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 2." 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
'Tis light as chaff that flies before the wind."

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 50, 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. 10 Rom. x. 17.

8 Tract. 59 in Joan.

9 Bossuet's Exposition.

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,
And for mysterious things of faith rely
On the proponent, Heav'n's authority.

If, then, our faith we for our guide admit,
Vain is the farther search of human wit."

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 night

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.
And sure the same Omnipotence as well
Can make one body in more places dwell.
Let Reason then at her own quarry fly,
But how can finite grasp infinity ?"

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

Papist Misrepresented and Represented, or a Twofold Character of Popery. wenty-fifth Edition, p. 23. Keating and Brown. Lond.

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. 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 sacrifices. 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 judg ment, 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. Ambrose 7, 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.
In c. 1. St. Luc. 8 De Civitat. Dei., Tom. v. c, 35.

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 him;" 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

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. LI

VOL. XV.