decree of Pope Nicholas II., at a council held at Rome, 1059, as recorded in the Decretals or Book of Canon Law of the Roman church. When Berengarius was compelled to recant his alleged heresy in denying Transubstantiation, he was compelled to admit that the body and blood of Christ were sensibly not only in the sacrament, but verily handled by the priest, and broken and rent with the teeth of the faithful.2

The council at Rome, under Pope Nicholas, was, as was just said, held A.D. 1059; but as some Romanists of the present day may declare that the declaration then made was ante-Tridentine, and therefore obsolete, it may be stated that the same proposition was revived by Cardinal Archbishop Bellarmine, who lived some time after the Council of Trent. He endorsed what was required of Berengarius. He said :

"We truly and properly say that the body of Christ is removed, lifted up, and set down, put on the paten or on the altar, and carried from hand to mouth, and from mouth to the stomach as Berengarius was forced to acknowledge in the Roman council under Pope Nicholas, that the body of Christ was sensibly touched by the hands of the priest and broken.”

1 Berengarius was archdeacon of Angers, in France, and Scholasticus and Master of the Chair of Divinity of the same church.

26. Corpus et sanguinem Domini sensualiter non solum sacramento, sed veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri." Gratian Corp. Jur. Can. tom. i. p. 2104, par. iii. Dist. 2, c. 42. Paris, 1612. See Baronii Annales, ad ann. 1059, sec. 18.

3 "Itaque vere et proprie dicimus, Christi corpus in Eucharistiâ attolli, deponi, deferri, collocari in altari vel in pixide, transferri a manu ad os, et ab ore ad stomachum. Denique in concilio Romano sub Nicholo II. compulsus est Berengarius confiteri, corpus sensualiter sacerdotum manibus tangi et frangi."-Bellarm. de Eucharistiâ, lib. ii. cap. ii. ratio 5 et seq., tom. ii. Prag. 1721.

We have been unable to consult the first edition of Bellarmine's work, which, no doubt, quoted the whole decree, including the "dentibus atteri," torn with the teeth. These words are omitted from the second and all subsequent editions. The words are given, as in the last note above, in the latest edition of the canon law. Leipsic, 1839. Pars. iii. Dist. ii. c. 42. It is

On what is this Popish theory based? Not on Scripture. Christ, it is true, when he had pronounced a blessing, took bread and said, "This is my body." But what did he mean by the words? 1 Romish controversialists of the present day, boldly declare that it is under a literal interpretation and sanction of this text that they believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that such has always been the sense of their church. Assertions, however, in controversy go for nothing. The allegation is modern. No doctrine can be based on a text the literal interpretation of which is disputed; and not one of the old Fathers can be cited who alleged the doctrine of the conversion of elements resting on the literal interpretation of these words.

On the conversion of the substance of the elements-the question at issue-Cardinal Cajetan, who wrote about twelve years before the Council of Trent met, lays it down that such a doctrine is not to be found in the Gospels, but is received expressly from the church. His words are rather startling. He says:

"There appears nothing out of the Gospel that may enforce worthy of observation, that Bellarmine, immediately previous to the quotation from the decree of Nicholas II., drawing our attention, as it were, to the ancient and modern belief in the days of Augustine, of the fourth century, and Nicholas II. of the eleventh, quotes the following passage from Augustine" Augustinus serm. 2, de verbis Apostoli :-'Quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducatur.' nique in concilio Romano sub Nicholo II. compulsus est Berengarius confiteri, Christi corpus sensualiter sacerdotum manibus tangi et frangi." Thus Augustine speaks of a spiritual, Nicholas II. a sensual eating!

De

1 If literal interpretation is to be carried thus far, the Romanist must in the eucharist swallow the chalice. For St. Paul says "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup," 1 Cor. xi. 26.

2".. Dico autem ab ecclesiâ cum non appareat ex evangelio coactionum aliquod ad intelligendum hæc verba proprie quod Evangelium non explicavit expresse ab ecclesiâ accepimus, viz., conversionem panis in corpus Christi."-Cajetan in iii. q. 75, ar. 1, p. 130, col. 1. Venet, 1612. And Index. Expurg. Quiroga. p. 98. Madrid, 1667.

us to understand Christ's words properly, yea, nothing in the text hinders but that these words (this is my body') may as well be taken in a metaphysical sense, as those words of the apostle, 'the rock was Christ;' that the words of either proposition may well be true, though the things there spoken of be not understood in a proper sense, but in a metaphysical sense."

And he adds

"That part which the Gospel hath not expressed-viz., the conversion of the bread into the body and blood of Christ, we have received expressly from the church.”

The Jesuit Suarez admitted that Cardinal Cajetan taught that the words, "this is my body," do not of themselves sufficiently prove Transubstantiation without the authority of the church, and therefore, by the command of Pius V., that part of his commentary is left out in the Roman edition of his works.1

Fisher, the Romish bishop of Rochester, and a great opponent of the Reformers, specially stated that "there are no words in St. Matthew's Gospel whereby it may be proved that in the mass is made the very presence of the body and blood of Christ." He goes so far as to say that "it cannot be proved by any Scripture.”2 And Cardinal Bellarmine was compelled to admit that—

"It is not altogether improbable that there is no express place of Scripture to prove Transubstantiation without the declaration of the church, as Scotus said; for although the Scrip

1 "Ex Catholicis solus Cajetanus in commentario hujus articuli, qui jussu Pii V. in Romanâ, editione expunctus est, docuit, secius ecclesiæ auctoritate verba illa (Hoc est corpus meum) ad veritatem hanc confirmandam non sufficere."-Suarez. tom. 3, disp. 46, sec. 3, p. 515, edit. Mogunt, 1616.

2 "Hactenus Matthæus, qui et solus Testamenti novi meminit, neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra missa veram fieri carnis et sanguinis Christi præsentiam.". "Non potest igitur per ullam Scripturam probari."-J. Fisher, Contra capt. Babyl. c. 10, n. 8, et O. fol. lxxx. Colon. 1525.

tures seem to us so plain that they may compel any but a refractory man to believe them, yet it may justly be doubted whether the text be clear enough to enforce it, seeing the most acute and learned men, such as Scotus was, have thought the contrary."

But another illustrious Romish bishop, Peter Ailly (or, as he is generally called, Cardinal De Alliaco, who was Doctor of Divinity in 1380, and Chancellor of the University of Paris in 1389, and made bishop of Cambray in 1396, and cardinal in 1411), said :—

"That manner or meaning, which supposeth that the substance of bread to remain still, is possible, neither is it contrary to reason, nor to the authority of Scripture; nay, it is more easy and more reasonable to conceive, if it would accord with the determination of the church.”

It may be observed in passing, that Cardinal Cajetan draws a parallel between the text (1 Cor. x. 4) "that rock was Christ," and the text in question, as Augustine did in his work, "The City of God." Augustine says—" All symbols (significantia) seem in a manner to sustain the persons of those things which they signify; as the apostle says, the rock was Christ,' because that rock of which this is spoken signified Christ." And he carries out the same

1 "Secundo dicit Scotus, non extare locum ullum Scripturæ tam expressum, ut sine ecclesiæ determinatione evidenter cogat transubstantionem admittere, atque id non est omnino improbabile. Non etiam si Scripturæ, nobis tam apertæ videantur, ut cogant hominem non protervum, tamen merito dubitari potest cum homines doctissimi et acutissimi qualis imprimis Scotus fuit, aliter sentiant."-Bell. de Euchar. lib. iii. cap. 23, tom. iii. sec. 2, p. 337. Prag. 1721.

2 "Patet quod ille modus sit possibilis nec repugnat rationi, nec auctori tati Bibliæ, imo facilior ad intelligendum et rationabilior, quam, etc." In 4 Sentent, q. 6, art. i. fol. ccxvi. Edit. Paris (without date). We are indebted for some of these references to Sir H. Lynd's " Via Tuta."]

3 "Quodammodo omnia significantia videntur earum rerum quas significant sustinere personas, sicut dictum est ab apostolo, Petra erat Christus, quoniam Petra illa de qua hoc dictum est significabat utique Christum." De Civit. Dei, lib. xviii., cap. 48, Edit. Paris, 1685, and tom. v., col. 1120, Edit. Basil, 1569.

idea in his commentary on St. John's Gospel (Tract xlv.) "See how the signs are varied, faith remaining the same. There (i.e., in the wilderness) the Rock was Christ; to us that which is placed on God's altar is Christ."1 And, to drive the matter home, he said, "Christ did not hesitate to say, 'This is my body,' when he gave a sign of his body." These words are too plain to require any

2

comment.

It will be observed, therefore, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation stands solely on the dictum or authority of "the [Romish] church." The word 3 itself first authoritatively appeared in the proceedings of the Council of Lateran, held under Pope Innocent III. (Nov. 1215), in the first part of the seventy chapters alleged to have been drawn up by Innocent himself, relating to the extirpation of heretics. These constitutions are denied by some to be the work of the council, and are said to be by Pope Innocent alone. If so, the doctrine will scarcely be admitted even to have received at this time conciliar sanction. Indeed, it is quite common in the present day for Romanists to deny that these canons, and especially the "third" of these chapters (which anathematizes heretics, and orders ⚫ them to be delivered up to the secular power to be punished), had the sanction even of this council.4

1 "Quid enim illi bibebant? Bibebant enim de spirituali sequente petrâ ; petra autem erat Christus. Videte, ergo, fide manente, signa variata. Ibi petra Christus, nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur." Edit. Basil, 1569, tom. ix. col. 333.

2 "Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui." Cont. Adimantum. c. xii. p. 124, tom. viii. Paris,

1688.

3 The doctrine had been already announced in the several Councils of Versailles and Paris, 1050; of Tours, 1054; Rome, 1058 and 1079; at which several synods, Berengarius was condemned for denying the change of substances.

4 Those who deny that the statutes of Lateran IV., and especially the third canon, ever were sanctioned by the council, call Collier as a witness

E