one Isidore Mercator, the Decretals of the ancient bishops of Rome, which were lying inventions, intended to establish the Papal monarchy, that forcibly reared itself during that age. In like manner the eleventh century, in which Berenger, archdeacon of Angers, vigorously combated the error of the real presence and transubstantiation, is the age in which many writings were forged in favour of this error, and various clauses thrust into the books of the ancients. -Of this false alloy is the book on the Lord's Supper ascribed to Cyprian, which all the learned of the Romish Church acknowledge not to be his. The same is the case with the Mystagogical Catechisms of Cyril of Jerusalem. The Catechisms of Gregory of Nyssa are indeed his, but are horribly corrupted, and are pervaded by errors not approved by the Roman Church. Mention is made in them of the heretic Severus, who lived a hundred and fifty years after Gregory of Nyssa.

We have treated of these forgeries, and many others, in the book against Perron. Were the supposititious books that bear the names of Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Athanasius, taken away from the works of these Fathers, their writings would be reduced more than onethird. However, after so many detected forgeries, we might very justly call upon our adversaries, when they object to us any passage from a Father, to prove that it has not been added or vitiated by some forger, like as so many others have been. If a document produced in law contain a single forgery, the entire document, as is every way just, loses all its force, and is rejected.

There is another difficulty that imposes a deception on those who are little skilled in antiquities, which is, that the words used in former times have now changed their signification. We find the words Pope, sacrifice, oblation, puri

fying fire, indulgence, station,* species, monk, penance, in the writings of the Fathers, but in quite a different sense from that in which they are now used.

Notwithstanding these difficulties and disadvantages of which our adversaries endeavour to avail themselves, we do not hesitate to enter willingly into the contest. For whatever forgeries may have been foisted into the works of the ancients, there still remain so many express and explicit passages against transubstantiation, as would form a large volume. We produced more than five hundred in the book upon the Novelty of Popery; and Messrs. Faucheur and Aubertin have lately laboured on this subject with the utmost diligence, and with profound learning. We shall here content ourselves with producing a few passages, that may serve as a specimen. It is, however, with this protestation, that we do not quote the Fathers for the support of our cause, which is sufficiently supported and established by the word of God. God does not beg the testimony of men; his word is as powerful by itself as when accompanied by human testimony. To propose to defend it by the authority of men liable to err, is like proposing to enlighten the sun with a candle. But we quote the Fathers in defence of their honour, because, contrary to their own inten→ tion, they are made the advocates of a bad cause, and to accommodate ourselves to the disease of this perverse age, in which the authority of the holy Scriptures is slighted, and human testimony put into hostile array against the word of God.

Station-Visiting certain churches and chapels appointed for gaining indulgences.- GATTEL.

CHAPTER XXVI.

Passages of the Fathers adverse to Transubstantiation, and to the oral manducation of Christ's body.

Tertullian, when contending against the Marcionites, who denied that Jesus had a true human body, said, b. iv. c. xl. "Jesus Christ having taken bread and distributed it to his disciples, made it his body, saying, This is my body;' that is to say, the figure of my body: but there could be no figure if there were not a true body." His reason is, that we do not represent a thing which does not exist by any figure. And again, b. iii. c. xix.: "Jesus Christ called the bread his body, that you may thereby understand that he appointed bread to be the figure of his body."

Concerning what the faithful receive by the mouth in the Eucharist, Origen, on Matth. xv., says, "If all which enters in at the mouth goes into the stomach, and is thence evacuated in the secret place, then the food, also, which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, since it is material, goes into the stomach, and is sent thence into the draught-house." It is afterwards added, that "that may be said in reference to the typical and figurative body of Jesus Christ." Cardinal Perron, writing to M. Du Plessis, loudly exclaims against this passage of Origen, calling him the origin of all errors; and cries out, "Christians, shut your ears"-as if they had read with their ears.

Perron asserts, that Origen was condemned by Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, for the passage just recited, but that is utterly false and groundless.

Theodoret, speaking of these words, "This is my body,"

says, in his first dialogue, entitled the Unchangeable, "the Lord honoured the visible symbols with the appellation of his body and blood,—not having changed their nature, but having added grace to nature." He had previously said, "the Lord called the sign his body." In the second dialogue, entitled "Without Confusion," "The divine mysteries are signs of the true body," he introduces a Eutychian heretic shortly after, maintaining transubstantiation, to whom he answers in these words: " Thou art taken in the net thou hast framed; for the mystic signs do not change their own nature after consecration, but remain in their former substance, figure, and form."* In the same dialogue it is demanded: "Tell me, then, what do the mystic signs offered unto God represent ?" It is answered, "The body and blood of the Lord."

In the books on the Sacrament attributed to Ambrose, we have the following clause of the public formulary, used in celebrating the Eucharist: "Grant that this oblation, which is a FIGURE of the body of Christ, may be placed to our account, as reasonable and acceptable." This cannot be understood of unconsecrated bread, for it is not an acceptable oblation for our sins. This clause still remains in the Mass, but the word figure is now deleted. In the Demonstration of Eusebius, b. 1, c. 8: “We have been instructed to celebrate, at the table, the memory of this sacrifice, by the signs of his body and blood, according to the laws of the New Testament." And in b. 8, after having said "that Jesus Christ gave the signs or symbols of his dispensation to the disciples," he adds, "commanding them to celebrate the image or figure of his own body."

* Μένει γαρ επι της προτέρας ουσίας. Lib. iv. c 5.

Ephraim, patriarch of Antioch, saith: "The body of Jesus Christ, which the faithful receive, does not lose its sensible substance, nor is it separated from intelligible grace. In like manner, baptism being wholly spiritual and one, preserves the property of its sensible substance—namely, of water-and ceases not to be what it was.' This passage

22

is one of great force, for bread is here called the body of Christ, but it is not admitted that any change of substance has taken place; nay, it is asserted, that there is no more change of substance in the Eucharist than there is in baptism, in which the water always remains water.

1

Gregory of Nazianzen speaks of the participation of the Eucharist, in the second oration on the Passover, as follows: "We shall indeed participate in the passover in a figure, yet more clearly than in the ancient passover, for, if I may so say, the ancient passover was an obscurer figure of a figure." The same Father, in his oration laudatory of his sister Gorgonia, commends her devotion in that when she received the Sacrament in her hand, she carried a part of it home. "If (said he,) her hand had treasured up any portion of the symbols or antitypes of the body and blood of the Lord, she mingled it with her tears."

"Consider diligently (said Ephrem, deacon of Edessa,*) how the Lord having taken bread into his hands, blessed it, and brake it for a figure of his immaculate body, and blessed the cup for a figure of his precious blood, and gave it to his disciples."

In the eleventh homily of the imperfect work upon Matthew, attributed to Chrysostom, referring to those who used the sacred vessels, such as plates and cups, for profane purposes, it is thus written: "If it be so dangerous to transfer

Ephrem. ad eos qui Filii Dei naturam scrutari volunt.