menced the syllogistic operations of Schelstrate, precisely where those of Bellarmine had terminated) was a prime secret of the Mysteries: but the very essence of the Mysteries was studied concealment: therefore it is unreasonable to expect any proof of the aboriginal reception of the doctrine of Transubstantiation from the writings of the early Fathers.

The Bishop of Strasbourg, as if unconscious of the singular modesty of the demand upon our credulity involved in the argument of Schelstrate; a demand to wit, that we should believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation, WITHOUT ANY HISTORICAL PROOF, simply because Cardinal Bellarmine had been pleased to assure us, that, from the very first, it was a secret taught in the old Christian Mysteries: the Bishop of Strasbourg, there being verily nothing new under the sun, has condescended, for the complete conviction of his sorely perplexed English Laic, to borrow this prepotent bolt from the armoury of his predecessor.

We cannot, he assures us, fairly expect any very decisive testimony to the doctrine of Transubstantiation from the writings of the early Fathers: because, had they, by the aroane discipline, been allowed to express themselves clearly; such an improvident exposure would have been at once a palpable discovery and betrayal of the whole secret'.

The passages, quoted by Dr. Trevern, for the purpose of shewing, to my utter confusion, that the primitive Church from the very beginning held the doctrine of Transubstantiation, are thus characterised by HIMSELF.

The distinct confession of Dr. Trevern, that the early Fathers were not allowed to express them

These passages are, for the most part, taken, from writings published against the Jews and Pagans, or from homilies pronounced before the uninitiated. In such circumstances, the Fathers, NOT BEING ALLOWED TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES CLEARLY, considered the eucharistic bread and wine in their relation to the senses, and denominated them types, emblems, images, allegories, figures, and sacraments, WITHOUT ADDING THAT These visible

APPEARANCES COVERED THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST : WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN AT ONCE DISCOVERING AND BETRAY

ING THE SECRET. Answ. to the Diffic. of Roman. p. 263. See also Ibid. p. 231-236.

I. In matter of fact, let the cause be what it may, Dr. Trevern, we see, confesses, that, in regard to the dogma of Transubstantiation, the Fathers DO NOT EXPRESS THEMSELVES CLEARLY: and he adds, that they perpetually denominated the consecrated elements types or emblems or images or allegories or figures or sacraments, WITHOUT ADDING THAT THESE VISIBLE

APPEARANCES COVERED THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST.

This is his own free confession: and yet he modestly requires us to believe, that the early Fathers assuredly held the doctrine of Transubstantiation; because, forsooth, he and Schelstrate and Bellarmine are pleased to inform us, that that doctrine was taught in the Mysteries, and therefore that the Fathers could not speak out more plainly without betraying the secret which they were forbidden to do by the Disciplina Arcani!

Truly the Bishop makes no scanty draft upon the presumed credulity of his English Laic.

II. Let our Anglican Laity know, however, that Dr. Trevern is grossly inaccurate in the statement even of his own case.

He says, that the passages, in which the early Fathers denominate the consecrated elements types or images or figures or the like, without adding that these visible appearances cover

selves clearly, I readily accept. Whatever may have been the reason of the provoking taciturnity

the body and blood of Jesus Christ, occur (he cautiously inserts) for the most past, in works exposed only to Jews or Pagans or uninitiated Catechumens.

Well was it, that he inserted for the most part. By this management, he has provided for himself a back-door to escape withal, while the intended impression upon his reader from his general statement was left to produce its full effect.

1. Of the numerous specimens which I have given of the phraseology commented upon by Dr. Trevern, not more, I believe, than two, the extract from the Homily of Macarius and the extract from the Oration of Gregory Nazianzen, can be construed to have been addressed to persons, who had never been baptized, and who consequently had never been initiated into the secrets of the Mysteries. See above, book ii. chap. 4. § II. Even the heretic Marcion, assailed by Tertullian, had been by baptism initiated previous to his lapse into heresy: for he was the son of the worthy Bishop of Pontus, who faithfully excommunicated him, however he might grieve at his apostacy. See Epiph. cont. hær. hær. xlii. sect. 1.

2. Nor is this all. Augustine's Enarrations on the Psalms, from which one of my specimens was extracted, and which indisputably are addressed to the initiated because they set forth the high secrets of Christ's godhead and the Holy Trinity (See, inter alia, August. Enarr. in Psalm xliv. Oper. vol. viii. p. 144, 145.), actually contain a passage, in which the consecrated elements are not merely said to be symbols or figures, but in which it is even explicitly denied that communicants partake of that body of Christ which poured forth its blood upon the cross. August. Enarr. in Psalm. xcviii. Oper. vol. viii. p. 397. The passage is cited above, book ii. chap. 4. § III. 6.

III. Thus lamentably weak, in every point of view, is Dr. Trevern's attempt, through the medium of his fancied secret of the Mysteries, to account for the appalling FACT, that the

of those respectable ecclesiastics, the confession doubtless propounds a circumstance but too true and but too indisputable. The acknowledged FACT is certain we have, therefore, only to inquire, whether the mode of accounting for it, adopted from Schelstrate by the Bishop of Strasbourg, can be satisfactorily established.

1. These two very sagacious speculatists seem, either to have themselves forgotten, or to have expected their readers to forget, that the doctrine of the Eucharist, whatever that doctrine might be, though doubtless one of the secrets of the old Mysteries, was neither the only secret nor even the principal secret.

The grand arcanum was the doctrine of the Trinity, viewed as including the immediately connected doctrine of Christ's godhead and incarnation the subordinate arcana were all the dependent and distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel; the doctrine of the Eucharist no doubt among the rest, but not more than the doctrine of Baptism and any other peculiar doctrine.

That the doctrine of the Trinity was the palmary secret, the fountain whence all the other minor secrets proceeded, stands established upon the most positive and direct evidence.

Cyril of Jerusalem informs us, that this grand secret, with its dependent concomitants, was com

early Fathers do not express themselves clearly on the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

municated only to those who were quitting the class of the Catechumens'. Jerome is so absorbed by the idea of the palmary secret, that he even notices that secret alone, as if it were exclusively the object of the arcane discipline 2. And the speaker in the Dialogue entitled Philopatris, who, under the appropriate name of Triephon, personates a Christian Catechist; when, to his simulated perfect Catechumen Critias who is the other speaker in the Dialogue, he professes to deliver the special secret of the Ecclesiastical Mysteries; declares that secret to be: The lofty, the great, the immortal, the celestial God: the Son of the Father; the Spirit proceeding from the Father: one from three; and three from one: deem these things Jore : reckon this to be God.

· Ταῦτα τὰ μυστήρια νῦν ἡ ἐκκλησία διηγεῖται τῷ ἐκ κατηχου· μένων μεταβαλλομένῳ. Οὐκ ἔστιν ἔθος ἐθνικοῖς διηγεῖσθαι· οὐ γὰρ ἐθνικῷ τὰ περὶ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΥΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ διηγούμεθα μυστήρια. Οὐδὲ τῶν μυστηρίων ἐπὶ κατηχουμένων λευκῶς λαλοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ πολλὰ πολλάκις λέγομεν ἐπικεκαλυμμένως, ἵνα οἱ εἰδότες πιστοὶ νοήσωσι, καὶ οἱ μὴ εἰδότες μὴ βλαβῶσι. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. vi. p. 60.

2

* Consuetudo autem apud nos istiusmodi est, ut iis, qui baptizandi sunt, per quadraginta dies publicè tradamus SANCTAM Hieron. ad Pammach, epist. lxi.

ET ADORANDAM TRINITATEM.

c. 4. Oper. vol. ii. p. 180.

3

* Ὑψιμέδοντα Θεόν, μέγαν, ἄμβροτον, οὐρανίωνα· Υἱὸν Πατρὸς, Πνεῦμα ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον· ἓν ἐκ τριῶν, καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς τρία· ταῦτα νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τόνδ' ἡγοῦ Θεόν. Philopat. c. xi. in Oper. Lucian. vol. iii. Reitz. Amstel. 1743.

To this enunciation of the grand secret of the Christian