That eminent scholastic divine, the acute and learned John Duns Scotus, as Bellarmine calls him, gave it as his opinion that "before the Council of Lateran, Transubstantiation was not believed as a point of faith," and indeed he clearly and plainly confessed that, "properly speaking, Transubstantiation is not a change."3 Was Scotus justified in the assertion, that before that period this doctrine was not taught by the church? Take another very famous theologian, called "the Master of the Sentences," Peter Lombard, archbishop of Paris (A.D. 1150). If Transubstantiation be true, the so-called sacrifice on the Popish altar and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same, and the former is not a commemoration of the latter. What was his opinion? He asks, "Can that which the priest transacts be rightly called a sacrifice or immolation, and is Christ daily immolated or was he only once immolated ?" He answers the question thus:

"That which is offered and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memorial and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation accomplished upon the altar of the cross. Christ died once upon the cross, that it is not to be found in the Mazarine copy, coeval with the council. An unfortunate witness: for whilst Collier states, erroneously, that the third canon is not found with the others, he assigns to the others a place in the Mazarine copy! The fact is, that the third canon is found in the Mazarine copy; a portion of it having been removed mechanically. Should any one get possession of the MS. of Hume's History of England, and tear out a portion of his history of Charles I., or James II., he might as justly contend, and on the very same grounds, that the history of these monarchs "is not found in the Hume MS." See the Rev. John Evan's "Statutes of the Fourth Lateran Council:" London, 1843.

1 Duns Scotus was professor of theology at Oxford in 1301, and afterwards removed to Paris in 1304, where he was placed at the head of the theological schools.

2 "Unum addit Scotus, quod minime probandum, quod ante Lateranense Concilium non fuisset dogma fidei."-Bell. lib. iii. de Euchr. cap. xxiii. sec. 12, p, 337, tom. iii. Prag. 1721. Scotus, fol. 55, p. 2, col. 2. Venet, 1597. 3Dico proprie loquendo, quod transubstantio non est mutatio." Sent. Art. xi. sec. 1, ad propositum. Edit. as above.

In 4

and was there in himself sacrificed; but He is daily sacrificed in the Sacrament, because in the Sacrament a commemoration is made of that which was done only once.'

To go up to an earlier date, Gelasius, bishop of Rome (A.D. 492), wrote:

66

Certainly, the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord, which we receive, are a Divine thing; because by these we are made partakers of the Divine nature. Nevertheless the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceases not to exist; and, assuredly, the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries." 2

Cardinal Baronius and some other zealous Romanists have endeavoured to deny the authenticity of this passage by attributing the work to Gelasius of Cyzicus (of the fifth century nevertheless); and Rome, ashamed of its teacher, has placed the passage in question in the Roman Expurgatory Index.3 There are, however, honest men in this Church, such as Dupin and others, who admit its authenticity.

То go still higher, Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus (A.D. 430), wrote that "the mystical signs do not depart from their

*

1 "Quæritur si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio: et si Christus quotidie immoletur, aut semel tamen immolatus sit? * illud quod offertur et consecratur, a sacerdote, vocari sacrificium et oblationem: quia memoria est, et repræsentatio veri sacrificii, et sanctæ immolationis factæ in arâ crucis. Et semel Christus mortuus in cruce est, ibique immolatus est in semetipso: quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento, quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel." -Pet. Lombard. Sentent, lib. iv., distinct. 12, p. 745, ed. Mogunt. 1632.

2 "Certe sacramenta qua sumimus corporis et sanguinis Domini Christi Divina res est, propter quod et per eadem Divinæ efficimur consortes naturæ. Et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini: et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur."-Gelas. de Duabus in Christo naturis, contra. Eutychen. et Nest. in Bib. Patr. tom. iv., par. i. col. 422, Paris, 1589; and p. iii. tom. v. p. 671. Colon. 1618.

3 See Mendham's Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, p. 121. Second edition, London, 1830.

4 "Neque enim signa mystica recedunt à naturâ suâ, manent enim in priore substantiâ, figurâ, et formâ, et videri et tangi possunt."-Theodor. Oper. Dialog. lib. ii. cap. 24, p. 924. Paris, 1608.

nature, but remain in their former substance, figure, and form." This passage has also been tampered with.1

Again, we have Chrysostom (A.D. 406), who, in his Epistle to Cesarius, said :

"Before the bread is consecrated, we call it bread; but when the grace of God, by the priest, has consecrated it, it is no longer called bread, but is esteemed worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the nature of bread still remains in it.” 2

Cardinals Perron and Bellarmine, feeling the force of this formidable passage, accused Peter Martyr (A.d. 1548) of having forged the treatise in question, and actually asserted that the epistle never existed; though they do not undertake to explain how it is that this same epistle was quoted as the genuine production of Chrysostom, by John Damascene (A.D. 740), Anastasius (A.D. 600), and the Greek Father Nicephorus (A.D. 800), as shown by Wake. To this we may add the words of the French ecclesiastical historian, Dupin, "It appears to me that one ought not to reject it as a piece unworthy of St. Chrysostom."

Again, we have Ephrem, of Antioch (A.D. 336), who testified as to the belief in his day :

"The body of Christ, which is taken by the faithful, neither departs from its sensible substance, nor remains separated from intellectual grace on the other hand." 4

1 See Faber's Difficulties of Romanism. B. ii. c. iv. p. 274. London, 1853.

2 "Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus: Divina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem appellatione panis; dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit." Chrysost: ad Cæsarum Monachum. Oper. Chrysost. tom. iii. p. 744, fol. Bened. Edit. Paris, 1721. 3 "Il me semble meme que l'on ne doit pas rejetter comme une piéce indigne de S. Chrysostom."-Dupin, Nov. Bib. des auteurs Eccles. tom. iii. p. 37. Paris, 1698.

4 “ Τὸ παρὰ τῶν πιστῶν λαμβανόμενον σῶμα Χριστου, καὶ τῆς αἰσθητῆς οὐσίας οὐκ ἐξίσταται, καὶ τῆς νοητῆς ἀδιαίρετον μένει χάριτος.” Ephraem. Theopolitan. apud Phot. Bibl. cod. ccxxix. p. 794. Edit. Rathomag. 1653.

This passage has also been perverted in the Latin version. of the Jesuit editor with native adroitness.1

The signal failure of all the attempts to prove these passages to be either spurious, or to tamper with them, or to put them in the Roman Index as prohibited, establishes our case triumphantly.

Without further evidence, we are now in a position boldly to challenge Romanists to disprove the allegation-that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is a modern invention of their church.

We proceed now to what is called the "Real Presence." Romish controversialists artfully attempt to separate the consideration of this doctrine from that of transubstantiation; but with them they are one and the same. Their "real presence" means the presence of the body, blood, (and as the Roman catechism adds) bones and nerves, soul and divinity, of our Lord, in the consecrated host. They assert, however, that the early English divines and all the early Fathers of the church, held a real presence of Christ. That is true; but that presence was a real spiritual presence without any idea of a transubstantiation or change of the substance of the elements, which is the very essence of the alleged real presence in the host. It is equally true, that the early Christian writers often referred to the elements as the body and blood of Christ; and asserted that the body and

1 "Qui locus in se perspicuus, misere corruptus fuit ab Andrea Scotto Jesuita, cum videret ejus sanam interpretationem evertere transubstantionem. Ideo verba illa τῆς ἀισθητῆς οὐσίας οὐκ εξίσταται, vertit sensibilis essentia non cognoscitur, cum notum sit, verbum èέíoтauai, idem esse ac degenero, de statu dejicior, etc.; verba autem sequentia de baptismo, Tò idíov Ts ȧions ovσías Tov udatos Aéyw, Siaowei; quorum perspicuus est sensus, servat proprium sensibilis substantiæ aquæ dico. Sic infeliciter et veteratorie interpolat: hocque substantiæ visibilis proprium est, per aquam, inquam, salvat: ubi nullus est sensus." Riveti Critici Sacri, lib. iv. cap. xxvi. p. 1148. Roterodami,

blood are received at the sacrament. And so did also

Dr. Watts, in his hymns :

"The Lord of life this table spread

With his own flesh and dying blood.” (vi. b. 3.)

Again

"Thy blood, like wine, adorns thy board,

And thine own flesh feeds every guest." (xix. b. 3.) 1

And yet no one accuses Watts of holding the Popish doctrine of the real presence. But who can say that a hundred years hence it will not be said of him by Papists—if Popery then exist that he believed in transubstantiation ?

On the other hand, it is equally clear that many of the early Fathers expressly stated that they understood the words of our Lord not literally, but figuratively; and the consecrated elements are spoken of by them as types, or figures, or symbols, or representations of the body and blood of Christ-language wholly incompatible with the idea of a real corporeal presence of Christ. Thus, it is said in the Clementine Liturgy, as set forth in the "Apostolic Constitutions :"

"We moreover give thanks, O Father, for the precious blood of Jesus Christ, which, on our behalf, was poured out, and for his precious body, of which also we celebrate these elements as the antitypes, He himself having commanded us to set forth his death." 2

Origen (A.D. 216), in his commentary upon Matt. xv. 11, after showing that it is the prayer of faith which

1 Quoted by Dr. Cumming in the Hammersmith Discussion. London, 1848, p. 214.

2 “Ετι εὐχαριστοῦμεν, Πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἐκχυθέντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, καὶ τοῦ τιμίου σώματος, οὗ καὶ αντιτυπα ταῦτα ἐπιτελοῦμεν, αὐτοῦ διαταξαμένον ἡμῖν καταγγέλλειν τὸν αὐτοῦ θανατον.” Clem. Liturg. in Const. Apost. lib. vii. c. 25, Cotel. Patr. Apostol. Amstel. 1724.