THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IN DECIDING CONTROVERSIES OF
FAITH, AND THE RIGHT USE OF THE FATHERS.
Testimony of the Church of England on this point, 1. Her rule not to
propound anything contrary to Scripture and inconsistent with Catho-
lic teaching, 2. English Church places the Fathers where they have
placed themselves, 3. Augustine's testimony, 3, 4. Jerome's, 5, 6.
Various reasons why the Fathers could not be arbiters in our present
controversies, 7. Bishop Warburton on this point, 8. Jeremy Taylor,
11. Hooker, 13.
CONSECRATION, AS A CHARACTERISTIC OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST, NOT ESSEN-
TIALLY DIFFERENT FROM CONSECRATION, WHEN USED IN OTHER CASES.
Doctrine of Archdeacon Wilberforce on this point, 15. Limit to his phrase-
ology, 16. True idea of consecration (Augustine), 17. Our Lord intended
direct reference to the bread, and to nothing else, when he said this,
17, 18. No scriptural testimony on consecrating water in baptism, 19.
Testimony of the early Church (Bingham), 19. Tertullian and Cyprian,
20. The effects of consecration were supposed the same in baptism as
in the Lord's Supper-testimonies of various Fathers, 21-23. Nothing
can be safely deduced from the names appropriated to sacred symbols,
24. Further attempt of the Archdeacon to establish an essential dis-
tinction between consecration in the Eucharist and in baptism, by
alleging an essential difference between the sacraments themselves,
24-26.
Church of England's definition of a sacrament, 27. Water the outward
sign, the Holy Spirit “the inward part or thing signified” in baptism
-Scripture testimony, 27, 28. Opinions of various Fathers, 30-33.
Table exhibiting the parallelism of the two sacraments, 34. Minister
of both sacraments the same (Scripture testimony), 35; (of the Fathers),
36-38. The same proved by a passage, quoted by Mr. Wilberforce,
from Chrysostom, 40. Practice of the English Church immediately
after the Reformation, 41. Lay-baptism disallowed by Forbes, Law-
rence, Taylor, &c., 41. Foreign churches divided in opinion, 42.
Reasons why baptizing might have been delegated to lay-persons, but
not the celebration of the Lord's Supper, 42, 43. Instances of dea-
cons consecrating the Eucharist, 44, 45. Testimony of St. Ambrose,
46. Two reasons why such instances are few, 46. Answer to the
question, "Why is not consecration put more prominently forward by
our divines?" 48. There is, then, no essential distinction between
the two sacraments, 49.
CHRIST IS NOT PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST BY A CORPOREAL PRESENCE IN
ANY MANNER-i.e., NEITHER NATURALLY NOR SACRAMENTALLY.
Subject (this) and predicate (my body) identical, according to Mr. Wilberforce,
51. Attempted to be proved from the Fathers, 52. No safe conclusion to
be drawn from names and epithets, 53. Gregory Nyssen on the change
effected by consecration, 54. The testimony of various Fathers to
Christ's corporeal absence, 55, 56. The Archdeacon's mode of solving
the difficulty of multifarious presence, 57, 58. Opinions of the Fathers
on it, 59, 60. Decree of the Council of Jerusalem on transubstantia-
tion, A.D. 1672, 61. "The gift" in the Eucharist not different from
that in any other religious ordinance, 62. Opinion of Fathers, 63.
Such sentences as "Believe, and thou hast eaten," refute the idea of
transubstantiation, 64. Language of Jesus in John vi. considered, 65.
Antagonism to this of Romish teaching, 66. Impossibility to reconcile
Scripture and Popery on this point, 67. Testimony of the Fathers as
to the faithful alone partaking of Christ, 67-70. Article of the English
Church on same point, 71. Blasphemous opinions of the Romish doc-
tors, 72. Mr. Wilberforce acknowledges Origen to be apparently against
him, 73.
Mr. Wilberforce's opinion stated, 75.
Instance of Jesuitical reasoning, 76.
Christ, in His human nature, limited as to place, 76. Adoration of the
host absolute idolatry, 77. Homilies misapplied and misinterpreted,
78, 79. Manifest Jesuitry of the Archdeacon, 80 (note). Sense of
expression, "Christ ought to be worshipped in the sacrament," 82.
Fathers on the same point, 83. Ambiguity of language used, 84.
Examination of passages brought to prove the adoration (Anastatius
Sinaita), 86; Cyril Hier., 87; Chrysostom, 88. Case of the Ener-
gumeni, 89, 90. False reasoning and puerility, 90, 91. Theodoret
too strong for Mr. Wilberforce, 92. A prayer in St. Chrysostom's
liturgy considered, 93. Leontius, who? 94. Ambrose and Augustine
on 98th Psalm, 94, 95. General remarks on the subject, 96. Mr. Alber-
tine's summary out of Augustine, 97. Mr. Daille's, 98-101. Mr.
Whitby's, 101. If the adoration of the host had existed in the primi-
tive or mediæval Church, we must have known it, 102, 103. In what
sense the Eucharist is a sacrifice according to Mr.Wilberforce, 104–106.
Difference between Bishop of Exeter and Archdeacon Wilberforce, 106.
Consideration of passages of Scripture brought in proof (Melchisedec),
107. St. Paul ignorant of Mr. Wilberforce's ideas, 108. The signifi-
cance of ancient sacrifices, 109, 110. Jesus Christ the great antitype
of all Jewish sacrifices, 110-112. This lost sight of in the "Doctrine
of the Holy Eucharist," 112, Date of Christ's appointment to His
mediatorial office, 113, 114. Antagonism of Mr. Wilberforce's views
to Scripture, as also of the "Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist" to
the Epistle to the Hebrews, 115. Explanation of Hebrews xiii., 10;
116. Proper reference, 117, 118. No reference to the Eucharist, 119.
St. Paul often classes himself with Jews, 120. Paraphrase of the
whole passage, 120, 121. The question, "Is there any scriptural
testimony that the Eucharistic sacrifice is a sin-offering?" answered,
122. Not the Eucharist, but Christ's sacrifice, the antitype of the
Jewish sin-offering, 123. The prophesy of Malachi considered, 124.
It does not refer to the Eucharist, 125. Superiority of Christ's sacri-
fice over the Jewish, 126. Concluding remarks on alleged Scripture
evidence, 127. The evidence of the Fathers entered upon, 128. How
they are to be understood, 129. The case stated by the Archdeacon,
129-131. In what sense the words sacrifice, oblation, &c., were used
in Scripture, 131; and by the Fathers, 133. In what sense applied to
the Eucharist, 133-135. (1.) The gifts presented by the worshippers
called offerings, 135, 136. (2.) The terms oblation, offering, &c., were
applied to the whole Eucharistic service, 137. Instances from the
Fathers, 138. Proofs that the idea of the sacrifice of the mass could
not have been that of the early Christian apologists, 139-141. (3.)
The whole sacramental service called a sacrifice, 143. By the Fathers,
from its representing Christ's sacrifice, 144–146. General expressions
limited by the Church of Rome, 147. Summary of senses in which ante-
Nicene Fathers use words sacrifice, offering, oblation, &c., 149–151.
Justin Martyr's account of the mode of celebration of the Eucharist in his
day, 152, 153. Form in the apostolic constitutions, 154, 155. The
Liturgy of St. James, 156. Exception to Renaudot's canon for testing
the liturgies, 157, 158. Dr. Hickes on interpolations, &c., in liturgies,
159, 160. Comparison of the Clementine liturgy with that of St.
James, 161. Summary of contents of the former, 162. Additional
articles in that of St. James, 163. Brett and Renaudot on ante-
Nicene form of ditto, 164, 165. Table of five liturgies (note), 166, 167.
Little use made of contents of liturgies by Mr. Wilberforce, 168.
What change do the liturgies contemplate? 169, 170. Elements
called by their proper names after consecration, 171, 172. No adoration
of the host found in the ancient liturgies, 173. Boileau's diffi-
culty, 174. Prayer offered in liturgies to Christ as in heaven, 176.
Fathers ditto, 177. Popish view adopted in the "Doctrine of the Holy
Eucharist," 178. Mr. Wilberforce's attempt to obviate the difficulty
of the invocation of the Holy Spirit after consecration, 179. Morton
on unwarranted innovations of Rome, 180-185. Bingham's summary
of the Fathers, 186-189. The offering in the liturgies, what? 189.
St. James's, 190. St. Mark's, 191. St. Chrysostom's, 192. St.
Basil's, 193. Sacramentary of Gregory, 194. Codices sacramentorum,
195. Summary, 196-198.
THE FATHERS UPON THE EFFECTS OF CONSECRATION.
Examination of Mr. Wilberforce's patristical authorities, 199. His state-
ment of his case, 200. Passage from St. Ambrose considered, 201.
Bishop Stillingfleet on, 202. Passage from St. Cyril, 203. Ditto from
Gregory Nyssen, 203, 204. Bishop Stillingfleet on, 205. Passage from
Gaudentius, 206, 207. Mr. Wilberforce's nine propositions-first, 207 ;
second and third, 208; fourth, fifth, and sixth, 209; seventh and
eighth, 210; ninth, in what sense is the Christian Church said to be
offered in the Eucharist? 211.
A CONSIDERATION OF SOME PARTICULAR USAGES IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH
RESPECTING THE EUCHARIST.
Difference of relative and inherent holiness, 213. Why the efficacy of the
elements is denied, 214. Intercommunion considered, 215. The
Christian Agapa, 215-217. Intercommunion not confined to inter-
change of sacramental elements, 217. Probable effects of reserve-
Trajan and Tertullian, 219. Conduct of Gorgonia considered, 221;
and practice of burying the Eucharist, 221; of burning it, 222; of
mixing the wine with ink, 222. Days distinguished for consecrating,
223. “Whole Christ in each particle," 224. Dr. Covel's account of
the Council of Jerusalem, A.D. 1672, 224 (note). Mr. Wilberforce's
infatuation and confusion, 226. Half-communion, 228. Story of Se-
rapion and child, 229-231. Different language of the ancient and
Romish Church, 231. The Archdeacon's dishonesty-(1.) In quoting
Augustine, 232; and (2.) Overall, Cosin, Hooker, Taylor, 234. (3.) In
explaining away declarations and protests of the Church of England,
234. (4.) In ignoring all former replies to his authorities, 235. Sum-
mary, 236.
We cannot understand their operation, 239. Evils of inquisitiveness and
ignorance, 210. The effect of symbols not understood, 240. No virtue
inherent in them, 240. Instances under the Jewish economy, 241-
243; in the Christian, 243-245. Use of the Eucharistic symbols
analogous, 245. Apostles might connect the eating and drinking in
the discourse at Capernaum with the Eucharist when instituted, 246,
247. This sacrament more than a commemorative rite, 247, 248. Virtue
of the Eucharist not in, but through the elements, 249. View of the
Church of England, 25th Art. 250. Character of sacraments complex,
251. Difference between sacraments and ceremonies, 252. God's part
and man's in the Eucharist, 253. True value of sacramental symbols,
254. Bishop Burnet's statement of different views, 255, 256. Making
symbols channels not Popish doctrine, 256. Bishop Ridley's view,
257. Difference between the Common Prayer of 1549 and 1552, 258.
Efficiency of symbols taught in Articles, 259. And in catechism, 259.
|