CHAPTER IV.

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN REGARD TO THE DOCTRINE OF

TRANSUBSTANTIATION, p. 68.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation, like that of the Trinity, is

purely a question of evidence: whence it must be received

or rejected, according as the evidence shall be sufficient or

insufficient, p. 68.

I. The doctrine of Transubstantiation may be confuted from

Scripture alone, even independently of any other aid, p. 70.

1. Homogeneous passages must be interpreted homoge-

neously, p. 71.

2. The very terms in which the institution of the Eucha-

rist is described, are fatal to the doctrine of Tran-

substantiation, p. 73.

(1.) Verbal argument from St. Matthew's statement,

p. 73.

(2.) Verbal argument from St. Paul's statement,

p. 74.

3. The doctrine of Transubstantiation contradicts other

parts of Scripture, p. 74.

(1.) Argument from our Lord's discourse at Caper-

naum, p. 74.

(2.) Argument from the prophetic declaration of

David, p. 75.

(3.) Argument from the explicitly and repeatedly

declared fact, that Christ was only ONCE offered

up as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, p.76.

II. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is a novelty, inasmuch as

it was the doctrine neither of the primitive church nor

even of the early church, p. 77.

1. The ancient ecclesiastical writers taught, as the

genuine doctrine of the catholic church, not a

PHYSICAL, but a MORAL, change in the elements, by

virtue of the prayer of consecration, p. 77.

2. That such was the case, is clear, from the nature of

the multiplied comparisons used by the ancients in

the way of illustration, p. 80.

3. With this avowed doctrine of a MORAL change only,

agree the repeated and positive declarations of the

early writers, that the consecrated elements only

SYMBOLIZE the body and blood of Christ, and that

the LITERAL body and blood of Christ are NOT

received in the Eucharist, p. 82.

(1.) Clement of Alexandria, p. 82.

(2.) Tertullian, p. 83.

(3.) Cyprian, p. 83.

(4.) Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 84.

(5.) Chrysostom, p. 84.

(6.) Augustine, p. 84.

(7.) Pope Gelasius, p. 85.

(8.) Facundus, p. 85.

4. Remarks on the context of the passage in Clement of

Alexandria, as cited above, p. 85.

CHAPTER V.

RESPECTING THE LATIN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTAN-

TIATION, FROM THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY OUR LORD, p. 88.

The bishop of Aire commences his defence of the doctrine of

Transubstantiation, by adducing and commenting upon the

words of Christ himself, p. 88.

I. His defence of the doctrine from Christ's discourse at Caper-

naum, p. 88.

1. The bishop's proposed interpretation of our Lord's

explanatory words is completely irreconcilable with

that adopted in the early church, p. 89.

2. The bishop's interpretation is not, as he contends,

required by the behaviour of the disciples, p. 92.

II. His defence of the doctrine from the language of Christ at

the institution of the Eucharist, p. 93.

1. When Christ ordained that sacrament, his phraseology

must have recalled to the minds of the disciples the

language which he had previously held in the syna-

gogue at Capernaum: but the question is, how such

language was understood by them, p. 93.

2. The bishop's objections to the ancient figurative

scheme of interpretation, as revived and adopted by

the church of England, p. 94.

(1.) His objection, that bread had never, before the

institution of the Eucharist, been taken as a

sign of Christ's body, p. 94.

(2.) His objection founded on the denial of the

alleged homogeneity of apparently homoge-

neous passages, p. 96.

CHAPTER VI.

RESPECTING THE LATIN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUB-

STANTIATION, FROM THE SECRET DISCIPLINE OF THE EARLY

CHURCH, p. 98.

The bishop of Aire proceeds in his defence of the doctrine of

Transubstantiation, by entering into a discussion of the secret

discipline of the early church, p. 98.

I. His argument to prove, that the doctrine of Transubstantia-

tion was the sole and grand secret of the christian mysteries,

p. 100.

1. The true doctrine of the Eucharist was not the exclu-

sive secret of the ancient christian mysteries, p. 101.

2. The true doctrine of the Eucharist was not even the

grand secret of the ancient christian mysteries, p. 101.

(1.) Proof from the catechetical lectures of Cyril of
Jerusalem, p. 102.

(2.) Proof from the testimony of Jerome, p. 105.

(3.) Proof from Origen, p. 105.

(4.) Proof from Augustine, p. 108.

(5.) Proof from the Philopatris, p. 108.

3. So far from the doctrine of Transubstantiation being

either the sole or the grand secret of the mysteries,

it was, in truth, not taught by them at all, p. 110.

(1.) Since the catholic church of the five first cen-

turies recognised no change in the elements

save a MORAL change; it is impossible, that the

doctrine of a PHYSICAL change could have been

taught in the mysteries which seemed to have

been instituted in the course of the second

century, p. 111.

(2.) This position is fully established by the remark-

able circumstance, that none of the ancient

pagans ever ridicule the doctrine of Transub-

stantiation, though they frequently ridicule the

genuine mysterious doctrines of christianity,

p. 112.

II. The bishop's argument in favour of Transubstantiation, from

the allegations of the pagans, that the christians in the

celebration of their mysteries devoured human flesh and

drank human blood, shown, from the explicit denial of the

christians themselves, to be altogether untenable, p. 116.

CHAPTER VII.

RESPECTING THE LATIN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUB-

STANTIATION, FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE ANCIENT LITURGIES,

AND FROM THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL

WRITERS, p. 121.

The bishop of Aire completes his defence of the doctrine of
Transubstantiation, by adducing the language of the ancient
liturgies and the phraseology of the early ecclesiastical
writers. In prosecuting this part of his subject, he diligently
quotes, in the sense of a PHYSICAL change of the elements,
passages, which speak only of their MORAL change. Mean-
while, he suppresses the passages which make directly against
his system. At their existence, indeed, he faintly hints: but,

while he attempts, though unsuccessfully, to invalidate them;
he gives his English laic correspondent no opportunity of
judging for himself by an ocular inspection of such passages,
p. 121.

I. His first line of argument proceeds on the ground, that the

type and the antitype, or the thing symbolizing and the

thing symbolized, may be perfectly identical: a mode of

reasoning, by which we may clearly demonstrate the smy-

bolizing woman Hagar to be identical with the symbolized

mount Sinai in Arabia, p. 122.

II. His second line of argument, which is palpably inconsistent

with his first, proceeds on the ground, that the old fathers

were in two different stories, as they severally addressed

the Catechumens and the Mystæ, p. 124.

1. This argument is confuted by the explicit language

of Augustine's Enarrations, which were certainly

addressed to the Mystæ, p. 125.

2. The true key to the occasional language of the ancient

liturgies and of the early ecclesiastical writers, is the

doctrine of a MORAL, as contradistinguished from a

PHYSICAL, change, p. 126.

CHAPTER VIII.

RESPECTING THE RISE AND PROGRESS AND FINAL ESTABLISHMENT

OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, p. 128.

An historical sketch of the rise and progress and final establish-

ment of the doctrine of Transubstantiation; as it gradually

sprang up, by an increasing departure from the old doctrine

of a MORAL change, to the new doctrine of a PHYSICAL

change, in the consecrated elements, p. 128.

I. In the fifth century, Eutyches constructed an argument, in

favour of his own peculiar speculation respecting the trans-

formation of Christ's human nature into the divine sub-

stance, upon the hitherto unheard-of doctrine of a PHYSICAL

change wrought in the elements by virtue of consecration,

p. 128.

1. The premises of his argument were immediately

denied by Theodoret, in the same century, p. 129.

2. They were also denied by Pope Gelasius in the same

century, p. 131.

3. And they were again denied by Ephrem of Antioch,

in the sixth century, p. 132.

II. In the year 787, the second Council of Nice, reversing the

decree of the Council of Constantinople in the year 754,

ratified the new doctrine of a PHYSICAL change, p. 133.

III. In the ninth century, the present doctrine of Transubstan-

tiation was first regularly drawn out and digested by

Paschase of Corby, p. 134.

IV. In the year 1079, that doctrine was maintained by Pope

Gregory VII. against Barenger, who adhered to the old

doctrine of a MORAL change: and, in the year 1215, it was

finally established by Pope Innocent III. in the fourth

Council of Lateran, p. 135.

V. When Paschase, in the ninth century, started the present

doctrine of Transubstantiation, it was immediately opposed

by Raban of Mentz, and many others, as an error of late

origin, and of only partial adoption, p. 135.

CHAPTER IX.

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO AURICULAR CON-

FESSION, AS IMPOSED AND ENFORCED BY THE CHURCH OF ROME,

p. 139.

The church of England allows auricular confession to a priest:

the church of Rome enforces it, p. 139. .

I. The bishop of Aire attempts to prove the religious necessity

of auricular confession, by inductive reasoning from Scrip-

ture, p. 139.

1. His argument stated and considered, p. 139.

2. Remarks on the fallacy involved in the terms em-

ployed by him, p. 141.

II. The bishop of Aire further attempts to prove his point from

ecclesiastical antiquity, p. 142.

1. Clement of Rome, p. 143.

2. Irenæus, p. 143.

3. Tertullian, p. 143.

4. Socrates and Sozomen, p. 144.

5. Practice of the West. Ambrose of Milan, p. 145.

CHAPTER X.

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE DOCTRINE OF

SATISFACTION, p. 148.

The bishop of Aire's statement of the Romish doctrine of satis-

faction, p. 148.

I. His statement is unsatisfactory, because irreconcilable with

Scripture, p. 149.

II. Opinions of the fathers, p. 152.

II. To appease the anger of God and to satisfy his justice are not

phrases of the same import, p. 153.

IV. The evidence, adduced by the bishop, is insufficient, p. 154.