As a second consequence proceeding from the doctrine of transubstantiation, we. turn our attention now to the communion under one kind and the doctrine of concomitance. Those two points are thus related. The communion of the laity, and of non-officiating priests, under one kind, gained prevalence in the western church first as a custom or usage. Afterwards the scholastic theology sought to justify this usage, as well as all other parts of the existing system. This was done by the proposition, that the whole Christ is present under each of the two kinds, that the presence of his body cannot be thought of without that of his blood and vice versa. 'The use is a matter of discipline. This theory is a matter of doctrine, and was raised into a dogma by the council of Trent. The use may be changed again by the church; the dogma however, by which it is justified, has been irrevocably pronounced.

Isolated cases of a communion under the species of bread alone, are to be found in antiquity. Here belongs the custom, already noticed, of conveying to the sick a portion of the consecrated bread. Of a communication of the cup going along with such instances, no trace that I know of is on record. Still these occasions are to be regarded only as cases of necessity. When the cup is withdrawn here and there in the Oriental churches, it is also by such necessary exception, and not as rule and law. Only in the Western church has the withdrawal been raised to any such character, and this too at a time when the opposition to transubstantiation, as urged by Ratramn and Berengarius, was no longer heard. It goes to show the vast distance which had come to hold in the view of the middle ages, between the laity and the priest when officiating at the altar. But still this thought is by no means sufficient, to explain the rise of the usage. It grew mainly, no doubt, out of an extreme fear of profaning the sacred blood. The danger of profanation, by spilling, was much greater in handing the cup, than in the case of the host. Möhler refers the withdrawal of the cup also to a certain diffidence which the laity felt about using what was so

When in the case of the holy supper thus, what had place originally only as a necessity for the sick came to be in the western church the reigning custom, namely communion under one kind, the fact forms a remarka'ble historical parallel with the course of things in regard to the rite of baptism. Anciently baptism was administered by aspersion only to the sick (baptismus clinicorum,) but afterwards this became in the west the reigning mode. The oriental (Greek) church on the other hand has retained, as the communion in both kinds, so also the form of baptism by immersion.

sacred, in view of their own unworthiness; in which view it must be thought of as a voluntary measure on the part of the people themselves, rather than as imposed upon them by priestly pride. This is the most favorable derivation of the usage for the Catholic church, and altogether it is not historically improbable. But when it is brought forward in the way of apology, it should be remembered that such diffidence with regard to using the means of grace which Christ has provided for all believers, is in itself false and wrong. It is the same sort of diffidence, that led many in the ancient church to put off their baptism as long as possible, the same sort of diffidence that hinders the pious Catholic from admitting the witness of adoption which the Holy Ghost works in the consciousness of believers; it is the same humility that leads him to turn to the saints for help, rather than to the Saviour himself. The feeling of unworthiness is in itself good; but in all these cases it is misled, and lacks the illuminaion that is shed abroad in the heart by full confidence in the Saviour's grace.

Communion under one kind, the source of the great Hussite commotions after the decree of Constance, was an evil which it was confidently trusted would find its remedy from the council held at Trent. On this point, above all, the Protestants wished to have a hearing in the body. The council fell in with this wish. In the thirteenth session (11th Oct. 1551), after all beside, had been settled in relation to the eucharist as a sacrament, the decision of four articles, of which three referred to the withholding of the cup, was deferred till the arrival of the Protestant delegates, for whom also a safe conduct was ordered.* In the fifteenth session (25th Jan. 1552), and still later, after an almost ten years' interruption of the council, on the 4th of March 1562, the safe conduct was renewed. Finally in the twentyfirst session (16th July 1562), the four articles were decided fully in the sense of the Catholic tradition, the first three thus against the Protestants. Only these two questions were still left: "Whether the reasons which led to the withdrawal of the cup continue so of force, that the use of it may on no ground be allowed

These four articles were as follows: 1. An necessarium sit ad salutem, et divino jure praeceptum, ut singuli Christi fideles sub utraque specie ipsum venerabile sacramentum accipiant. (On this it was already decided at Constance, that it is not required to receive in both kinds.) 2. Num miaus sumat qui sub altera quam qui sub utraque communicat. 3. An erraverit sancta mater ecclesia, laicos et non celebrantes sacerdotes sub panis tantum specie communicando. 4. An parvuli etiam communicandi sint.

to any?" and secondly: "If in any case there were reasons to allow the cup to a nation or kingdom, whether any, and if so what, particular conditions should go along with the grant?" The determination of both these points was reserved by the council for a later occasion. There was still hope thus, that the wish of the Emperor, Ferdinand I., would be regarded, and a main difficulty in the way of church union be removed. But these expectations also were disappointed, when the body resolved, at the close of its twenty second session (17th Sept. 1562), to leave both questions unsettled, and to refer the whole matter to the Pope decrevit (S. Synodus) integrum negotium ad sanctissimum dominum nostrum esse referendum,qui pro sua singulari prudentia id efficiat, quod utile reipublicae Christianae, et salutare petentibus usum calicis fore judicaverit. To such melancholy conclusion came the whole transaction, which had been regarded with so much expectation."

The council pronounced an anathema on any one who should say, that the church was not moved by just grounds and reasons to establish communion only under the species of bread for the laity and non-officiating priests. But what these weighty and good grounds were, was not said. And the fact is, that if anything is not to be justified, it is the pernicious decree of Con

stance.

The church has changed the institution of Christ, and vindicated this change by theories that belong to the schools, and that can lay the ground for no article of faith. In the sphere of genuine church faith and life, questions like that concerning the concomitance ought not to be brought forward. It is enough here to know, how Christ instituted his supper.

We can allow indeed, nay we must do so after Luther's example, that the Catholic also receives a true eucharist. He finds himself, so long as his church forbids him the cup, in a state of necessity, similar to that of the dying in the ancient church. For that which men withhold from him, the Lord himself can

This Decretum super petitione con esssonis calicis is purposely not placed along with the doctrinal decrees of the twenty second session, but after the decretum de reformatione, to intimate that the object of it belongs to the sphere of discipline.

6

The Emperor, who well knew that any permission yet to be obtained from the Pope would not have the favorable effect, that was to be expected. from a decision of the Council, said to some prelates who were present when he received information of this decree: "Gentlemen, I have done all that I could to save my people; now look to it in your turn, you who have most at stake in the matter."-Comp. Sarpi, Hist. du Conc. de Trente.

secure to him a compensation.. But this does not say, that the church, entrusted with the dispensation of the Divine mysteries, has the right to put her members in such necessity. Rather the law, as it still stands, is the heaviest and most just stone of offence. This precisely is the abuse, which as experience teaches brings the purpose of leaving the Catholic church with many to full ripeness, and in truth no other evil in it can well be said to furnish so fair occasion for this step.

So far as I know, the bishops have power in single cases, where the transition of a Catholic to Protestantism may be prevented by this and by no other means, to allow an individual the use of the cup. In the case of the Maronites and of the United Greeks, Rome allows regularly communion in both kinds, as well as the marriage of priests. The Pope has authority unquestionably to extend both allowances to other nations also, nay to the entire Roman communion. His not having done so since the council of Trent, cannot cut off every hope that a better time may still come. Möhler himself expresses hopes that look this way. It is not indeed christian, but as men now are it is still natural and easy to be explained, that favors are refused to enemies which would be granted to friends. If the Protestants could only assume a more peaceable attitude towards the Catholic church, the desire of the best men on the first side might possibly make an impression on the best men of the other side, which could not be made by the most urgent demands of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. With the present temper of the parties, and the tumultuary conduct of those Catholics who seek the restoration of the cup, there is but small prospect indeed of such a result; only when the relations of the world are brought to such a form, that all Christians may see where they have their true friends and proper allies, will there be room to look for an adjustment also of this difficulty. Till then we must persist, on our side, in a calm but still earnest and firm protest against the withdrawal of the cup.

Translated by J. W. N.

EARLY CHRISTIANITY.

IN an interesting letter of the Rev. Dr. Bacon, written recently from Lyons in France and published in the N. Y. "Independent" and the "American and Foreign Christian Union," we meet with the following passages referring to the present and past religious character of that ancient and venerable city.

"Before I left home I resolved that, if it were possible, I would visit Lyons in my travels, and see for myself what God has wrought there for the revival and advancement of true religion. That city, as you know, is the centre of a great and powerful organization for the propagation of the Roman Catholic faith-an organization second only to the Propaganda at Rome in the extent of its missions and the amount of its resources. In that city, too, the Roman Catholic religion is more flourishing, with the indications of living zeal, and more deeply seated in the affections of the people, than in any other city on the continent of Europe. The fact, then, so often reported to us, that there a Protestant Evangelical Church has been gathered, and that in the midst of such a population evangelical labors have been crowned with signal success, is a fact which the Christian traveler may well turn aside to see."

"Ever since my childhood the name of Lyons has been associated in my thoughts, with the faith and patience of the saints who suffered there as witnesses for CHRIST in the second century. The story of the sufferings and constancy of Pothinus, Blandina, Perpetua, and others, is upon record in the epistle from the Christians of Lyons and Vienne, to their brethren in Asia Minor, with whom they appear to have been closely connected-a document which is familiar to the readers of Milner's Church History, and which is among the earliest and most authentic remains of Christian antiqnity. It was an interesting thought that I was now for the first time upon ground that had been consecrated by the struggle of primitive Christianity, and watered with the blood of martyrs, some of whom had looked upon the faces of CHTIST'S immediate followers. And now, among the 200,000 inhabitants of Lyons, are there any living remains of the Gospel for which the primitive martyrs suffered, and which gave them the victory? The archbishop of Lyons and Vienne is honored by the Roman Catholic Church as the successor of Pothinus and St. Irenæus; but how slight the resemblance between the pompous and showy worship now performed under the roof of that old cathedral, and the simple prayers and songs of the few disciples who were wont to meet here in some obscure chamber "with their bishops and deacons," sev