They tell us that they have been brought to witness a review of the so-called Protestantism of our day, which, with its tendencies to various forms of neologian development-unlike the Protestantism of our fathersis too often willing to break with the past and strike new lights for the future; and they have turned away, they say, in disgust from the miserable march-past of a mere battalion of negations-in undisciplined disorder, yielding little obedience to the hesitating command of that which is merely subjective in religion, and recognising little of authority in the Divine and Scriptural dogmas of our most holy faith-the unchanging faith once for all delivered unto the saints. There are many such now asking for help in inward conflicts; seeking guidance in the terrible perplexities which surround them, as they weary in the attempt to work out for themselves difficult problems of religion. and faith. To such minds it is no marvel that there is found a speciousness in the claims of Romish teaching: an attractiveness in the dogmas propounded by Romanisers as Catholic truth, which is apt to have a very blinding influence on the examination of controverted questions. We may be very thankful to be assured that such minds, if they seek the light of God's Spirit in the study of His word, will assuredly be brought to rest in the truth, and to know how that truth is able to commend itself to every man's conscience in the sight of God. Yet some effort ought assuredly to be made to set before them the true merits of the controversy as between what is truly Scriptural and primitive and catholic on the one side, and what belongs to the addition of human superstition and corruption on the other; and that not with any such animus as would seem to regard everyone who needs to be guided out of mists and clouds, and doubts and difficulties, as either something less than human in intelligence, or else something more than human in depravity. Such an effort this little manual professes to be in one particular branch, and I venture to think the most important branch, of the controversy. I must add, that I do not pretend to have entered on the inquiry as to the history of Eucharistic worship with anything like an unprejudiced mind. Indeed, I cannot understand how it is possible for anyone to do this who has been a student of God's word, and has learned with deep and ever-deepening conviction to prize as a whole the doctrinal principles of the English Reformation. Nevertheless, I trust I have not been so led away by prejudice as wilfully to misrepresent any matter of testimony, or to distort and disguise facts which bear on the subject. And, sensible as I am that the work may be marred by my own incompetence, and not improbably by errors which I shall be thankful to have corrected, no acknowledgment of my own deficiencies must be understood as implying anything like a secret misgiving of the ground I have undertaken to maintain. I believe that in answer to prayer there has been, and there will yet be, a bringing back of some who have been led astray by the fascinations of novel teaching. And I pray earnestly that God may graciously shine into the hearts of all who would know His truth, and scatter all mists of darkness which hinder the enjoyment of the true light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. N. DIMOCK. Wymynswold Vicarage, Near Canterbury. SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS. Suggesting for consideration three Propositions:- (1) The introduction of the festival of Corpus Christi did make such a real marked addition to the religion of Western Christendom, as might not unsuitably be symbolised by the passing away of the (2) This addition was but a marked and prominent act in a course of progress by which accretions had previously been forming around the religion of earlier times, in relation to the Eucharist. (Pp. 10–13.) (3) This marked and crowning addition was fitting and appropriate to the previous accretions; so that, if they rested on a true doctrine of the Eucharistic Presence, this did but complete the glory of the Christian Church, and of the religion of Christ. (Pp. 13-15.) Hence the need of distinguishing the doctrine of the The side taken by the Church of England. (Pp. 39-44.) Hasty assumptions that such was not the side of primitive Christianity (pp. 44-57) tested by the following questions: (1) If this doctrine of the Real Objective Presence were a part of the faith of the early Church, how comes it to pass that among the accounts of early heresies and their refutations we never meet with a statement of the rejection of this doctrine marked among the heresies; and never find arguments for establishing it among their refutations? (P. 58 sqq.) I. For the doctrine could not have been held by a. The Docetæ (p. 58 sqq.). b. The Eutychians (p. 63 sqq.). c. Those who denied our Lord's Divinity. II. And it is really irreconcilable (p. 64) with the language of a. Tertullian (pp. 66, 67, 72, 73, 92–96). b. Augustine (pp. 68, 69, 72, 73, 76-89). c. Procopius (pp. 69, 70, 91, 92). d. Ephrem Syrus (pp. 70, 90, 91). e. Theodoret (pp. 71, 72, 73, 102-105). f. Origen (pp. 96-102). g. Chrysostom (pp. 105-108). h. The "Opus Imperfectum in Matt." (pp. 108-112). i. Jerome (pp. 113-117). j. Facundus (pp. 117-122). k. Elfric (pp. 122-129). 7. The Gloss on Gratian (p. 129). m. Erigena (pp. 130-132). (2) How is it that no ancient creed ever expressed this doc. trine? (Pp. 133—143). No satisfactory account can be given for this (pp. 138-141); (3) How is it that we have Patristic teaching concerning our Lord's human nature which is irreconcilable with this doctrine? (p. 143 sqq.) as, e.g., in a. Augustine (pp. 143-145). b. Fulgentius (p. 145). c. Vigilius Taps. (pp. 145-146). |