But the specific controversy between the Roman Catholic theologians and the various Protestant sects concerning the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament has been practically lost sight of, because modern Prot estants have for the most part given up the doctine of the Real Presence altogether, and interpret the words of institution (Matt. xxvi, 26-28, and parallel passages in the Synoptics) and other passages referring to the subject in a figurative sense. Many Catholic theologians maintain that even apart from the authoritative interpretation of the Church, the doctrine of Transubstantiation can be proved from the Scripture texts mentioned. In other words, that the idea conveyed by the word Transub stantiation is as clearly contained in the New Testament as the notion expressed by the words dp,o6rocuoc and which were the keynotes of the Arian and Nestorian con troversies. Others admit that a proof of the doctine, at least as it is philosophically ex plained, can be educed from the words of insti tution only by reading into them subtile con siderations foreign to the minds of the Apos tles and the New Testament writers. Be that as it may, we find that the early Fathers under stand these texts as really implying the doc trine of transubstantiation. They do not, of course, use the word or attempt any philosoph ical explanation of the mystery, but they affirm that contrary to the testimony of our senses, what seems to be bread is no longer such after the words of consecration, but the body of Christ. Thus Saint Cyril of Jerusalem writes: "What seems bread is not bread, though it seems so to the taste, hut Christ's body; what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but Christ's blood° (Cathech. iv, 9). Similar passages abound in
the patristic writings, and that they express equivalently transubstantiation few will deny.
In connection with this doctrine the Coun cil of Trent has defined that in the Eucharist "the whole Christ (body, blood, soul and divin ity) is contained under each species (that is, under the appearances of either the bread or the wine), and also under every part or portion of each species, at least after the parts have been separated" (Sess. 13, Can. 3). These two points offer no special difficulty if once the doc trine of Transubstantiation he admitted; it need only be remarked that they exhibit the in trinsic reason why the Catholic Church consid ers communion under one kind to be sufficient. If priests celebrating mass are obliged to re ceive under both kinds, it is only because their i communion is held to be an integral part of the Eucharist sacrifice for which both species are absolutely required. For other more subtle questions connected with the theory of Tran substantiation as elaborated by the Roman Catholic theologians, together with the explana tions whereby it was made to fit in with the philosophical systems of Descartes and Leib nitz, as well as with more recent theories, con sult any of the standard manuals of Cath olic theology, for example, that of Wilhelm and Scannell (in English), Vol. II, p. 415 et seq. For a criticism of the doctrine from the Prot estant point of view, consult Hodge, 'Syste matic Theology,' Vol. III, 678 et seq.