<div class="description">
<dl><dd>ANALYTICAL CONTENTS.</dd></dl><p>[For the following careful Summary and Analysis the writer of this Essay is indebted to the kindness of a friend, to whom he desires here to render his public acknowledgments.] 
PART I. 
Section I. 
Three Eucharistic Theories current in the English Church 1 
a. Consecration only a setting apart for a holy use — Symbolism ib. 
b. Consecration confers a Potential Presence — the Theory of Reception 2 
Subdivided into 
a. Virtualism — the benefit or virtue of Christ's Body and Blood alone received 5 
b. Realism — the Body and Blood really received ib. 
c. Consecration effectuates the Real Objective Presence of Christ ib. 
Distinction stated between the last and the two former opinions 6 
Explanation of the word Objective ib. 
Realism implies only a subjective Presence 
The doctrine of the Real Objective Presence declares against — 
1. The Symbolist that there is a Presence. 
2. The Virtualist that it is a real Presence. 
3. The Realist that it is an objective not a subjective Presence 9 
Section II. 
What does the Church of England say herself? 10 
Symbolist and Catholic have here no common ground of argument ib. 
Fallacy of Private Judgment 11 
Article XX. quoted 12 
Illustration from use of Athanasian Creed 13 
Objection — It is only private judgment that] determines what the Church of England teaches on the question ib. 
Reply — Catechism of 1604 is the Church's voice speaking authoritatively 14 
Catechism says that neither the Symbolist nor Virtualist nor Realist fully states the Church's doctrine. 
1. To the Symbolist it says — 
"The Body and Blood of Christ are " [in some sense] "received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper," and not mere Bread and Wine 16 
2. To the Virtualist — 
"The Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed, &amp;c." not merely in effect and virtue 17 
Objections from words of Article XXVIII. ib. 
,, ,, Post Communion ib. 
S. To the Realist — 
"The Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received," &amp;c 19 
Meaning of the word faithful 20 
Words of Article XXVIII., "given, taken, and eaten" 21 
"Give" and "take" necessarily imply the objective character of the Presence ib. 
Statement of the Church's doctrine — 
1. Communion was not the primary object of the Institution 22 
Two Errors current — 
a. Of Theory — confining the Presence to the act of reception 23 
0. Of Practice — in neglect of non-communicating attendance ib. 
Rubrics must be read by dogmatic light of the Catechism ib. 
2. Eucharist treated of under three heads — 
a. Signum Sacramenti or Sacramentum ="outward sign ordained by Christ Himself" ib. 
b. Res Sacramenti = "thing signified" 24 
y. Virtue Sacramenti = "benefit or effect of receiving the same" ib. 
The word Sacrament is sometimes used not in its strict sense 24 
The wicked receive the Res, not the Virtus Sacramenti 25 
Illustration from light and vision 25 
Section III. 
The Eucharistic Sacrifice 30 
The continual remembrance=memorial Sacrifice ib. 
Significance of it  31 
Objection from Article XXXI. — the Sacrifices of Masses 35 
Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving ib. 
Omission of the word Altar in Prayer-Book ib. 
Reply 34 
Title Ccena Domini used equally by Rome and England 30 
Difficulties are real and logical, not merely questions of externals 40 
Each party holds some portion of truth 41 
True Symbolism 42 
Catholic Ritual no chance form ib. 
True Virtualism 44 
The true use of the Real Presence 45 
Superiority of Worship to Prayer 46 
The Presence anterior to Communion — therefore the Holy Eucharist the great act of Worship and Adoration 47 
Summary of the Argument 40 
PART II. 
PROPOSITION. 
Rome and England do not use the word Transubstantiation in the same sense 54 
Doctrine of Real Objective Presence does involve Transubstantiation ib. 
Section I. 
By Transubstantiation English Church means 
Transaccidentation 55 
Explanation of word Accidents ib. 
" " Substance 56 
Illustration — Same substance in corn, flour, and bread, while accidents are changed 57 
The Latin word substantia has only this definite meaning, and does not include the loose meanings given to the English word substanee 58 
Explanation of word Transubstantiation in Roman use 59 
Season necessitates belief in Transubstantiation as a corollary from the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence 60 
Faith and Season ib. 
Before Consecration the Elements were things (res) : 
after, they are only forms (signa) 61 
This shewn by language of Catechism 62 
Primary law of thought that a thing cannot be substantially two things at once 63 
Hence, if there is a change, that change must be Transubstantiation ib. 
Roman statement simply affirms this law, and does not over-define 64 
Necessary Corollary from our Lord's own Words 65 
Decree of Council of Trent quoted 66 
Bishop Andrewes's misconception of the Roman statement 67 
Rome repudiates the possibility of "expressing the mode of the Presence in words" 68 
Necessity and Meaning of the word whole in the Tridentine Decree 70
Tridentine definition at once a touchstone of erroneous belief and a shield against scepticism 72 
Section II. 
Objections — 1. Does not Rome mean by substantially something more than has hitherto been stated? 78 
Do not the 'words vere et realiter' correspond with the English "verily and indeed," &amp;c.? Is not substantialiter an addition expressing something more than the English doctrine of the Real Objective Presence? 74 
Reply. 
All decrees of Councils lay down not only what is to be believed, but what is not to be believed ib. 
Substantialiter is opposed to virtualiter ib. 
English word "Verily" opposes the two errors — 
1. That the consecrated elements are only signa. 
2. That Christ is only present in jigura 75 
Vere is opposed to (1), realiter to (2) ib. 
The word "indeed" opposes Virtualism, and is equivalent to substantialiter 76 
II. Is it impossible to conceive the co-existence of two substances? 
Mr. Stuart quoted in support of this objection 76 
He parallels the hypostatic union with the co-existence of "Bread and our Lord's Body" 77 
Reply — Mr. Stuart unconsciously misrepresents the Roman definition 78 
Hypostatic union not parallel. Person there equivalent to substance in inanimate nature ib. 
Mr. Mackonochie's "Pastoral" quoted 80 
Here again confusion of language in speaking of "natural material substances." Substance is supernatural 81 
Digression 
The hidden sacramentality of nature 82 
The Catholic doctrine enables us to look behind the accidents to the substance, from the natural to the supernatural 83 
The denial of the Real Objective Presence results often from a materialistic clinging to sense 85 
The miracle of the Altar the greatest of all miracles 66 
Parallel between Judaic objections (S. John vi.) and modem unbelief 67 
The phrase "natural material substances" must be equivalent to accidents, or it is a contradiction in terms 88 
Strict language ought to be used on this subject 89 
A change must be made either in the accidents or in the substance ; it certainly is not in the former, therefore it must be ill the latter ib. 
Section III. 
Case pat of a youth instructed in the Real Objective Presence. He answers to the question, "What is this?" "It is the Body of Christ" 90 
The formula of Transubstantiation merely puts into the mouths of the faithful what they have already conceived in their minds 91 
Objection — The English Church protests against a natural Presence, and it is generally believed that Rome holds a carnal Presence, and on that account withholds the cup from her laity 92 
Reply — Explanation of spiritual as opposed to natural. 94 
Spiritual not used in a subjective sense in connection with the Eucharist 95 
The meaning of spiritual in the English Liturgy and Articles cannot be such as would be contradictory of the Catechism ib. 
Spiritual has a real objective meaning equivalent to supernatural 97 
No Symbolist would have drawn the article when thus explained 98 
Propositions — 
1. The Roman formula maintains the Real Objective Presence to be a spiritual and heavenly Presence 100 
2. She does not believe it to be a natural and earthly Presence ib. 
Proof — Con. Trid., Sess. XIII., c. 1 ib. 
3. Rome does not hold Transaccidentation. Proof — Reasons assigned for Communion in one kind 106 
Summary of foregoing points 107 
Section IV. 
The Church of England rejects not Transubstantiation, but Transaccidentation 109 
The Declaration on kneeling — supposed difficulties in 110 
"Very natural substances" mean really "very natural properties," i. e. accidents, and Transubstantiation means Transaccidentation Ill 
No epithets can be applied to substance ib. 
Argument from word "bodily" 112 
Mr. Carter quoted to shew loose popular use of substance as equivalent to properties 115 
Supposed difficulties in Art. XXVIII 116 
No one would have drawn such a statement to oppose the Tridentine formula ib. 
Mr. Carter again quoted 118 
Bishop ForRes quoted as implying that Rome holds removal of the munus temporale 119 
Reply to this misconception 120 
Article really protests against a carnal Presence 121 
The Article affirms — "Transubstantiation overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament," &amp;c. ; but the Roman formula does not do so, though Transaccidentation does 122 
Nature of Christ's Presence and nature of change in the Elements are strictly correlative ideas 124 
The Roman Church had the task of strengthening faith ; the English of defending it against superstitious corruptions. The work of the one was positive, that of the other negative 126 
Hence the two co-ordinate propositions. 
(1.) While Rome says — 
"In whatever sense the Bread becomes Christ's Body in that sense it ceases to be Bread" 130 
(2.) England says — 
"In whatever sense it remains Bread, it does not in that sense becomes Christ's Body " ib. 
Conclusion — 
Little danger now of men believing in carnal or natural Presence 132 
Desirable to relinquish the English Protestations 133 
Practical suggestions 134 
Recent utterances of English Dignitaries 135 
Appeal for Unity 137 
POSTSCRIPT — 
Examination of a Letter to the Guardian from the Rev. Reginald Smith 140 
The Editor believes Roman Transubstantiation to be a carnal Presence 147 
Two general answers — 
I. The Marian persecution political, not doctrinal; and the doctrines of the Martyrs identical with those of the Council of Trent 148 
II. The senses are not deceived in Transubstantiation, and an appeal to sense as sole arbiter unwarranted in matters divine 150 
APPENDIX. 
Note A. — Examination of objections to use of Aristotelian terminology. 155 
Note B. — Further criticism of the supposed parallel of the Hypostatic Union 160 
Note C. — Examination of the popular objections against the Roman use of Communion in one kind 166 
</p><p>Digitized by Google.
</p>
<dl><dd>First part revised and corrected from the first edition; the second part consists of entirely new material. - Cf. pref</dd>
<dd>Library copy a presentation copy to E.K. Kendall from the library of Bishop Samuel Blunt. Title page signed S.B. Blunt</dd>
<dd>Includes bibliographical references</dd></dl><br>Subjects: Lord's Supper -- Real presence; Church of England -- Relations -- Catholic Church; Transubstantiation</div>
<div class="fn value">
Cobb, Gerard Francis, 1838-1904</div>
Internet Archive identifier