partakers of Christ" thus teaching us, that we receive in the eucharist, not merely the flesh or the blood of Christ, but Christ himself, in the unity of his person. Hence it would seem rash to affirm absolutely that the reception in one kind rendered the sacrament invalid.

But, this does not affect the question of administering in one kind only, an abuse which was introduced through a misdirected devotion for this sacrament, and which, in order to obviate certain imagined irreverencies in its use, abrogated the practice which had been instituted by our Lord himself, and received universally in the catholic church for twelve centuries. If such an institution be not obligatory on the church, it is impossible to prove anything obligatory: and as it is even still disputed in the Roman churches, whether more grace is not derived from reception of both kinds, the church is certainly bound to take the safer side. It is important to observe also, that the synod of Constance only prohibited the restoration of the ancient custom by private individuals, without the authority of the church therefore national churches are entirely free from censure, in putting an end to the custom of receiving in one kind.

These are the only decrees made in the synod of Constance which concern religion: but we are now to consider its title to the appellation of an "oecumenical synod."

This is at once subverted by the fact that the oriental churches were not represented at this synod, nor

Tournely observes, from Palavicini, lib. xii. c. 2 that the affirmative was maintained at the synod of Trent by Melchior Canus, Antonius Ugliva, and Sigismund Fedrius; and that it

is maintained by Vasquez, in 3 part. disput. 215. qu. 80. art. 2. and others referred to by him. Tournely, De Euchar. t. ii. p. 34.

The

did they ever acknowledge it as oecumenical. editor of the synod of Florence, and the pope who licensed it, also excluded Constance from the title of œcumenical, as did Cardinal Contarenus. But I proceed to adduce additional proofs from Alphonso de Ligorio, bishop of St. Agatha, who is accounted a saint by the Roman church.

The fathers of this synod, as we collect from him, were only those of the obedience of John XXIII, and did not include those of Gregory XII, and Benedict XIII. The suffrages were not given separately, but by nations, which John XXIII. objected to, and Cardinal D'Ailly, who was present, proposed a doubt in the synod whether its acts would not be questioned hereafter as null on this account. Hence Cardinal Turrecremata (lib. ii. de Eccl. c. 99, 100), and Cajetan (p. 1. de auct. Papæ. c. 8.) absolutely assert that those decrees are of no moment, because the church did not interfere in making them'.

Bellarmine, Gregory de Valentia", and the ultramontanes generally, only admit the last sessions of this synod as oecumenical, that is, after the election of Martin V. in the forty-first session, A. D. 1417. It should be observed that the objection of the ultramontanes to the oecumenicity of the early sessions, on the ground of their comprising the prelates of only one obedience, affects those sessions in which the doctrines of Wickliffe and Huss are condemned, and communion in one kind authorized; for, as Bailly says, "the two obediences spoken of were not then united with

f Alph. de Ligorio Theologia Moralis, lib. i. art. 129-131.

Bellarminus de Concil. Auc

tor. lib. ii. c. 19.

h

Gregor. de Valentia, Analys. Fid. Cath. lib. viii. c. 7.

the third."

Hence the decrees on these matters are

of most dubious authority.

SECTION V.

THE SYNODS OF BASLE, FLORENCE, AND LATERAN.

1. The synod of Basle was assembled in 1431, by Martin V. of Rome, and continued by Eugenius IV. It persisted to hold sessions till 1443. This synod declared the superiority of a general council over a pope, and in 1437 Eugenius published a bull translating it to Ferrara, which the synod of Basle refused to obey, and continued its sessions, in which the practice of communicating in one kind was again confirmed. This took place in the 30th session, and Bailly says that no catholic admits the latter twenty sessions, (out of forty-five) as oecumenical. The Gallicans admit the first twenty-five or sixteen as oecumenical. The ultramontanes, who reject the entire council', receive none. Alphonsus de Ligorio says, "Louis Du Pin, who is followed by some other Gallicans, did not blush to call this conventicle of Basle an oecumenical synod. To refute their most false suppositions would require a long and entire dissertation, . . . . but I reply briefly, that this convention of Basle by no means deserves the name of a general council; and this appears manifestly from circumstances which are beyond doubt. The number of bishops was so small, that it never could by any means represent the universal church..... The decrees were not made by bishops

6

only, as they ought, but by a multitude of people of little value, and no authority..... Æneas Sylvius said, Among the bishops in Basle we saw cooks and stable-boys judging the affairs of the world'. ....Papal legates were not present, as was essentially necessary. ..... besides, Eugenius had revoked the council after the first session,.... the suffrages given in the said synod were by no means free, as Cardinal Turrecremata and Eugenius asserted...... St. Antoninus called this synod of Basil, 'a conventicle devoid of power, and a synagogue of Satan.' S. John de Capistrano termed it 'a profane synod, excommunicated, and a den of basilisks.' The bishop of Meaux called it a troop of dæmons,' &c. &c. c The synod of Basle can hardly be viewed as oecumenical after all this: besides it was never known or approved by the oriental churches."

2. The synod of Florence was first assembled at Ferrara by Eugenius IV. who attempted to translate the council of Basle thither in 1437; but ineffectually, for only four of the bishops left Basle, and the ambassadors of the christian princes still remained there". The synod of Basle still continued to be recognized as œcumenical by France, Germany, and other countries. The rival synod of Ferrara was transferred to Florence, A.D. 1439, where several Italian bishops assisted. The Greek emperor, and some bishops of the east, having arrived for the purpose of uniting the churches, a decree was made in the tenth session, declaring that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son; that the sacrament is validly consecrated in unleavened as well as leavened bread; that there is a purgatory;

с

Alphons. de Ligorio, Episc.

d Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. cvii. S. Agathæ, Theologia Moralis, s. 71. cviii. s. 50. lib. i. art. 132, 133.

and that the Roman pontiff is the primate and head of the whole church. This decree was signed by about sixty-two Latin bishops, including some not yet consecrated, and by eighteen eastern bishops, some of whom signed as deputies of other bishops. Thus the whole number amounted to about eighty-a small number for a synod pretending to be œcumenical.

The synod of Florence was immediately rejected in the eastern churches, and has never since been recognized by them. It the west its authority has always been doubtful, because the rival synod of Basle was holding its sessions at the same time, and acknowledged by France and Germany as oecumenical. Cardinal de Lorraine declared in the synod of Trent, 1563, that the university of Paris did not hold the synod of Florence as œcumenical, because it consisted only of Italian bishops, and Greeks who were schismatics at the beginning of the synod'. Launoi says that the Gallican church does not number it among the general councils, and cites Cardinal Lorraine to this effect". Hooke and Tournely admit that it is doubted by some ".

h

The decree for the reunion of the Armenians was made by Eugenius IV. after the departure of the

e

Fleury, liv. cviii. s. 39, 40. Fleury, liv. clxiv. s. 74. g"Gallicana ecclesia nec Florentinum nec Lateranense concilium, quod Leo X. habuit, universalibus conciliis adnumerat. Id testati sunt in Tridentino concilio Gallicani antistites de Florentino, et Pio IV. Caroli Cardinalis Lotharingii opera, significavere." He adds the following words of Cardinal de Lorraine, "Ego negare non pos

sum quin Gallus sim, &c. Apud Gallos Constantiense concilium in partibus suis omnibus ut generale habetur. Basiliense in auctoritatem admittitur. Florentinum perinde ac nec legitimum, nec generale repudiatur: atque. idcirco Galli de vita potius, quam de sententia decedent."-Launoii Epist. lib. viii. ep. xi.

Hooke, Relig. Nat. et Rev. t. iii. p. 373. Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. ii. p. 309.