Hence, even if we admitted that it was the intention of this synod to define the modern Roman opinion of transubstantiation as "de fide," it would not follow that its definition was binding on the church: but there are very reasonable grounds for doubting that the synod had such an intention. The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation supposes the whole substance (in the Aristotelic sense, as distinguished from the accidents) of bread and wine, to cease, by conversion into a different substance: so that the eucharist cannot be called bread after consecration, except in some figurative or tropical sense. The decree made at this synod uses indeed the term "transubstantiation" to express the μeraσTOXεiwoc, or transelementation, by which the sacramental elements become the body and blood of Christ': as the fathers had used the words mutatio, transitio, migratio, transfiguratio, μεταβολὴ, μεταρρύθμισις, μετασκευασμὸς, μεταστοιχείωσις, μεταποίησις, &c. : but though the term "transubstantiation," as Bossuet observes, naturally implies "a change of substance," this by no means settles the question; for it does not determine whether "substance" is used in the Aristotelic or the popular sense; whether the change is physical", and in itself

r

nem, potestate divina.”—Harduin. Concilia, t. vii. p. 17.

s Bishop Taylor's Dissuasive, p. 664. Oxford ed. by Cardwell. Bossuet, Variations, liv. iii.

"All the μεraσroixεiwσis of the sacramental elements maketh them not to cease to be of the same nature which before they were."-Bishop Pearson on the Creed. Article III. Note on s. 16. Eutychian heresy. The decree of the Lateran synod was as follows: "In qua (ecclesia) idem ipse sacerdos et sacrificium Jesus Christus, cujus corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus, et vino in sangui

"Ecclesia Catholica Orientalis atque Græco-Russica, admittit quidem vocem transubstantiatio, Græce μɛrovoiwois, non physicam illam transubstantiationem et carnalem, sed sacramentalem et mysticam; eodemque sensu hanc vocem, transubstantiatio, accipit, quam quo anti

corresponding to other changes whether natural or miraculous, or entirely sacramental, spiritual, and ineffable; in fine, whether it be partial or total. Hence those who employed the term transubstantiation with reference to the mystical change, might quite consistently hold that the substance of bread was not physically changed, or that it was only partially changed, or that it did not cease to exist, or that it was changed by union with the substance of Christ's body, or with his soul, or with the Divine nature. All these opinions are consistent with the use of the term transubstantiation, and all are contradictory to the common Roman doctrine on the subject.

...

In fact pope Innocentius himself, in one of his books, having asserted that "the matter of bread and wine . . . is transubstantiated into Christ's body," continues thus: "but whether parts change into parts, or the whole into the whole, or the entire into the entire, He alone knows who effects it. As for me, I commit to the fire what remains; for we are commanded to believe; forbidden to discuss "." Thus Innocentius declares that the total change of the substance is not a matter of faith; and he mentions, without any condemnation, the opinion of some who held that the bread and wine remain after

quissimi ecclesiæ Græcæ patres has voces μεταλλαγὴ, μετάθεσις, μεταστοιχείωσις accipiebant.” Plato Archbishop of Moscow, in reply to M. Dutens, Œuvres meleés, part ii. p. 171. This reply is referred to as of authority by Methodius, Archbishop of Twer, in the Preface to his "Liber Historicus," Mosquæ, 1805.

"Non enim de pane vel de vino materialiter formatur caro

vel sanguis, sed materia panis et vini mutatur in substantiam carnis et sanguinis, nec adjicitur aliquid corpori sed transubstantiatur in corpus. Verum an partes in partes, an totum in totum, an totale transeat in totale, novit Ille qui facit. Ego quod residuum est, igni comburo. Nam credere jubemur, discutere prohibemur."-Innocentius III. De Myster. Missæ, lib. iv. c. 7, 8.

consecration together with the body and blood ". He reserves the charge of heresy for those who held the bread to be only a figure of Christ's body *.

This renders it very probable, that Innocentius in the synod of Lateran did not intend to establish anything except the doctrine of the real presence. In fact the question was not then with those who denied the modern doctrine of transubstantiation: it was with the Manichæans, who denied the real presence of Christ's body in the eucharist. Nor was the term transubstantiation introduced specially into the decree to meet any particular heresy; as the term "consubstantial" had been introduced into the creed at the synod of Nice, expressly to exclude the heresy of Arius. No one objected to this term at the council of Lateran: no one had objected to it before: nor does it appear that it was disapproved of by any one till centuries afterwards, when it had been abused by some persons. Hence I conclude that the term was employed, not with any intention of establishing a specific view of the real presence; but simply as equivalent to "conversion," "transformation," " change," &c. which had been employed before, and continued to be employed afterwards to express the same thing.

That this was so, and that the whole Western church believed the common opinion of transubstantiation not to be a matter of faith, may be inferred absolutely and conclusively from the fact, that while this opinion was held by the majority of scholastic theologians till the period of the Reformation, several other opinions, entirely inconsistent with it, were openly held and taught by writers of eminence, without any

w Ibid. c. 9.

x Ibid. c. 7.

condemnation or censure. Durandus a S. Porciano, about 1320, taught that the matter of bread and winc remain after consecration . Nevertheless he was so far from being censured, that the pope made him bishop. of Annecy, and afterwards of Meaux ; and he is praised by Trithemius and Gerson, the latter of whom recommended his writings to students in the University of Paris". Cardinal d'Ailly who presided at the council of Constance, A. D. 1415, says, that "although catholics agree that the body of Christ is in the sacrament, there are different opinions as to the mode. The first is, that the substance of bread is Christ's body; the second, that the substance does not remain, but is reduced into matter existing by itself or receiving another form, &c.; the third, that the substance of bread remains; the fourth, and more common, that the substance does not remain, but simply ceases to exist "." Thus we see that the common opinion of transubstantiation was only an opinion, and that different opinions were held by "catholics." In fine, the scholastic theologians generally mention the different opinions, without imputing heresy to those that received them. From this it appears evidently, that the common doctrine of transubstantiation was not defined by the synod of Lateran or by the Western church: but at all events, as Bouvier, bishop of Mans, says, after Melchior Canus and many

y Durand. Commentar. in Sent. lib. iv. dist. xi. qu. 3. He says, "prædictus autem modus conversionis substantiæ panis in corpus Christi constat quod est possibilis. Alius autem modus qui communius tenetur est intelligibilis, nec unus istorum est magis per ecclesiam approbatus vel reprobatus quam alius."

VOL. II.

See the preface to Durandi Comment. in Sent. Pet. Lombard. Antwerp. 1567.

a Cardinalis de Alliaco in 4 dist. 6, art. 11. cited by Tournely, De Eucharistia, t. i. p. 265. See also Field, Of the Church, Appendix to Part iii. C. 17 ; Bull's Works by Burton, vol. ii. p. 257.

Q

other of the best theologians, "When, all circumstances considered, it remains doubtful whether a council really intended to define any doctrine, then the decision is not de fide; for in order that any proposition should pertain to the catholic faith, and be binding on all the faithful, it is not sufficient that it be revealed and enunciated in any manner; but it is requisite that it be proposed clearly and without any doubt, by an infallible authority b." On this principle the common Roman opinion of transubstantiation can never be proved a matter of faith by the decree made in the Lateran synod.

The decree beginning "Omnis utriusque sexus," enjoining annual confession to a priest, and Easter communion, was merely in a matter of changeable discipline, which a synod of the western church could not render always obligatory on national churches.

SECTION III.

THE SYNODS AT LYONS AND VIENNE.

1. Innocentius IV. of Rome assembled the first synod of Lyons in 1245, at which 140 bishops were present. The pontiff, in the presence of the synod, which listened in astonishment, pronounced a sentence of deposal against the emperor Frederick. He also enacted several regulations of discipline. No decisions in matters of faith seem to have been made. This synod was not attended or received by the oriental

b

Matthæi Paris Hist. Anglic. ad an. 1245, cited by Harduin. t. vii. p. 401.

d Bouvier, De Ecclesia, p. 236. Canon xxi. Harduin. Conc. t. vii. p. 35.