CHAPTER IV. TR?,NSUBSTANTIATION. L STATEM?I?T OF TilY. IR DOCTRINE. 1. The American Catechism quoted: 2. Conn. cil of Trot ci?d: 3. The Roman Ca,chum quo?d: 4. Analysis of it: 5. A? ou?i? of ?e d?ne?II. ??os OF r? ?R?. 1. It has no ?ou? in Sc?pmre in ?eneml, nor in the woes.of i?tu6on in particular. ?rft, Their ? of the wor? sup? thin? impelibis and contradictS; ?Zy, ?o?sMnt so?e shown to be co,act, by nine ar?menM: ?. It ? cont? to 8eve? texM o? 8cript?e: 3. It contradiem our se?e8: 4. It is con?r y ? reaMn, ?d ?volv? the plainer con?ictio? and a?urdities: 5. It involv? a?lu? imp?ib?i?: 6. It is a distin?h?n? article of ?eir church: 7. It h ?o? and bl?phemo? in iMel?, and ten? ? impiety, bl?phemy, ?d summation; (1.) It involves ea6ng human flesh; (?.) And o? ea? ?e Divinity; (3.) co?idered pro?e even by heathe?; (4.) ?d by Mohammeda?; (5.) And Je?; (6.) The fa?em ?dicule the heathen for wo?hipping such deifies ? can be eaten; ilil Anecdo? of a lady and a p?estl (8.) Roman Catholic anthem quoted? T?z ??s ?l Tz?s??xos ?D ? ?Ss?. 1. They ny that "prePsun ? th?ns?mtion, breed had never been t?en ? a si? of our ?*o ?dy :" ?. The sixth chapter of John considered. Thir?en ar?men? n?t their exp?ition. The pro?r exp?i?on: 3. Their arcmeat from ?e ?cret di?ipline of the early church: 4. And from the !nn? of the ancient liturgy, ?d ?e early eceleoiastic? write?: 5. They say ?eir doc?e b no more m?o? ?an ?at o? the T?nity. Four poin? of difference ?nced Jetween �e two doc?ines: 6. They say it is n myste?: 7. That God can do ?1 ?i?: 8. That it ? a speculative point.?IV. T? TKq?MONY OF T? FA?. 1. Eight premise in?ducto? to ?eir testimony: 2. Their test?ony; (1.) ?afi?; (2.) Irenm? ;?3.) Tertulli?; (4.) Justin Martyr; (5.) O?gen; (6.) Clemens ?ex?- ?n?; (?.) Cyprian; (8.) E?ebius; (9.) Ephrem, pat?arch of Co?mn?ople; (10.) M?; (11.)Augustine; (12.)Cy?l of 5erus?em; (13.) Jerome; (14.) Grego? Nazianzen; (15.) Ambrose; (16.) Chrysostom; (17.) Theodoret; (18.) Genus; (19.) F?undus: 3. Concludi? remark on ?eir testimony.?V. R? Ps?s?, ? ?Lxsa? or r? ?. 1. The exc?ive ?res Of fakers gave o?asion to or?nn? it. Specime? ?om J?tin Mart? and C?I of Jerusalem: 2. But it ?ems to have taken im rise from the Eutych?an here?: 3. Sen?ment of the Seventh General Council in 7?: 4. Pr?e? in the ninth century; P?ch?i?; S?rco?ani?: 5. Slate of ?e question in the ?n?' century: 6. Opposed by Bareager in 10?, and toward the conclusion of the eleventh cen- m?. Indistinct views concerning the doctrine. Testimony of Aelfrick: 7. It w? not properly established in the twelf? centu?: 8. Innocent IlL u?er? the opinion now embraced in ?e Ch?ch of Rome, and caused it to pass the Lateran Council in 1215. Au?o?tat[vely ?mbl?hed at T?nt in 1551. I. ]. WE state the doctrine of ?he Church of Rome on this point in the words of their acknowledged standards. The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States of America, published with the approbation of the Most Rev. Archbishop Marechal, teaches as follows on this article of their faith: "Q. What is the holy eucha- rist ? A. It is a sacrament, which contains TX?E BOnr and BLOOn, SOVL and mV?SXTV of Jesus Christ, under the forms and appearances of bread and wine. Q. Is it not bread and wine which is first put upon the altar for the celebration of the mass ? A. Yes; it is always bread and wine till the priest pronounces the words of consecration during the mass. Q. What happens by these words ? A. The bread is changed into the body of Jesus Christ, and the wine into his blood. Q. What is this change called? A. It is called t?an.?bstantiat?on; that is to say, a change of one substance into another." This is the 1
�
