Newman starts by saying that he (as an Anglican) has never doubted the real presence. He highlights speaks positively of its witness and then suggests that the witness of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is more powerful than the witness of the real presence. He then offers the below.
Bolding mine (from
An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine):
On the other hand, of a passage in St. Justin, Bishop Kaye remarks, "Le Nourry infers that Justin
maintained the doctrine of Transubstantiation; it might in my opinion be more plausibly urged in favour of Consubstantiation, since Justin calls the consecrated elements Bread and Wine, though not common bread and wine
Note 22] … We may therefore conclude that, when he calls them the Body and Blood of Christ, he speaks figuratively." “
Clement,” observes the same author, “says that the Scripture calls wine a mystic
symbol of the holy blood … Clement gives various interpretations of Christ’s expressions in John vi. respecting His flesh and blood; but in no instance does he interpret them literally … His notion seems to have been that, by partaking of the bread and wine in the Eucharist, the soul of the believer is united to the Spirit, and that by this union the principle of immortality is imparted to the flesh.”
Note 23] “It has been suggested by some,” says Waterland, “that
Tertullian understood John vi. merely of faith, or doctrine, or spiritual actions; and it is strenuously denied by others.” After quoting the passage, {25} he adds, “All that one can justly gather from this confused passage is that Tertullian interpreted the bread of life in John vi. of the Word, which he sometimes makes to be vocal, and sometimes substantial, blending the ideas in a very perplexed manner; so that he is no clear authority for construing John vi. of doctrines, &c. All that is certain is that he supposes the Word made flesh, the Word incarnate to be the heavenly bread spoken of in that chapter.”
Note 24] “
Origen’s general observation relating to that chapter is, that it must not be literally, but figuratively understood.”
Note 25] Again, “It is plain enough that
Eusebius followed Origen in this matter, and that both of them favoured the same mystical or allegorical construction; whether constantly and uniformly I need not say.”
Note 26] I will but add the incidental testimony afforded on a late occasion:—how far the Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist depends on the times before the Nicene Council, how far on the times after it, may be gathered from the circumstance that, when a memorable Sermon
Note 27] was published on the subject, out of about one hundred and forty passages from the Fathers appended in the notes, not in formal proof, but in general illustration, only fifteen were taken from Ante-nicene writers.
Anyone is welcome to do whatever research they want on Newman’s words. My recollection of my research is that some of the above 5 are good examples of not accepting the real presence and some are not real good examples. I have no desire to repeat of find this research (I did look briefly), but anyone who wishes can do so!
Charity, TOm
