canon. We now come (p. 142) to a work, De Duabus Naturis, by Gelasius, whom no one doubted to be the pope of that name in the fifth century, until plainly interested motives induced the Romanists to move a question upon the subject. The case is stated in Cave's Hist. Lit., where he asserts Labbe to be satisfied of its authenticity. The modern discussions are mere loans upon antiquity. But all that is in contest is the pope or a theologian of the same age; and, therefore, we may proceed. A passage is produced, p. 145, & tamen esse non desinit substantia, nel natura panis, et vini, &c., tolle glossamwe need not mind that: come we to the Magister -proinde hoc sanum margini affige scholion, rite lector intellige verba Gelasii, substantiam panis et vini appellant, non ipsam veram substantiam vocat naturam, et essentiam accidentium, quæ manent in eucharistia, et theologi species vocant, quæ quidem vicem, et proprietatem substantiæ induunt in nutriendo, &c. ; quodammodo hac etiam ratione substantia dici queunt. Hunc autem morem loquendi non esse alienum a Patribus, nec a Gelasio, præsertim, abunde te docebunt Bellarminus, &c. Here, reader, you are let into the whole secret of pontifical logic, when the pressure is most It is only to say of a thing non ipsa vera, and quodammodo; and you may turn the most obstinate substances and propositions into their

severe.

direct opposites; or affirmatives into negatives, on As stubborn a sentence is that

any subject. which follows: et certe imago, et similitudo corporis, et sanguinis Christi in actione mysterii celebrantur, dele glossam marginis, refer ad corpus cruentum et visibile, utpote diminutam, (tum) et scribe, non negat Auctor vere, and realiter esse in Eucharistia verum Corpus, et Sanguinem Christi, sed ait, non solum ipsas species sacramentales panis, et vini esse signa Corporis, et Sanguinis Christi, ibi re vera existentium: sed etiam ipsum corpus, et sanguinem Domini, ut sunt in sacramento sub illis speciebus, esse signa, seu symbola ejusdem corporis, et sanguinis Christi, ut fuerunt in cruce, representatur enim in eucharistia mysterii dominicæ passionis, unde S. Chrysostomus Homil. 17, in Epist. Hebræ. ait, eucharistiam esse typum, seu figuram sacrificii crucis, cum tamen, et ipsa verum sit sacrificium, vide Bellarminum, 2. lib., de Eucharistia, cap. 15.—A most comfortable sliding away from the only words of any importance in the sentence, imago et similitudo. What a pity it is, that this rational style of interpretation had not been known in sufficient time to save some hundreds of conscientious people in this country from the stake for believing and professing what a pope had believed and professed before them! Jonas Aurelianensis next falls under displeasure for his testimony

against image worship, in eo merito rejiciendus, quod nullam sacris imaginibus adorationem, aut venerationem deferenda existimaverit, qui fuit error nonnullorum Gallicanorum magni nominis theologorum, uti prædiximus. Jonas has some other things, a sinceræ doctrinæ sensu aliena; and we heartily thank the papal censor for his admission. Under Marcus the Hermit, the semipelagianism, at least, of Rome, makes a fresh appearance, where the author is charged with not obscurely intimating, that the kingdom of heaven is not given pro mercede nostrorum bonorum operum. Observe the process by which the offender is extricated. Forsitan auctor cum operibus nostris nihil tribuere videtur, intelligit de illis quatenus humana sunt, et a solo libero arbitrio proficiscuntur, non ea ratione qua in gratia fiunt, vel innuit non tantum mercedem, sed potissimum gratiam esse. Under Antonius Melissa is introduced the common distinction by which the Roman idolatry is defended. The author writes: Eam vero solummodo naturam, quæ increata est, colere et venerari didicimus; vel expungatur dictio; solummodo; vel affigatur margini; Caute lege, forsan de suprema, et primaria ratione latriæ, quæ per se tantum Divinitati tribuit (ur). In the same author is thus corrected the assertion of supreme earthly power to princes: Intellige inter sæculares, et

temporales dignitates; nam Ecclesiastica dignitas sublimior est Regia. Is this doctrine now otherwise than in abeyance? The vindication of our author in the close, as to some objectionable doctrine, is worth attention for the word employedposset torqueri in bonum sensum; and, with some other specimens given, it discovers how effectually the dialectics of Rome provide an escape from any difficulty. We hasten over other articles, to arrive at a name of some note in controversy, Paschasius, whose title of Divus is, however, ordered to be expunged. Important as is the testimony of this writer to the modern church of Italy, in its most unfounded and most cherished doctrine, he comes under slight correction in the first instance, for denominating the change of the elements creation. The reproof is louder for the countenance given to administration of the cup to the people in these words: Accipite, et bibite ex hoc omnes, tam ministri, quam reliqui credentes. Observe how this is parried: si locus sit integer, vult Paschasius bibendum sanguinem Domini cunctis fidelibus, non sub specie vini: sed sub specie panis, sub qua cum sumitur Christi Corpus, non sumitur exangue: sed cum sacro sanguine, qui ibi adest, non ex vi Sacramenti, sed ex vi naturæ Corporis viventis, et ut aiunt Theologi per concomitantiam. Similar legerdemain is exer

cised upon the plain declaration that the flesh or blood of Christ are converted into our flesh, by directing it to be understood only of the species. It becomes then impossible to use terms so plain and decisive as to contradict the doctrine of transubstantiation. For what then were our ancestors burned at the stake? The succeeding articles are a good deal on the same subject, and furnish the same display of papal sophistry, particularly that in which the physical transmutation to which the elements are liable is explained of the species solely and when the flesh of Christ is said expressly by Odo to be a spiritual and not a corporal sacrifice, this is interpreted away by saying, non solo corporali et externo ritu immolari, ut reliquas carnales hostias, &c. I will finish the account of this long, but not uninteresting, article, by observing the indignation which the good Censor naturally feels and expresses against Photius, Bishop of Constantinople, for representing his own see as the head of all the churches; and his unceremonious treatment of an admitted saint, Gregory of Tours, who, adopting the words of another writer, he scruples not to affirm, multa aliter quam veritas

se habet-literis commendavit. The fate of EMANUEL SA is peculiar. He is subject to discipline for twenty-eight pages; but is acquitted in the next Spanish Index. Indeed, in this act of