by their expressed assent, the election of Cornelius to the Bishopric of Rome: and he adds, that letters testimonial, respecting the ordination of Cornelius, were sent from Rome to himself and to the other African Bishops; who, upon the receipt of them, by their unanimous assent confirmed his appointment'.

Thus, we see, in the third century, the confirmation of the Roman Bishop by the other Bishops his equals was no less requisite, for the purpose of preserving ecclesiastical unity, than the confirmation of other Bishops by the Roman Bishop. It was a confirmation strictly mutual and reciprocal: whence, of course, it could, on neither side, import any right of dominant jurisdiction. Accordingly, when Pope Leo I, in the fifth century, confirmed the election of Anatolius, he expressly stated, that he did it to preserve throughout the whole world the integrity of one communion?.

1 Venio jam nunc, frater carissime, ad personam Cornelii collegæ nostri: ut Cornelium nobiscum verius noveris, non de malignorum et detrahentium mendacio, sed de Domini Dei judicio qui Episcopum fecit, et Coëpiscoporum testimonio quorum numerus universus per totum mundum concordi unanimitate consensit-Et factus est Episcopus a plurimis collegis nostris, qui tunc in urbe Roma aderant : qui ad nos literas honorificas et laudabiles et testimonio suæ prædicationis illustres de ejus ordinatione miserunt-Quo (loco) occupato de Dei voluntate, atque omnium nostrûm consentione firmato: quisquis jam Episcopus fieri voluerit, foris fiat necesse est. Cyprian. Epist. lv. Oper. vol. ii. p. 104, 105.

Ut per totum mundum una nobis sit unius communionis

But even this is not the whole. At the close of the fourth century and at the beginning of the fifth, three successive Popes, Damasus and Siricius and Anastasius, refused to confirm Flavian, the Patriarch of Antioch. Their refusal, however, was determined to be no impediment to his exercise of the just functions of his Patriarchate: for, since all the Oriental and Asiatic and Pontic and Thracian and Illyrican Churches had confirmed him and were in communion with him; it was very reasonably held, that the mere solitary additional confirmation of the Roman Patriarch and his Occidental Suffragans could not, in any wise, be deemed necessary and essential. If that Patriarch were determined peevishly to stand out against the whole Christian World, the whole Christian World was not to be paralysed out of compliment to his unreasonable obstinacy'.

III. With such testimonies before us, we can only smile at the unerring decision of the infallible Council of Trent, gravely reëchoed by the Bull of Pope Pius IV: that The holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches.

integritas; in qua societatem tuæ dilectionis amplectimur, et gestorum quæ sumpsimus seriem, necessariis munitam subscriptionibus, approbamus. Pap. Leon. I. Epist. xxxviii. 1 Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 23.

CHAPTER IV.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

UNLIKE many of the peculiarities of the Roman Church, such as Purgatory, Saint-worship, Imageworship, and the like, the doctrine of Transubstantiation professes to rest upon the solid foundation of Scripture itself. But, when we come to examine the real state of the matter, that doctrine will be found to rest, not so much upon Scripture itself, as upon the latin interpretation of Scripture.

In regard to the bare words of Scripture, there is no dispute between the Catholic of the Roman Church and the Catholic of the Anglican Church. The dispute respects, not the occurrence of the words, but their import. That our Lord said of the bread and wine, This is my body and This is my blood, all are agreed: what he meant by such expressions, is a question still litigated. The Romanist contends, that the expressions ought to be understood literally: the Anglican contends, that they ought to be understood figuratively. Hence,

when the Romanist would prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation from Scripture, the Anglican denies the validity of his proof: for he alleges, that the pretended proof rests, not upon Scripture itself, but only upon a gratuitous and unacknowledged interpretation of Scripture.

On this principle, the Anglican maintains, that the Romanist's asserted proof from Scripture is nothing better than a palpable begging of the question: and he urges, apparently not without reason, that the Romanist ought to demonstrate the truth of his own particular interpretation, ere he can be allowed to adduce it controversially in the way of evidence. In the abstract, the words, This is my body and This is my blood, may doubtless be understood literally for there is nothing, either in their conventionally inherent sense or in their just grammatical construction, which precludes the possibility of such an acceptation. But the same words may doubtless be also understood figuratively: for the whole analogy of scriptural language, so far from contradicting, is in truth favourable to such an exposition'.

1 Solet autem res, quæ significat, ejus rei nomine quam significat nuncupari: sicut scriptum est; Septem spica septem anni sunt: non enim dixit, septem annos significant. Et septem boves septem anni sunt: et multa hujusmodi. Hinc est, quod dictum est: Petra erat Christus. Non enim dixit, petrą significat Christum : sed tanquam hoc esset, quod utique per substantiam non hoc erat, sed per significationem. August. Quæst. lib. iii. super Levit. quæst. 57. Oper. vol. iv. p. 85.

Now, even putting other testimony aside, the Anglican thinks, that Scripture alone, when Scripture is compared with Scripture, most abundantly decides the question in his favour: while, on the part of his adversary, the place of legitimate comparative argument is supplied by nothing more convincing, than a positive and reiterated assertion of the exclusive and necessary propriety of the literal interpretation'. But the Romanist, though he produces no argument from Scripture itself to establish the truth of his exposition, denies the validity and conclusiveness of the scriptural proofs alleged by the Anglican while he contends, that the gloss of the Anglican is a mere gratuitous innovation upon the ancient and universally received interpretation of our Lord's now litigated phraseology.

Under these circumstances, the dispute, if it be confined to Scripture, must plainly be interminable for the dispute respects the true interpretation of Scripture; and, as neither party will admit the propriety of the other party's interpretation, so the Anglican is not more disposed to yield to the unmixed dogmatism of the Romanist, than the Romanist is disposed to bow before the scriptural arguments of the Anglican.

To settle the dispute, therefore, we must seek evidence extrinsic from Scripture: and, since the Romanist, for his interpretation, claims the sanc

See above, book i. chap. 4. § III. 1. (1.) (2.)