of Christ's body, and yet deny not the presence of the bread still remaining to sustain the appearing accidents." But allow it otherwise, still here is the first decree that can be cited in favour of what the Romans now deem to be an article of faith necessary to salvation. Prior to this time, at all events, they are unable to deny that it was free for a man to believe as he pleased concerning it. For, so late as sixty years before this council, we find the famous Peter Lombard speaking thus upon the subject. Sentent. lib. iv. dist. 11. lit. a. Colon. 1576. p. 353.

Si autem quæritur, Qualis sit illa conversio: an formalis, an substantialis, vel alterius generis? definire non sufficio.

Si vero quæris modum quo id fieri possit, breviter respondeo, mysterium fidei credi salubriter potest, investigari salubriter non potest.

And Alphonsus a Castro, Adv. Hæres. VIII. c. Indulg. Paris, 1571. p. 578, is forced to admit, De transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio.

And our own countryman, Bishop Tonstal, de Eucharist, lib. i. Lutet. 1554. p. 46, distinctly states :-" Porro ante Innocentium tertium Romanum Episcopum, qui in Lateranensi concilio præsedit, tribus modis id posse fieri curiosius scrutantibus visum est. An satius autem fuisset curiosis omnibus imposuisse silentium, ne scrutarentur modum quo id fieret, cum viæ Domini sint investigabiles, sicut fecerunt prisci illi qui inscrutabilia quærere non tentabant, et facile Deum aliquid efficere posse putabant?

An vero potius de modo quo id fieret, curiosum quemque suæ relinquere conjecturæ, sicut liberum fuit ante illud concilium, modo veritatem corporis et sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia esse fateretur, quæ fuit ab initio ipsa Ecclesiæ fides ?"

Here it is further to be noted that, as was observed before, pp. 85, 103, 104, there is no reasonable ground for believing that these or any other canons whatever were passed at the Council of Lateran. The passages of Matthew Paris, (Lond. 1642. p. 272), and Platina (1485. vit. Innocent. III.), on this subject, have been already given. That of Nauclerus (Tubingen. 1514.

p. 212), is as follows:- "Innocentius Papa Romæ in Ecclesia Lateranensi concilium sive Synodum celebravit. ... Venere multa tunc quidem in consultationem, nec decerni tunc quicquam apte potuit, quod et Pisani et Gennenses Maritimo Cisalpinæ terrestri bello inter se certabant. Editæ tunc nonnullæ constitutiones referuntur e quibus una existit, ut quoties orbis principes alter in alterum," &c.

If to this we add the fact that in the first collection of councils and canons that, namely, of Jacobus Merlin in the early part of the 16th century, these pretended decrees are not to be found, we may well stand excused for rejecting them, as the African Church rejected the pretended decrees of Sardica; in which case the Council of Trent will have the honour of being the first reputed General Council that lent its weight to this fiction.

PAGE 133, CANON 3.

This canon, like the 27th of the third Lateran, is beyond comment. This was the acme of Papal presumption; in fact, it was not possible to carry the perversion of Apostolic authority further. Let it be considered that neither of these has ever been set aside by any competent authority in the Church of Rome. They are ready to be enforced whenever the rulers of that Church shall have the power and inclination to do so.

PAGE 138, CANON 4.

The Greeks regarded the Romans as heretics, and accordingly. treated them as such in the matter of re-baptizing; pursuant to the principles upon that subject which they had adopted from St. Cyprian, and confirmed in the second canon of the Trullan Council.

The terms in which the members of the Church of Rome are designated by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, are as follows:

Τοὺς δὲ νέους τῆς ἀποστασίας προδρόμους, τοὺς θεραπευτὰς τοῦ ἀντικειμένου, τοὺς μυρίων ἐνόχους θανάτων, τοὺς κοινοὺς λυμεῶνας,

τοὺς τὸ ἁπαλὸν ἐκεῖνο καὶ νεοσύστατον εἰς τὴν εὐσέβειαν ἔθνος, τοσούτοις καὶ τηλικούτοις σπαραγμοῖς διασπαράξαντας· τούτους τοὺς ἀπατεῶνας καὶ θεομάχους συνοδικῇ καὶ θείᾳ κατεκρίναμεν ψήφῳ· οὐ νῦν αὐτῶν τὴν ἀπόφασιν καθορίζοντες, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῶν ἤδη συνόδων, καὶ ἀποστολικῶν θεσμῶν, τὴν προωρισμένων αὐτοῖς καταδίκην ὑπεκφαίνοντες, καὶ πᾶσι ποιοῦντες ἐπίδηλον.—Photii Epist. 2. Lond. 1651. p. 55.

The grounds for condemnation he alleges to be; 1. The fast on the Sabbath contrary to the 64th Apostolic canon, and the 55th of the Trullan. 2. The separation of married priests from their wives, contrary to the fourth canon of Gangra and thirteenth Trullan. 3. That they did not properly fast, the first week in Lent, contrary to the 56th Trullan. 4. That they repeated the Chrism by the hands of the bishop, to those who had already received it from a presbyter; above all, that they had interpolated the creed by the addition of the words filioque, this being contrary to the decrees of Ephesus and Chalcedon. See Photius' Epistle, as above.

These charges were urged again, some time afterwards, by the Patriarch Michael Cerularius, in his Epistle to Peter of Antioch, which will be found in Coteler.—Monum. Eccles. Græc. Paris, 1681. vol. ii. p. 140. § 9... Nosti enim, a tempore sanctæ et Ecumenica Sexta (Quintæ) Synodi, ac deinceps, relationem Papæ in sacris Diptychis, apud nostras videlicet Ecclesias excisam fuisse, propterea quod Vigilius tunc Romæ Papa, ad eam Synodum venire noluerit ... Atque ex eo tempore usque ad præsens, abscissum esse Papam a nostra Sanctissima et Catholica Ecclesia. § 10. Neque vero hoc dumtaxat relatum fuit; sed etiam quod duo memorati Pontifices, cum homines alios Azyma comedentes recipiunt, tunc ipsi quoque interdum in Azymis divina celebrant mysteria. § 11. . . . . Verum recte cognoscas, quod non uno tantum jaculo, nempe circa Azyma transfiguntur Latini, illo cunctis notissimo; sed multis variisque; ob quæ necesse est ut illos aversemur. § 12. Et quidem quæ apud Judæos imitati peragunt, ista sunt; ipsum circa Azyma impendens iis crimen ;

....

suffocata manducare; radi; sabbata servare; polluta comedere; monachos carne vesci, adipe suillo, omnique corio usque ad carnem pertingente; in prima jejuniorum hebdomade, in carnis privii et Lacticinii hebdomadis, eodem modo circa cibum agere; feria quarta carnem edere, Parasceue autem caseum et ova; totum sabbati diem jejunare . . . . In Sancto Symbolo tale additamentum recitant ex mala periculosaque sententia; ad hunc modum et in Spir. S. . . . . Filioque. Filioque. . . . . . § 13. Ad hæc, sacerdotum nuptias prohibent; hoc est, qui uxorem habent sacerdotii dignitatem non suscipiunt, sed conjugii expertes esse debent qui volunt sacrari. Duo fratres duas sorores ducunt. In missa, tempore communionis, unus ministrantium comedit Azyma, et reliquos salutat. Annulos in manibus ferentes Episcopi, quasi Ecclesias uxorum loco duxerint, gestari a se arrhabonem aiunt; et ad bellum progressi sanguine manus inquinant. Eos qui baptizantur unâ immersione baptizant quinetiam sale eorum quos baptizant ora implent. §14. Ita ergo viventes, ejusmodi moribus innutriti, manifesto illicita, vetita, aversanda audentes, an recte sentientibus videbuntur in orthodoxorum omnino coetu esse collocandi? Non ego sane arbitror.

...

....

The reply of Peter of Antioch to this communication is also interesting. It is in the same collection, p. 145, &c. § 11. Malum vero, et malorum pessimum, est adjectio ad sanctum symbolum hæc . . . . . Filioque § 12. . . . . Verum, ut videtur, amiserunt Latini exemplaria Nicænæ primæ Synodi ; propterea quod Vandalorum gens Romæ diu dominium tenuit § 14. Cæterum convenit ut nos ad bonam voluntatem respiciendo, præsertim ubi nec circa Deum, nec circa fidem periculum est, propendeamus semper ad pacem et fratrum amorem. Illi quippe fratres nostri sunt, quamvis ex rusticitate vel imperitia contingat, ut sæpe ab eo quod decet excidant, dum suam sequuntur voluntatem. Neque postulare debemus in barbaris gentibus adeo accuratam disciplinam ac a nobis in doctrina eductis exigitur. Magnum enim est, si vel apud eos recte prædicetur vivifica

seu vitæ principium Trinitas, nec non in carne factæ dispensationis mysterium juxta nostram sententiam teneatur. § 18. De additamento ad S. Symbolum, quodque sacramentis non communicent de manu sacerdotis conjugio sociati, recte ac Deo grate insistet sanctitas tua: nec umquam cesset de eo insistere ac suadere donec eos adduxeris ad consentiendum veritati, cætera vero mihi videntur esse aspernanda . . . . § 21. Considera etiam, num inde manifesto, ex diuturna hac, inquam, divisione ac dissensione, quod a sancta nostra Ecclesia divulsa fuerit magna hæc prima et apostolica sedes, contigerit omnem in sæculo crevisse malitiam, &c. .

§ 22. Ut equidem meam promam

sententiam, si in adjectione Symboli corrigantur, nihil præterea postulaverim.

PAGE 140, CANON 5.

By this canon the Church of Constantinople is placed above that of Antioch and next to Rome; a point which, when decreed by the first Council of Constantinople, was the alleged ground why the Bishop of Rome refused to receive the canons of that Council. See above, p. 23.

PAGE 141, CANON 9.

Here we see how the Church of Rome plays fast and loose with the decrees of even those councils which she receives as general. Nothing can be clearer than the directions here, that the divine offices and sacraments shall be administered in the vernacular tongue. Hardly any thing can be more pertinacious than the refusal of the Roman bishops to obey these directions.