2dly, Akin to and corroborative of the last-mentioned doctrine, is that of prayers for the dead. This was a very early practice, and always existed among the Jews, the chosen people of God. In particular, we learn from the second book of Machabees, that Judas Machabeus, "thinking well and religiously of the resurrection," ordered sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead," for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead 1." The same practice is mentioned by Josephus 2; and the Jews, even up to the present day, make a solemn prayer for the dead, called Haskaba 3. Now, this practice is no where reprobated in Scripture, but, on the contrary, is approved of by St. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, who, in arguing for the resurrection, asks "What shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they, then, baptized for the dead 4?”— as if he had said, If the dead are not to rise, what benefit can they receive from the prayers, fasts, and alms-deeds of the living? The word "baptize" is here used metaphorically by St. Paul, to signify punishment or affliction, according to the meaning adopted by our Saviour, when he says, "I have a baptism to be baptized withal," and when, in reply to the sons of Zebedee, he asks, "Can you drink of the cup (chalice) that I drink of, or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?" And the same definition is given by St. Cyprian 5, and St. Gregory Nazianzen 6. Tha the practice of praying for the dead existed among the primitive Christians, is supported by the testimony of the early fathers. St. Clement, in the second age, says expressly, that "St. Peter taught them, among other work of mercy, to bury the dead, and diligently perform their funeral rites, an also to pray and give alms for them 7." Tertullian, who lived in the same age, says, "We make yearly oblations for the dead 8." And Origen in the third, St. Cyril 10 of Jerusalem, and St. Jerom in the fourth 11, and St. Augustine 12 in the fifth age, all mention this pious practice being in use. Catholics, however, are not singular in their belief on this point, for mary good staunch Protestants, some of them divines, are agreed with us. Γ Johnson's sentiments are well known. "Let not (says Bishop Forbes) tha old practice of praying and making oblations for the dead, received throughout the whole Christian world, and the whole Church, almost from the times of the Apostles, be any longer rejected by Protestants, as unlawful or vain 15""Nay, (says the celebrated Doctor Jeremy Taylor,) we find by the history of the Machabees, the Jews did pray and make offerings for the dead. Now it is very considerable, that, since our Saviour did reprove all their evil doctrines, practices, and traditions, and did argue concerning the dead and the resurrection against the Sadducees, yet he spoke no word against this public practice, but left it as he found it; which he who came to declare to us all the will of his Father would not have done, if it had not been innocent, pious, and full of charity 14."

3dly, The next point is the invocation of Saints, which the Council of Trent prescribes to Bishops to explain thus, that the Saints who "reign with Jesus Christ offer up their prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful humbly to invoke them, and recur to their prayers and assistance, in order to obtain benefits from God, through Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour 15" This, like all our other devotional acts, is done "through Jesus Christ," yet it is said to interfere with his mediatorship; but this is a most erroneous idea, and, by a parity of reasoning, St. Paul, in desiring the prayers of the first Christians, might with equal justice be charged with the crime imputed to us. But who has ever

1 2 Macc. c. 12, v. 43, 44, 45.

2 De Bello Judaic, c. 19.

5 De Cæna Dom. 8 De Corona Milit. 10 Catech. Mystag. 5.

3 Faucus Fagius, in c. 14. 4 1 Cor. xv. 29. 6 Orat. de Epiphania. 7 Epist. I. de St. Pet. 9 Epist. ad Roman. and Hom. 35 in St. Luke. 11 Hom. 3 in Epist. ad Philip. 12 Enchirid. c. 110. and L. De Cur. pro mortuis c. 1. 13 Discourse on Purgatory. 14 Liberty of Prophesying, No. 11, p. 345.

15 Conc. Trid. Sess. 25.

been guilty of this absurdity, or of calling in question a practice sanctioned by all Christians? If, then, fellow-sinners ask the prayers of one another on earth, and obtain aid in consequence, multo magis may they expect assistance from those happy spirits who, having "shuffled off this mortal coil," are now enjoying the rewards of their labours. To suppose that death destroys the religious ties which knit kindred souls together on this side the grave, or annihilates that "communion of saints" which we profess to believe in, is but cold philosophy, is at variance with our best feelings, and inconsistent with that true charity which never faileth. But why argue speculatively, when we have an assurance from our Saviour himself, that the Angels in Heaven rejoice at the conversion of a sinner1; and when we find the doctrine believed and attested by such writers as St. Dionysius2, St. Clement, and St. Justin Martyr, in the second age, Origin 5 in the third, St. Chrysostom and St. Ambrose in the fourth, and St Augustine in the fifth? I cannot omit Luther's testimony, who says, "I agree with the whole Christian Church, and am of opinion that the Saints in Heaven are to be invoked9." Nor that of Bishop Montague, "I do not deny that the Saints are mediators, as they are called, of prayer and intercession. They interpose with God by their supplications, and mediate by their prayers 10.' 4thly, We are accused of worshipping images. On this point the Council of Trent declares, that “though the images of Christ, the virgin-mother of God, and the other Saints, are to be kept and retained, particularly in churches, and due honour and veneration paid to them, yet that we are not to believe there is any divinity or power in them, for which we respect them, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be placed in them, as the heathens of old trusted in their idols 11.” And in our catechisms we are taught, that we must "by no means pray to pictures or images, because they can neither see, nor hear, nor help i2." In fact, in respecting the images or pictures of Christ and the Saints, we do no more than what Catholics and Protestants do, in respecting the materials of the Bible, because they contain the written word of God, nor as both do, in valuing the picture, bust, or relic, of a dear friend or relative, on account of their originals. "It is upon this (says the great Bossuet) that the honour given to images is founded. It cannot be denied, for instance, that the image of Jesus Christ, crucified, must excite in our minds the most lively recollections of him who hath loved us so much as to deliver himself up to death for our sakes 13." It is agreed, however, among our learned Doctors and Divines, that these memorials of religion form no essential part of it, and that the Church, without ever altering her doctrine, can extend or confine the practice according to times and circumstances; "not wishing (says Bossuet) that her children should be tied down servilely to visible objects, but desirous to excite them by such means, or remind them, as it were, of raising their hearts to God, to offer him, in spirit and truth, that rational service he expects from his creatures 14."

That images and pictures were in use among the early Christians, and that during the alleged purest times of the church, is evident from Tertullian 15 and other ancient writers 16. But laying aside these authorities, I shall adduce Protestant authorities in defence of the practice, the testimony of an adversary being less exceptionable. Luther, for instance, defended the practice against Carlostadius and his followers. "Images, (says Bishop Montague, in answer to the author of the Gagg for the New Gospel,) I know, have three uses assigned by your schools. Stay there. Go no farther, and we charge you not with idolatry 17." Again, "The pictures of Christ,

1 St. Luke xv. 10. 2 Eccles. Hierar., c. 7, p. 3, sect. 3, prope finem. Constitut. Apostol., L. 5, c. 8, Edit. Turrian. 4 Apolog. 2. ad Antonin.

5 In Lamental. Hom. 3. in Cantica. 6 Hom. de Sanctis Juven. et Maxim. 8 Serm. de Sanctis Pet. et Paul.

7 Serm. 6, L. de Vid.

9 In Purgatione Quorund. Art. 10 Antidote, p. 20. 12 Abstract of the Douay Catech. c. iv. 13 Eposition, c. iv. 16 Adrianus i. in Lib. pro Imag. qui habetur post 7. Synod.

VOL. XV.

11 Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. 14 Ibid. 15 Lib. de Pudia. 17 Gagger gagged, p. 300. Kk

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.' "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 Heylin) 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. 4 Spotswood's History, p. 530. 5 Hist. of Reform. p. 124.

6 St. Matth. xxv. 26, 27, 28.

8 St. Luke, xxii. 19, 20.

7 St. Mark, xiv. 23, 24.

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 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 11, 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.

3 Apolog. 2.

4 L. IV., c. 34.

5 Serm. de Cœna Dom. 6 Hom. 7 in Levit. 7 L. IV. Contra Marcion, c. 40. 96 Cont. Parmen. 10 Orat. Catechis. c. 37.

8 L. IV. de Sacrament. c. 5.

11 In Psalm. 33. Conc. 1. 13 Apud Euseb. Hist. L. V., c. 1.

12 In Colloq. Triphon. Apolog. 1. 14 Apologetica, c. 7. 15 L. VI. Cont. Celsum.

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 be 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." 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, 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 con substantiation. 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.
4 Sermons, pp. 17, 18.

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.