose nuove all' improviso.

ambassador at the council, the Marquess of Pescara, expressing his consent, that his prelates should cease to press the disuniting subjects of continuation and residence. This, when made known to them, did not please the Spanish prelates; and Granada respectfully, but firmly, remonstrated, adding, that the king was misinformed, and under the influence of sinister councils, and that he himself, although he should forbear protesting, should still persist in advocating the point of residence in particular. For these facts we are indebted to an epistle of Visconti of the date of July the 20th*.

The historian of the Acts, in order to avoid the confusion which might arise from the varied subjects of discussion preparatory to the ensuing session, divides his account into the four following parts-I. the Sacrifice of the Mass; II. the use of the Cup; III. Reformation; IV. Abuses of the Mass.

To secure greater celerity in the examinations, the theologians and canonists were classified, and had each their separate department. Thirteen articles were prepared for them on the subject of the mass. The 1st was, whether the mass were a commemoration only, and not a true sacrifice; 2. whether the sacrifice of the mass derogate from the sacrifice on the cross; 3. whether by the words, this do in remembrance of me,' Christ ordained, that his apostles should offer his body and blood in the mass; 4. whether the sacrifice of the mass benefit the receiver alone, and cannot be offered for others, as well living as dead, nor for their sins, satisfactions, and other necessities; 5. whether private masses, in which the priest alone communicates, are unlawful, and to be abrogated; 6. whether the mixture of water with wine be repugnant to the institution; 7. whether

* In my MS. the date is the 22d, but it is evidently corrected by the next letter at the beginning. It is likewise the date which Courayer gives in his reference in the margin. It may be observed, how accurately Fra Paolo has represented the information of Visconti in this place. The details of both perfectly agree. I have given only the substance.

Q

the canon of the mass contain errors, and is to be abrogated; 8. whether the Roman custom of consecrating secretly and in a low tone is to be condemned; 9. whether the mass should be celebrated in the vulgar and known tongue; 10. whether appropriating certain masses to certain saints be an abuse; 11. whether the ceremonies, &c. observed in celebrating should be discontinued; 12. whether the mystical immolation of the Lord be the same as being given us to eat; 13. whether the mass be a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; whether likewise a propitiatory sacrifice for the living as well as the dead. Let it be said, whether these articles be erroneous, or false, or heretical, and to be condemned by the holy synod.

The legates desirous of guarding against the loss of time, arising, not only from the number of speakers, but from their prolixity, proposed certain regulations, composed by the historian, and approved by the fathers. The principal of them was, that each speaker should be limited to half an hour*.

This part of the rule, however, was not strictly observed. Salmeron, the pope's theologian, relying perhaps upon that privilege, contrived to occupy the whole space of one congragation with his own speech. And his colleague followed his example, to the great annoyance of the legates, who determined to make an example of the transgressors. In fact so little authority had the determination of the synod to regulate its own proceedings, that, according to our authority, Visconti, in four congregations only six individuals had spoken.

Some progress, however, was made; doctrine and canons were composed. The theologians determined, by various reasons and authorities, that the mass was a true sacrifice. There occurred indeed some obstacle to their unanimity. A Portuguese divine set himself to overturn all the foundations of his associates. Indeed, according to Sarpi, who gives him

* These regulations are preserved at length in Servantio; and they are found in Le Plat.

But

the name of George d'Ataida, he made such approaches to common sense in his argument, as to present the strange appearance of a protestant in the very council of Trent. it became quite necessary, that another divine of the same nation should extricate his brother, by making it evident, that the unfortunate man intended exactly the opposite to what he said. This, without names, is perfectly substantiated by the representation of Visconti himself, in a letter of the 27th of July; who complains, that the theologians continued the offence of lengthiness. The theologians, however, at last agreed in a doctrine on the subject, consisting of four long chapters, and fortified by several canons. As these were not finally adopted, it is of no adequate importance to transcribe them.

They came to the criticism of the fathers on the 11th of August; when it was debated, whether the canons should be preceded by a statement of doctrine, or not*. There were three opinions on the subject. Some would have it altogether omitted, others would have a simple declaration without reasons; the greater part were for clear and solid doctrine, supported by the best arguments and authorities. The first argued, that the heretics would be little likely to be convinced by arguments, being chiefly from traditions, which they despised; and that the catholics needed nothing in that way. The second adduced reasons which are obvious. The third, rather more original, maintained, that the synod sustained the character, not only of a judge, but of a teacher and parent, ready to give a reason of its acts, and more prepared to win the hearts of the heretics by argument,

*The cardinal of Augsburg, in a letter of his to cardinal and legate Hosius, dated July 14, 1562, referring to this question, when started before by the legates, writes, Probatur mihi et tua et Canisii ratio docendi prius quam execrandi. I refer to it for the execrandi, which signifies the canons with their anathema. How coolly do Romanists talk of cursing those whom they esteemed heretics! This letter occurs in Jul. Pogiani Epp. vol. iii. Rom. 1757.

See to the same purpose in the sequel.

than to exterminate them by the sword. The logic of the last prevailed.

This determination, our author relates, introduced a serious disputation among the fathers, whether Christ offered himself for human redemption at the supper, or on the cross. This question, which had formerly been omitted, now engrossed the whole attention and energies of the fathers, and there were four opinions upon it. It is unnecessary to particularize. There was of course truth intermingled, but smothered. It may readily be imagined, why many of the Roman church contended for the redemption being made in the supper. Others held that sacrifice not to be expiatory but eucharistic. They talked of a double oblation, one general, the other spiritual, and supported their distinction by various subtleties. A third party, as usual, reconciled the opposite ones, either by uniting both, or steering the middle way between them.

The question then of the mass in the vulgar tongue came to be stated, and precedent was adduced in its favour, but the fog of papal superstition extinguished the feeble taper.

In consequence, however, of these discussions the proposed doctrine was remodelled, and assumed the general form in which it was established at the session. We have now, in regular form, the dogma of a proper sacrifice in the Lord's Supper, supported by the sacerdotal character and act of Melchisedec, the well-known passage of Malachi, and the analogy with the sacrifices of the Jews and heathens, as represented in the first of St. Paul's epistles to the Corinthians*, and so on, with suitable anathematizing canons, the

* All this is duly introduced into the first chapter of the doctrine of the acrifice of the mass, established at the session; and this would be sufficient, if no other proof were adducible of the importance put by Romanists upon these scriptural arguments for their sacrifice of the mass, and the ex clusive priesthood of their church. The character and assumed sacrificial acts of Melchisedec are their principal reliance, as they are first in order. It is, therefore, less matter of surprise than of regret and reprobation that