and the blessed Virgin, and of the Saints, may be had in houses, and placed in churches; respect and honour may be given them. Protestants give it. You Papists say they must not have Latria: So say we. You give them Dulia: I quarrel not with the term though I could. There is a respect due to the pictures of Christ and his Saints. If you call this Dulia, we Protestants give it too: let doctrine and practice go together; we agree1." Mr Thorndyke observes, that "to the images of the Saints there can be no idolatry, so long as men take them for Saints, that is, God's creatures, much less to the images of our Lord; for it is the honour of our Lord, and not of his image2." He again says, "he who takes the Pope for Antichrist, and Papists for idolators, can never weigh by his own weights, nor mete by his own measures. Let them not, then, think to lead the people by the nose, to believe they can prove their supposition when they cannot 3 3. "You can (says James the Sixth, addressing himself to the Scotch Bishops) endure lions and dragons to be figured in your churches, but will not allow the like place to Patriarchs and Apostles." His worthy predecessor, Queen Bess, of pious memory, retained a crucifix on the altar of her chapel, but Patch, the fool, broke it, "no wiser man (says Heylm) daring to undertake such a service 5." 5thly, The next subjects of discussion are the doctrines of the real presence and transubstantiation, the great stumbling-blocks of Protestants, as to which greater misapprehension exists on their part, perhaps, than on any other point of controversy between them and Catholics. Both doctrines are so closely connected, the one following as a result of the other, that I have classed them under one head, but shall explain them apart, beginning with that of the real presence, which doctrine the reviewer considers" as necessary a consequence from transubstantiation, were it true, as light is from the sun." In arguing, however, against the Lutherans, who hold the absurdity of consubstantiation, or a real presence, without transubstantiation, we maintain, that transubstantiation is a necessary consequence of the real presence, deeming it superfluous to discuss the manner of Christ's presence in the sacrament till the question whether he be present be settled. In fact, transubstantiation is just the real presence, properly understood. With regard, then, to the real presence, it is clearly established by the words of the institution, as reported by three of the Evangelists. St. Matthew relates, that our Saviour, at his last supper, "took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take ye and eat, THIS IS MY BODY. And taking the chalice, (or cup,) he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of this, for THIS IS MY BLOOD of the New Testament, WHICH SHALL be shed for many for the remission of sins 6." St. Mark uses the very same words, "This is my body"—" This is my blood 7." And in St. Luke we find the words, "This is my body," and "This cup is the New Testament in my blood 8." St. John is quite silent as to the institution, in accounting for which circumstance St. Augustine thinks, that the reason probably was, that he had said many things before concerning the body and blood of our Lord 9. After relating the astonishing miracle of the barley loaves and fishes, and that the multitude, who had been thus miraculously fed, had next day followed our Saviour to Capharnaum, St. John informs us, that, alluding to the perishable nature of the food they had received, and to the manna, our Saviour observed, that his Father gave" the true bread from heaven 10," that He was "the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever, and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" This, then, was the time for informing them that he spoke only figuratively; but instead of doing so, our Saviour enforced still more strongly, in language even 1 Montague in Epistom. p. 318. 2 Just Rights, C. 19. 3 Pageant of Popes. 1 Spotswood's History, p. 530. 5 Hist. of Reform. p. 124. 7 St. Mark, xiv. 23, 24. 6 St. Matth. xxv. 26, 27, 28. 8 St. Luke, xxii. 19, 20. 9 L. III. De Concord Ev. c. 2. 10 St. John, ch. vi. more explicit than he had formerly used, the real participation of his body and blood. The Jews were the first who doubted, but after the explicit and repeated declarations he made in answer to their question, "how can," &c. some of the disciples themselves began to murmur, for many of them, "when they had heard this, said, This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" And although he thereupon proposed to them the doctrine of his ascension, to shew his power, and to undeceive those who may have understood him in a carnal sense, we are informed, that " many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him!" The exposition given by St. Paul is no less clear and decided; for, after giving the history of the institution, he observes, that the death of the Lord is shewn as often as the Sacrament is administered; from which he draws this conclusion, "wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord ;" and " he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord 1.” Founding, therefore, upon the texts alluded to, and considering that our Saviour, in bequeathing the legacy of his love, would leave nothing to imbiguity or doubt-that when he said, This is my body, This is my blood, he did not mean the contrary; as if he had said, This is not my body, this is not my blood, or only figures of my body and blood; the Catholic Church teaches, has always taught, and will perpetually teach, that Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist or Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, under the outward forms of bread and wine, corporally, yet spiritually, because imperceptible to the senses; and that the communicant receives therein verily and indeed the true body and blood of Christ, true God and true man, yet not in a carnal manner, the body of Christ being glorious, impassible, and immortal. Were it at all necessary, I could fill a volume with testimonies from the early fathers in support of this doctrine. Let a few suffice. St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom at Rome in the year 107, and who was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, alluding to certain heretics of his age, says, "They allow not of the Eucharist and oblations, because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, which suffered for our sins 2." St. Justin, who suffered martyrdom about 167, in his apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, thus explains the doctrine of the real presence: "We do not receive this as common and ordinary bread and drink; but even as, by God's word, Christ Jesus, our Saviour, became flesh, and had flesh and blood for our salvation; so are we taught that this food, which, by the prayer of the word of God, is made the Eucharist, and wherewith our blood and flesh by conversion are fed, is the flesh and blood of the self-same Jesus incarnate 3." And St. Irenæus, who died about 204, in disputing against the Valentinians, who, among other errors, denied Christ to be Son of the Creator of the world, but who admitted the real presence, asks them, "How can they be assured that the bread, in which thanks are given, is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not acknowledge him to be the Son of the Maker of the world 4?" Reference may also be made to the writings of St. Cyprian 5, Origen 6, Tertullian 7, St. Ambrose 8, Optatus Melevitanus 9, St Gregory Nyssen 10, St. Chrysostom 11, &c. for similar testimonies. Indeed, so explicit was the faith of the primitive Christians on the doctrine of the real presence, that the heathens from thence took occasion to accuse them of the crime of eating human flesh, which slanderous accusation was repelled by St. Justin 12, Attalus the martyr 13, Tertullian 14, Origen 15, and others, who explained that the real presence did not import a carnal participation. 1 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29. 2 Epist. ad Smirn. 5 Serm. de Cœna Dom. 6 Hom. 7 in Levit. 8 L. IV. de Sacrament. c. 5. 11 In Psalm. 33. Conc. 1. Apud Euseb. Hist. L. V., c. 1. 13 3 Apolog. 2. 4 L. IV., c. 34. 9 6 Cont. Parmen. 10 Orat. Catechis. c. 37. The scriptural evidence for the real presence appeared so strong to Luther, that although he wished to call it in question, he durst not venture, for he says, "I clearly saw how much I should thereby injure Popery; but I found myself caught without any hope of escaping, for the text of the Gospel was too plain for this purpose 1." But in maintaining this doctrine against Carlostadius, Zuinglius, and others, with all his characteristic warmth and ferocity, he invented the absurd and inconsistent system of consubstantiation; and his reforming contemporaries, in the true spirit of Gospel liberty, invented other systems for themselves; and, incredible as it may seem, it is computed that not less than two hundred different explications, upon the doctrine of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, were promulgated within a few years after Luther's revolt. Of all these, that adopted by Calvin, of a bare figure, or real absence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, appears to be the most consistent with itself; and almost the whole of the rest have amalgamated therewith, or disappeared. For instance, it is now difficult to know the precise doctrine of the Church of England upon this Sacrament; but certain it is, that many of her brightest ornaments believed the doctrine of the real presence. "Christ (says Andrews, Bishop of Winchester) said, This is my body; he says not in this or that way it is my body. We agree with you as to the object, the whole difference respects the modus or manner of the presence 2." Again, "We believe a real and true presence no less than you do. The king, too, believes Christ not only really present, but truly adorable, in the Eucharist 5." Such, also, were the sentiments of Bishop Lawrence 4, Archbishop Laud 5, Bishops Montague 6, Bramhall 7, Cosin 8, and the celebrated Hooker 9. The real presence being thus established, the doctrine of transubstantiation, which, as already observed, is neither more nor less than the real presence properly understood, follows as a necessary consequence; for it is evident that Christ's real presence in the Sacrament must exclude the matter or substance of the elements; a conclusion which has been admitted by some of the most learned Protestants, in arguing against the Lutheran system of consubstantiation. When we say that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, (which change is called transubstantiation,) we do not mean that any creation takes place, the body of Christ being incapable of increase, diminution, or change; or that the substance of the bread and wine becomes the matter of Christ's body by transfusion, or incorporation, or in any other way; but that the bread and wine after consecration cease entirely, the accidents still remaining 10, St. Augustine, in arguing against the Donatists, lays it down as a rule, that when any doctrine is found generally received in the visible church, in any age whatsoever, whereof there is no certain author or beginning to be found, then it is sure that such a doctrine came down from Christ and his Apostles 11. This rule will hold equally good in the nineteenth, as in the fifth century; and to avoid the force of it, the opponents of transubstantiation have pretended to discover that the doctrine was introduced long after the apostolic era. Many travellers accordingly set out on this Utopian voyage of discovery; but the result of their labours has demonstrated the futility of their attempt, as a proof of which, these voyagers have assigned different degrees of latitude (the longitude is out of the question) to the object of their research. Some pretended to have ascertained that this doctrine originated in the thirteenth century, because the word transubstantiation did not appear to have been used till the time of the fourth Lateran Council; but these were easily disposed of, by reminding them that the dispute was not about the word, but about the doctrine. Others assigned the eleventh century, because 1 Epist. ad Argent. Tom. IV. fol. 502, Ed. Witten. 3 Ibid. c. 8., p. 194. 5 Conference with Fisher, p. 286. 2 Answer to Bellarmin's Apology, c. 1. p. 11. 6 Appeal to Cæsar, p. 289. 7 Answer to Milit. p. 74. 8 Hist. of Transub. 9 Eccles. Polit. B. v. 67. 10 Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part ii. No. 25. 11 L. IV. de Bapt. c. 6. 24. See also Lib. de Unit. Eccles. c. 19. Berengarius then called the doctrine in question; but these were again silenced, when they were told that Berengarius, like Luther, "stood alone" against the faith of the whole Church, and that their system could only stand by adopting this extravagant hypothesis-that the whole people of Christendom had gone to their beds in the disbelief of transubstantiation, and had all awoke next morning in its belief, entirely forgetful of the faith of the preceding night! It became necessary, therefore, to go still farther back, to find out this notable era; and the consequence has been, that some of the inquirers admit that they have found traces of transubstantiation as high as the fifth century; while others acknowledge generally, that it entered early into the Church, but that they are unable to fix the precise period 1. Perhaps the following passage from St. Cyprian (anno 240) may have attracted their notice: "The bread which our Lord gave to his disciples being changed, not in shape, but in nature, by the omnipotency of the Word, is made flesh." Or they may have observed similar expressions in Origen 3, Tertullian 4, St. Ambrose 5, St. Cyril 6, St. Gregory Nyssen 7, St. Augustine 8, and others, all bearing witness to the ancient faith. The reviewer ridicules transubstantiation with a felicity peculiarly his own, and though his arguments may not obtain the palm of originality, they will not fail to secure applause by their drollery, set off, as they moreover are, with all the archness and humour befitting such a grave subject. But I beg the reviewer's pardon, for he has displayed a little originality, which, however, I am afraid will not raise him much in the estimation of his party, though he has engaged their attention by three notes of admiration. The passage where this originality is shewn is too exquiste a morceau to escape quotation. "Were such a doctrine true, it would not only be a standing miracle itself in the Church of Rome, but the greatest of all miracles; and what would be the most marvellous thing of all, would be calling on us to believe a miracle on the testimony of our senses, and reason, and Scripture, when our senses, and reason, and SCRIPTURE, WERE ANNIHILATED by the miracle, AND RENDERED INCAPABLE OF JUDGING of the reality of the change!!!" What! not only our senses and reason annihilated, but even Scripture too, and rendered incapable of judging! But to be serious, it is upon Scripture, and Scripture alone, and not upon reason, as opposed to Scripture, or upon the testimony of our senses, that our belief is founded; and sure I am, no Catholic was ever instructed to trust to his senses in this mystery, but, on the contrary, was always led to believe that they have nothing to do therewith 9. It is not, however, with Scripture that the reviewer combats transubstantiation, but with the common-place appeals to the senses, and with arguments on its supposed impossibility. "But winnow well this thought, and you shall find The doctrine of transubstantiation, then, according to the reviewer, "were it true, would render useless the senses of sight, taste, smell, and feeling, four of our five senses." It is true, that, by these, we cannot discern this mystery of our faith; but the remaining sense of hearing, is here exercised to its fullest extent, for "faith (says St. Paul) comes by hearing, and hearing from the word of God 10." Thus, by hearing the word of God through the Church, we learn our belief. But our senses, it seems, would also "mislead and deceive us, and their testimony would be of no avail," if transubstantiation were admitted. Be it so, for argument's sake, that four of our senses are deceived-What then? Are these above revelation, or are the truths of Christianity to become subservient to our senses? But we have just seen that the sense of hearing, at least, is not deceived, and if our faith rest upon our "hearing from the 1 Adamus Francisci Marg. Theol. p. 256. Ant. de Adamo Anat. Miss. p. 36. 2 Serm. de Cæna Dom. 3 L. VIII. Cont. Cels. 4 L. IV. Cont. Marcion., c. 40. 5 L. IV. De Sacra. c. 4. 6 Catechism. Mystagog. 7 Orat. Catechism., c. 37. 9 Bossuet's Exposition. 10 Rom. x. 17. word of God," our other senses must yield implicit obedience. It is a fallacy, however, to say that any of our senses are deceived in transubstantiation; for, as already explained, it is a part of that doctrine that the accidents of the bread and wine, which are merely the affections of the senses, remain unchanged, and are perceived by the senses, which cannot discern the nature of any substance. It is the judgment properly which may be deceived. Thus, when Abraham entertained the Angels, his judgment was undoubtedly deceived at first, in taking them for men; but it cannot be correctly said that any of his senses were deceived in regard of the accidents, of shape, colour, &c., which indicated their human appearance; nor can it be properly said that the senses of the people who witnessed the descent of the Holy Ghost, in the shape of a dove, upon our Saviour at his baptism, were deceived, though they may have thought that they really saw a real dove. The senses of sight, taste, smell, and feeling," were not, however, given us to be used as tests by which we were to try the divine truths of revelation. "God thus asserted, man is to believe Beyond what sense and reason can conceive, If, then, our faith we for our guide admit, The reviewer deems "it an essential property in a body to be in one and the same place at one and the same time," and he says, that " the common sense of a Pagan could lead him to see that a body could not be in two places at once." Now, I readily admit with the reviewer, and Plautus, whose authority he quotes, what nobody ever disputed, that a natural body cannot be in different places at one and the same time, though few, I presume, will deny that the power of God is sufficient to effect it. But to say that "the thing implies a contradiction," is absurd. Contradiction consists in affirming and denying the same proposition concerning the same thing at the same time, as if I should say that the reviewer was in Edinburgh on a particular day, and that he was not there that day. But the true question is not concerning the properties of a NATURAL body, but about the SPIRITUAL and GLORIFIED body of our Lord; and who can define the properties of such a body? "Can they, who say the Host should be descried By sense, define a body glorified, Impassible, and penetrating parts? Let them declare by what mysterious arts He shot that body through th' opposing might Of bolts and bars, impervious to the light, And stood before his train confess'd in open sight. For, since thus wonderfully he pass'd, 'tis plain -One single place two bodies did contain. Let Reason then at her own quarry fly, While on this subject, I cannot avoid making an extract from a small work which should be in the hands of every well-meaning Protestant, as affording a complete answer to a great deal of rodomontade, uttered by the reviewer, against the doctrine of transubstantiation. "He (the Catholic) believes Christ's body and blood to be really present in the blessed Sacrament, though, to all outward appearance, there is nothing more than bread and wine: thus, not at all hearkening to his senses, in a matter where God speaks, he unfeignedly confesses, that he who made the world out of nothing by his sole word,-that cured diseases by his word,—that raised the 1 Papist Misrepresented and Represented, or a Twofold Character of Popery. Twenty-fifth Edition, p. 23. Keating and Brown. Lond. |