dead by his word,—that commanded the winds and the seas,—that multiplied bread, that changed water into wine by his word, and sinners into just men, cannot want power to change bread and wine into his own body and blood by his sole word; and this, without danger of multiplying his body, of making as many Christs as altars, or leaving the right hand of his Father; but only by giving to his body a supernatural manner of existence, by which, being without extension of parts, rendered independent of place, it may be one and the same in many places at once, and whole in every part of the symbols, and not obnoxious to any corporal contingencies. And this kind of existence is no more than what, in a manner, he bestows upon every glorified body, than what his own body had, when born without the least violation of his mother's virginal integrity,-when he arose from the dead, out of the sepulchre, without removing the stone,-when he entered among his disciples, the doors being shut. And though he cannot understand how this is done, yet he undoubtedly believes that God is able to do more than he is able to understand." Away, then, with the unmeaning jargon about "finite and infinite,-wholly in a place and wholly out of it,—a body, yet nobody,-one body, yet a million," and the impossibilities which our limited understandings cannot fathom ;" and let us believe, that with God all things are possible. On this footing I willingly accept the cynical compliment paid by the reviewer to our sagacity, in believing "what the sense and reason of other people reject." I shall close this subject with a single quotation from Luther: "What Scriptures have they to prove that these two propositions be directly contrary-Christ sitteth in Heaven, and Christ is in the Supper? The contradiction is in their carnal imagination, and not in faith, or in the word of God 1." 6thly, The last doctrine which the reviewer quarrels with is that of the sacrifice of the mass, in which he finds "something truly revolting to our (his) feelings." This something is founded on a chimera of the reviewer's brain, that, in the mass, "Christ is sacrificed afresh," in the same manner as he offered himself on the cross, which is not the doctrine of the Catholic Church, as I shall presently shew. But a few words previously regarding external sacrifice, which the gentlemen of the Reformation (as Bossuet politely styles them) contend has no place under the Christian dispensation. We find from sacred history, that the offering of sacrifice is the most ancient of all religious rites. Whether the Pagan descendants of part of Noah's posterity kept up the practice of sacrificing from tradition, or were led by the light of nature alone (after having lost the knowledge of the true God) to offer sacrifice, need not be inquired into; but so general was the practice, that, according to Plato, no nation could be found so barbarous, nor any people so rude and savage, who, with vows, victims, and outward sacrifice, have not acknowledged a God 2. And Plutarch says, that in his time, a man might sooner discover cities without walls, houses, kings, laws, coins, schools, and theatres, than without temples and sacrifices3. But wanting the light of faith, the heathens mistook the true object of adoration. They became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was hardened. For professing themselves wise, they became fools, and they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things.' Under the law of Nature, however, down to the period of the Levitical hierarchy, we find sacrifices of various kinds, which were acceptable to God, as those of Abel, Noah, Abraham, Melchisedech, Job, and the other Patriarchs. When the law of Nature was, in a manner, superseded by the written law under Moses, a particular class of men were set apart for the service of the altar, to offer the sacrifices thereby prescribed, according to the forms appointed; and thus the worship of the true God not only became more frequent, but was established in order. These sacrifices, however, were 1 Defens. Verb. Cœnæ, Tom. VII. Witt. Ed. 1557, p. 388. 2 De Leg. Dial 3 Adversus Colotem. mere shadows and types of the Great Sacrifice of the new law, or of that clean offering which, according to the prophecy of Malachi, was to be offered by the Gentiles in every place, all of which were to cease on the introduction of that sacrifice which they typified. To select the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb, the chief standing rite of the Jewish Church, as an instance-Do we not at once see, in the killing and offering of the lamb, a lively representation of the death of Christ upon the altar of the cross, and in the eating of it by the Priests and people, a no less obvious image of the Sacrament of the Last Supper? Therefore, as the Paschal Lamb was both a sacrifice and a sacrament, being first offered by the Priests, and afterwards eaten; so, in like manner, in commemorating the death of the Lord, his body and blood, under the forms or appearance of bread and wine, are offered up by the Priests of the new law before they are received by them and the people. When at length the time arrived for the abrogation of the types,-when the substance was to take place of the shadow, by the ushering in of a more excellent sacrifice, and the cessation of the Levitical priesthood,-and when "another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron;" what was the time and occasion chosen for this? Just immediately after the celebration of the Passover: no intermission takes place, for no sooner is the Passover ended, than our Lord takes bread and wine, and after giving thanks, gives it to his Apostles, telling them, that these were his body and blood, and enjoining them to do the same, "in commemoration," of him. This "commemoration" then, or, as St. Paul expresses it, the shewing" the death of the Lord till he come," is precisely what is daily done in the sacrifice of the mass, in which the body and blood of our Lord are mystically offered up in an unbloody manner, upon those altars alluded to by the same Apostle, "whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle." To persons who are educated in ignorance of our faith, and whose prejudices are too frequently the rule of their judgment, the celebration of the divine mysteries, attended with all that solemn pomp, and those significant ceremonies which appear in our worship, must, I confess, appear singular; but these persons would do well to consider that the essence of the sacrifice does not consist in these. Let us now take a retrospective glance at the faith of the primitive Christians, as to this sacrifice, in those ages in which, according to the opinions of Protestants, the Church kept the faith once delivered to the Saints, pure and unsullied. St. Justin, in the first age, says, "Christ instituted a sacrifice in bread and wine, which Christians offer up in every place," according to Malachi's prophecy, which he quotes. St. Irenæus, who lived in the second age, observes, that" Christ, in consecrating bread and wine, has instituted the sacrifice of the new law which the Church received from the Apostles, according to the prophecy of Malachi." See also Origin3, St. Cyprian, Epiphanius5, St. Chrysostom 6, St. Ambrose7, St. Augustin, and the other fathers, who all speak with equal clearness respecting the institution of the sacrifice of the new law. Thus, Sir, you will see the reasonableness of our faith, and how gross the reviewer's ideas of our doctrine are, by supposing that we believe that "Christ is sacrificed afresh," in the same bloody manner he suffered on the cross; whereas we know and believe, with St. Paul, that "Christ dieth now no more; death shall no more have dominion over him." I do most readily admit, that the passages quoted by the reviewer from the Epistle to the Hebrews, "destroy every idea of Christ's suffering, as a sacrifice, in the mass," that is, according to the idea of " perpetual suffering, agony, and death," so absurdly (I shall not imitate him by saying blasphemously) fancied by the reviewer. But to maintain (as the reviewer does) that this sacrifice, instituted only a few hours before the great expiatory atonement of the cross, is not to be reiterated, because St. Paul shews the Jews the infinite superiority 1 Dialog. cum Tryphon. 4 Epist. 63. 5 In Disput. cum St. Greg. in 7 Synod. 6 Hom. 24. in 1. Cor. Conf. L. IX. c. 3. of the sacrifice of the cross over the sacrifices of the old law, is to attempt to set aside our Saviour's dying injunction to commemorate his death. Not merely this, but such an argument would strike at Christ's eternal priesthood; for in what does the resemblance of Melchisedech's sacrifice of bread and wine consist, if it be not in the sacrifice of the mass? "Thou art a Priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech." But the reviewer fancies that the declaration of St. Peter (whose authority, he ignorantly supposes, "will go farther with Catholics" than that of St. Paul, for Catholics do not, like some Protestants, make any distinction of scriptural authorities) "annihilates the very idea of the doctrine of the real presence, and of transubstantiation, as well as of a sacrifice." He afterwards, in reference to our Saviour's ascension into heaven, says, that "being there, we are told, his human nature (as if both his divine and human natures had not been inseparably conjoined) is to remain, not to descend in the sacrifice of the mass," until, as St. Peter says, "the restitution of all things." Now, without renewing the discussion on the doctrine of the real presence, I would ask the reviewer to peruse carefully the ninth chapter of the Acts, in which the account is given of our Saviour's appearance to Saul on the road to Damascus, and his subsequent appearance to the disciple Ananias, at Damascus, in a vision; then to read the account given by St. Paul himself, in the twenty-second chapter, in which he also relates our Saviour's appearance to him as he was praying in the temple; and, lastly, to peruse the twenty-third chapter, in which St. Paul mentions another appearance at night, in the Castle of Jerusalem, when "the Lord stood by hin ;" and then say, whether he still believes Christ's real presence in the Sacrament to be incompatible with St. Peter's declaration, any more than the different instances of his sensible appearance now mentioned. Indeed, all these are more directly opposed to the reviewer's argument than the real presence; and had the reviewer just reflected a little more soberly, he might have been led to conclude, that the declaration of St. Peter infers merely that Christ is not to descend in the bodily manner he ascended, till the general judgment, or "the restitution of all things.” But (says the reviewer) the mass contains in it another doctrine as monstrous as any of the preceding, namely, the adoration of the host." Yet, in almost the same breath, he admits, that, if our doctrine be true, the host "demands worship, and the profoundest veneration!" In his wisdom, however, he talks of "the bit of bread turned into God," and asks if there be "not blasphemy in the thought?" Yes, Sir, there is blasphemy, even in the thought! But who ever said that a bit of bread was "turned into God," except the reviewer, and those who, either from sheer ignorance, or design, misunderstand or misrepresent our doctrine? It has already been shewn, that, instead of holding that the substance of the bread and wine becomes the matter of Christ's body and blood, we believe, that, after consecration, it ceases entirely to exist, and that the substance of Christ's body is introduced into its place, which, being perfect in itself, is incapable of any increase, diminution, or change, whatsoever 1. After quoting a passage from St. Augustine, in proof of the real presence, for which he gives a reference to St. Chrysostom, (an excusable error, certainly, in a critic who "boasts not his deep reading in the primitive fathers," and who wishes not to parade it "with an affectation of unparalleled superiority," the reviewer all at once turns round, and oddly says, "But to adore flesh, is this not worshipping a creature, and expressly forbidden by Him who has said, that he will not give his glory to another, nor his praise to graven images ;-which, nevertheless, the Catholics do in the worship of the Virgin Mary, and the invocation of Saints and Angels, and even in relation to this bread ?" What, Sir! is the adoration of that "bread which came down from heaven," of which the manna was a type, worshipping a creature? Idolatry is an act of the mind, whereby we give to something 66 1 Catech. of the Council of Trent, P. II. No. 25. Holden Analys. Fid. L. II. c. 4. Bellarmin De Euch. L. III. c. 18. St. Tho. Aquin. III. P. Q. 76. Art. 5. VOL. XV. LI created the supreme honour due to God alone; and do we give this honour to wine and bread? The child at the breast would cry, we do not-the beams of the roof of the temple would answer, we do not. We give it to the Father and to the Son, who is consubstantial to him, and who was made man; to them, and to the Spirit who proceeds from them, we give supreme worship. What seems bread in the Eucharist, we value not. Those accidental qualities of bread and wine, which we distinguish from the substance, but which yet are tangible, and would suffice, like carnal food, to nourish the body, are not the object of our worship; but that impassible and immortal GOD made MAN, which they conceal-HIM we worship." Oh! how absurd and inconsistent are the ideas of our opponents, when they thus tax us with idolatry! Hear what the learned Dr Jeremy Taylor says: "Idolatry is the forsaking the true God, and giving divine worship to a creature or to an idol; that is, to an imaginary God. Now, it is evident that the object of their (the Catholics') adoration in the blessed Sacrament, is the only true and eternal God hypostatically joined with his holy humanity, which humanity they believe actually present, under the veil of the sacramental signs. And if they thought him not present, they are so far from worshipping the bread in this case, that themselves profess it idolatry to do so; which is a demonstration that their soul has nothing in it that is idolatrical 2." The reviewer is equally mistaken in his ideas of the honour we give to the Virgin Mary, and the invocation of Saints and Angels: but as the subject has been anticipated, I shall leave him to entertain any notions he pleases of the mother of our Lord, of her of whom it was prophesied that ALL generations should call her blessed. Before dismissing the subject of the mass, I must be allowed to mention an extraordinary fact intimately connected with it, which will startle many people, but no person will dare to deny it. It is this-THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS WAS ABOLISHED BY LUTHER, AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE DEVIL, WHO CONVINCED HIM (as he says) THAT IT WAS IDOLATROUS. But let us hear the matter from Luther's own mouth: "I must now (says Luther) tell a little anecdote concerning myself, for which I trust you will, my reverend father, forgive me, though it may somewhat disgrace you. Awaking from a sound sleep, a few nights ago, the devil began to dispute with me, according to his custom: 'Listen to me, Master Doctor,' said he;' do you consider, that for fifteen years you have said mass almost every day? What if all this while you have been guilty of idolatry, and, instead of adoring the body and blood of Christ, have adored only bread and wine?' I answered him, that I was a priest lawfully ordained by the bishop, and that having, from a principle of obedience, discharged my ministry with a sincere inten tion of consecrating, I saw no reason to doubt the validity of the consecration. True, (replied Satan,) but in the churches of Turks and Heathens, is not every thing done in an orderly manner, and in the spirit of obedience? Does that authorise their worship as orthodox, and perfectly correct? What if your ordination were null, and your consecration as vain and useless as that of Turkish priests in the exercise of their ministry, or of the false prophets under Jeroboam?' Here I was seized with a violent sweat, and my heart began to beat in a strange manner. The devil is very artful in adjusting his reasoning, and he also pushes his arguments with great force; he has a voice strong and rough, and is so pressing in his objections, one after another, as scarcely to allow you time to breathe. Hence, I can conceive how it has repeatedly happened that persons have in the evening been found dead in their beds. In the first place, he may suffocate them; he may also, by his method of disputing, cause such a trouble in the soul, as to render her unable to make any farther resistance, and thus she may be compelled instantly to leave the body, which has nearly been my own case more than once." Luther then gives five reasons urged by the devil against the sacrifice of the mass, which he considered quite satisfactory, and he says to those who might 1 Defence by J. K. L., p. 46. 4th ed. ? Liberty of prophesying, Sect. 20. Num. 26. blame him for following these suggestions, that "if they had heard the devilreasoning in the same forcible manner as he had done, they would take care not to appeal from his arguments, to the practice of the Church, and the usages of antiquity, which would never satisfy them 1!” Such, then, as explained, are those doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church which the enlightened and philosophical reviewer denominates, "not only anti-scriptural, but absurd!" It is evident, from the confused and mistaken ideas entertained by him of these, that his theological studies have been sadly misapplied. To advise him to begin a fresh and more comprehensive course of study may be fruitless; but he will, I presume, be now aware, that without this he can never expect to wield his pen either with credit to himself or to the cause which he supports. I am afraid, Mr Editor, I am making too great an encroachment upon your valuable pages, but justice to my own feelings, and, above all, my regard for my religion, will, I hope, excuse my diffuseness with liberal minds, fond of truth for its own sake, and regardless whether it proceed from the pen of a Protestant or of a Catholic. I shall conclude my remarks on the remaining topics handled by the reviewer in another letter; and, in the mean time, beg to subscribe myself, Mr Editor, 1st September 1824. The Arab to his Horse. "The whole property of this Arab consisted of a very fine, beautiful mare. This animal the French Consul at Saïd offered to purchase, with an intention to send her to the King, Louis XIV. The Arab, pressed by want, hesitated a long time, but at length consented; and having arrived with his magnificent courser, dismounted, but appeared to be greatly agitated by contending emotions. Looking first at the gold, and then at his mare, he heaved a deep sigh, and exclaimed, To whom is it I am going to surrender thee ?-to Europeans, who will tie thee close, who will beat thee, who will render thee miserable! Return with me, my beauty, my jewel, and rejoice the hearts of my children.' As he pronounced the last words, he sprung upon her back, and in a few moments was out of sight."-Goldsmith. HA! seated on thy back once more, My swift-wing'd steed, hurra! My swift-wing'd steed, hurra! Now 'mong tangling jungles dashing, · Now's no time for foam'd-bits champing, Pawing, backing, neighing, stampingWith gallop fleet and swift pace tramping, On, on, my steed, hurra! As if bright faulchion met thy eye, At home, sweet food and rest shall bless Children, eager to caress thee, C. 1 De Missa Privata, Tom. VII., p. 469., Witt. Edit. P. 82, Jenæ Edit. Germ. per Thoms. Tom. VI., p. 86, Altenberg Edit. See also the Conference with a preface by Dr Lingard, the celebrated historian, published by Keating and Brown of London. The war-cry of the Arabs. |