a celebrated Roman Catholic writer, Launoy, who, in reply, showed that sixteen Fathers and Doctors interpreted the text in question as referring to Christ, and not to Peter : eight held that the church was not to be built on Peter alone, but on all the apostles equally; whilst only seventeen adopted the modern Roman interpretation. Not one of them, however, derived from that text the pope's Supremacy. The Fathers differing, then, in interpretation, this important text must, according to modern Papal theory, remain a dead letter to Romanists.2 Take another famous text-1 Cor. iii. 15, which is now continually advanced to prove the Romish doctrine of Purgatory. Bellarmine3 divides the text into five heads, or five great difficulties, and on each head or difficulty he shows various conflicting opinions of the Fathers, and none of them agreeing with the modern Romish interpretation. He, nevertheless, concludes that the text does refer to the Romish purgatory; but, so satisfied was Bellarmine that there was no unity of interpretation among the Fathers, that he was constrained to admit that "their writings were not the rule of faith, neither have they any authority to bind."4 So conscious, indeed, are Romanists of their weakness in this respect, that they have corrupted the genuine text of some of these Fathers, to make them speak modern Popery:

1 Launoii Opera, tom. v. p. ii. pt. 95, Epist. vii. lib. v. Gul. Voello. Col. Allob. 1731.

2 The Reductio ad absurdum sometimes forcibly proves the fallacy of a proposition. The Romanists contend for literal interpretation here and elsewhere. "The rock" (say they) "must be Peter-it cannot be the doctrine just before propounded by Peter." In this very same chapter, Matt. xvi., in the 23rd verse, Christ addresses Peter-"Get thee behind me, Satan;" therefore Peter was literally the Devil; therefore the church of Rome, being founded on Peter, is founded on Satan.

3 Bell. De Purg. lib. i. tom. i. c. 4. Prag. 1721.

4 Scripta Patrum non sunt regulæ fidei, nec habent auctoritatem obligandi. Bell. de Concil. author. Lib. ii. c. 12, sec. xii. Prag. 1721.

at other times, they have ordered various passages to be expunged from their works: not unfrequently they palm off spurious productions of later date, as the works of an early Father; and when the evidence against them is too palpable, they do not hesitate to reject the authority altogether. For instance, take one of the most esteemed of all the Fathers, Augustine, who referring to the text 1 Cor. iii. 15, said-" By this fire is meant the fire of tribulation in this world." Bellarmine says-"This opinion of his we have rejected." Again, Augustine says "Those words of St. Luke, 'I will not henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine,' are to be understood of the sacramental cup”—and deduced that there was no change of the substance of the elements; Bellarmine again therefore opposed him, and said—“He did not well consider of that text, which appears by this that he passed it over lightly."

Another curious illustration we have in the works of the Jesuit Maldonatus. Augustine said "The Israelites ate of the same spiritual meat, but not the same corporeal which we eat; for they ate manna, we another meat; but both the same spiritual meat." Maldonatus said "I am verily persuaded that if Augustine had been living in these days, and had seen the Calvinists so interpret St. Paul, he would have been of another mind, especially being an utter enemy to heretics." Once more, Augustine said "Christ spoke these words: 'This is my body,' when he gave a sign of his body." Harding, the opponent of Jewel, made a curious. explanation, peculiarly characteristic of Romanists and Romanism. He explains this most palpable contradiction to

1 Bell. de Purg. lib. i. cap. v. sec. 36. Prag. 1721. I am indebted for some of these facts to Sir H. Lynd's "Via Devia."

2 Bell. de Euch. lib. i. cap. xi. sec. 61.

3 Mald. in Joh. vi. n. 50, p. 1476. Lug. 1615, and col. 732, Mussip. 1596.

the Romish theory thus:-"St. Augustine, fighting against the Manichees, oftentimes useth not his own sense and meaning, but those things which by some means, however it were, might seem to give him advantage against them, so as he might put them to the worst." So that a Romanist would even wilfully misinterpret Scripture if thereby he could secure an advantage over his opponent―so that “the end sanctifies the means!"

Thus we might go on. In fact, the "unanimous agreement of the Fathers" is not only not to be found, but when a Father disagrees from modern Romanism, the point in question is at once repudiated, the interpretation rejected, and the book expurgated or prohibited.

Cornelius Mus, indeed, most ingenuously confessed that he would rather give more credit to one pope in matters of faith, than to thousands of Augustines, Jeromes, or Gregories.2

There is, however, another peculiarity which we desire to note on this article of the Romish creed. We have not yet met with one Papal controversialist, who has undertaken to vindicate this particular doctrine of his church. While all the other points of faith are combated for and defended as either Scriptural or apostolic, this one stands alone, undefended, unsupported, and unvindicated.

1 Jewel. Art. xii. p. 346. Lond. 1609.

2 Ego ut ingenue fateor, plus uni summo Pontifici crederem, in his quæ fidei mysteria tangunt, quam mille Augustinis, Hieronymis, Gregoriis, etc. Cornel. Mussus Episc. Bitunt. in Ep. ad Roman. i. cap. 14, p. 606. Venet. 1588.

CHAPTER V.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

"That we may in all things attain the truth, that we may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it a fixed principle, that what I see white I believe to be black, if the Hierarchical church so define it to be." 1Ignatius Loyola.

In this chapter we propose to consider the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ, after the priest has pronounced the words of consecration. 2 Nothing is supposed to remain of the pre-existing elements but what Romanists call the accidents-namely, the size, shape, and smell, of bread and wine. The bread and wine cease to exist, but in their place comes "entire Christ," the true body, blood, bones, nerves, soul, and divinity,3— the very same body which was crucified, was buried, rose again, and ascended into heaven,-under the "appearance" of bread and wine.

1 "The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola, translated from the authorized Latin," by Charles Seager, M.A., "to which is prefixed a Preface by the Right Rev. Nicholas Wiseman, D.D.," pp. 180. London, 1847.

2 "Atque in sanctissimo Eucharistiae sacramento esse vere, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sanguinem, una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, fierique conversionem totius substantiæ panis in corpus, et totius substantiæ víni in sanguinem."-Pope Pius' Creed. "Ordo Administrandi Sacramenti," p. 67. London, 1840. And Can. i. Decree concerning this sacrament. sess. xiii. Council of Trent.

3 "Continetur totum corpus Christi, scilicet ossa, nervi, et alia."-Thos. Aquin. Summa, tom. iii. 2. 76, c. i., Lyons, 1567. "Comprehendens carnem, ossa, nervos, etc." Dens' Theo. tom. v. p. 276. Dublin, 1832. "Jam vero hoc loco a pastoribus explicandum est, non solum verum Christi, corpus, et quidquid ad veram corporis rationem pertinet, velut ossa et nervos, sed etiam totum Christum in hoc sacramento contineri." Catech. Concil. Trid. pars. ii. sec. xxxi. de Euchar. Sacr. p. 235. Paris, 1848.

Dr. Butler, in his Catechism, "revised, corrected, enlarged, etc., approved and recommended by Dr. Doyle" (Dublin edition, 1848), thus sums up this last proposition.

“Q. (p. 59) Are both the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and under the appearance of wine?

"A. Yes; Christ is whole and entire true God and true man, under the appearance of each.

"Q. Are we to believe that the God of all glory is under the appearance of our corporeal food?

"A. Yes; as we must also believe that the same God of all glory suffered death under the appearance of a criminal on the

cross.

"Q. (p. 60) Is the mass a different sacrifice from that of the cross ?

"A. No. The same Christ who once offered himself a bleeding victim to his heavenly Father on the cross, continues to offer himself, in an unbloody manner, by the hands of the priest on their altars."

And again, as the wine has been denied to the laity, it is asserted that in the bread alone, without the wine, the body and blood, soul and divinity, of Christ are received; nay, further, if one consecrated wafer be broken, then, even in each separate piece, " entire Christ" is still alleged to exist without extra benediction. However startling the proposition may be, nothing can be more plain and literal than the language of the Romish church; there is nothing typical, or symbolical, or spiritual, in the doctrine. A literal, carnivorous process is to be gone through; the idea is repulsive, but the system suggests it. This process of manducation was (if the doctrine be true) properly defined in the

1 "Si quis negaverit, in venerabili sacramento Eucharistiæ sub unaquaque specie, et sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus, separatione facta, totum Christum contineri, anathema sit.' -Con. Trid. de Sacra. Euchar. Sacra. sess. xiii. can. iii., p. 118. Paris, 1848.