Transubstantiation, &c. : a letter to the Right Honourable Lord --, in reply to certain inquiries
Fletcher, John, d. 1848
wil I < ' /£z*£— 0^ J*<9~*~w'— SSs^sL^ - <4=2 fe^*- ’3*'S'C v.\4 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Boston Library Consortium Member Libraries https://archive.org/details/transubstantiatiOOflet TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c. PRINTED BY A. J. VALPY, RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET. TRAN SUBSTANTIATION, &c. A LETTER TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD IN REPLY TO CERTAIN INQUIRIES. BY THE REY. JOHN FLETCHER, D. D, s' Si judicas, cognosce. — Seneca. LONDON : SOLD BY KEATING AND BROWN, DUKE STREET; AND BY BOOKER, NEW BOND STREET. 1836, ■ex *7/08 8 JAN 27 IS72 -QS10R COLLEGE LETTER TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD My Lord, It would have been more gratifying to me, and perhaps, eventually, more satisfactory to yourself, if you had proposed your alleged difficulties, and the questions stated in your letter, to some other member of our communion, who is more competent to reply to them than I am. There are, among my fellow cler- gymen, many, who, by their learning and superior talents, are better qualified than myself to perform the interesting task. However, since you have been pleased to assign it to me, and thus honour me with the flattering expression of your confidence, I shall, hence, endeavour to acquit myself of it, as well as my slender abilities, and the declining state of my health, will permit me. You are now engaged, you tell me, in the study of religion, anxious to find out the truth, and endeavouring to discover, which, among the variety of Christian sects, is really the true Church of Christ. All this, my Lord, is wise. You are thus acting, both as the prudent Christian, and the consistent Pro- testant. For, whilst it is the bounden duty of every Christian to believe the truth, and to be a member of the true Church, it is, at the same time, according to your fundamental principles, the strict obligation of every Protestant to found his belief upon the convictions, which result from the process of serious inves- tigation. * It was my wish to have published his Lordship's Letter at full length. However, I am not at liberty to do this. I am permitted only to state some of his sentiments and opinions ; and to make public my reply to his objections and inquiries. A 9 Accordingly, conducted by these maxims, you have already, you add, examined the doctrines, and reviewed the grounds of your own Protestant Churches. And with these, you have the candour to say, you are by no means satisfied. The contra- dictions, and errors, which you have traced in their various Creeds ; the recentness of their introduction ; the methods of their establishment, &c., have excited in your mind perplexities and doubts, to which, before such researches, you had always been a stranger. So that now, the case is — you are a discon- tented Protestant. In like manner, you have examined, you add, the doctrines, and the character, of our Church. And here again, you have the frankness to own, that, notwithstanding your deep-rooted prejudices against every thing Catholic, you have, to your sur- prise, met with many things, which you cannot but reverence, and admire. The uniformity, every where, of its worship, and belief ; its venerable antiquity ; its widely spread diffusion, &c., have forcibly struck both your imagination and your reason. And neither is this all ; — for, you have, still farther, the liberality to say, that you admit the truth of some of its doc- trines ; and the wisdom, and utility, of many of its observances. However, having allowed all this — here you pause. There are, you remark, certain doctrines of ours, which you cannot bring yourself to believe ; and from which even, your feelings forcibly recoil. These are our doctrines relating to the Eucharist ; but, particularly our doctrine of Transubstantiation. This, my Lord, is an awful state of mind. For thus, unsettled in your faith, and halting between two religions — a dissatisfied Protestant, and an unconvinced Catholic — you are, properly speaking, neither one thing nor another — neither a real Protestant, nor a Catholic. That your Lordship, educated as you have been, and as nearly all Protestants are educated, in this country, should have entertained very strong prejudices against our religion, is a circumstance which does not surprise me. Every thing almost in your Protestant education, and in the habits and intercourse of Protestant life, is calculated to create and nourish them. The ungenerous feeling is planted, not uncommonly, in the breast of the very infant on the lap of its parent, or its nurse, and it is rooted there, still deeper, on the benches of your 3 schools ; whilst the works of your writers, and the sermons of your preachers, all powerfully concur to strengthen the injurious sentiment. It is, indeed, a fact, that to misrepresent, vilify, and calumniate, our religion, is, among your writers, a very profitable traffic ; among your preachers, a very holy duty. So indecent is the manner in which both these classes assail it, that Dr. Parr, long since, declared it to be downright “ in- human” (At present, it is absolutely brutal and atrocious .) Meanwhile, the great misfortune, in our regard, is, that, deceived, and imposed, upon by these illiberal doings, the public never deem it so much as an act of justice, either to examine the real character of our religion, or the falsehood of the accusations which are urged against it. They hear, and read, every thing to its disadvantage ; but not a word, nor a line, in its favour or defence, — very piously devouring every absurdity and lie ; and just as piously disregarding every refutation, — swallowing the poison, and rejecting the corrective. Under these circumstances, how is it possible, that they should be otherwise than grossly ignorant, and bigotedly prejudiced ? It is, indeed, owing to these, and such like causes, that this country is now — and Gibbon has made the same observation — the most illiberal, and the most bigoted, country in Europe. However, the above reproaches do not, now at least, any longer apply to your Lordship. Excited by the feelings of candour, and good sense — or rather, I will hope, by the feelings, and calls, of Grace — you , as a rare example, have honestly undertaken the Christian task of endeavouring to find out the truth, — scared only, and perplexed, by the difficulties which you have stated to me in your letter. Your perplexities, my Lord, are not much to be wondered at, — seeing that you have but lately begun your researches ; and that men do not, in general, at once get rid of their errors, or their long preconceived opinions. But, having said this, I will proceed to the more immediate subjects of your inquiries. I. Before your Lordship states to me the precise nature of your objections to our doctrines respecting the mystery of the Eucharist, you, in the first place, are pleased to usher them in, — perhaps, as a kind of apology for your disbelief, — by the following declaration, — “ that you feel, and have always felt, a secret 4 repugnance to the belief in mysteries.” Such is your pre- liminary observation. Now, my Lord, permit me to remark, that such a declaration as this, coming from you , — a Christian, and a member of the Established Church, — is rather a singular confession. For, the truth is, that, in your character, both of a Christian, and a churchman, you not only admit the utility, and own the revelation, of these sacred objects, but you, moreover, profess to believe in a variety of them, which are just as deep, and impenetrable, as are any of those, which we believe, in the Catholic Church. Mysteries are, in fact, the very essence of Christianity. And the very essence of all mysteries is their incomprehensibility. This is the definition, which is given of them by St. Paul, who calls them “ the substance of things NOT SEEN.” They are an order of things, placed out of the sphere of created objects, — divine truths, impervious to the senses, and impenetrable to the human understanding; and proposed to us for the exercise of our faith, and the tribute of our obedience. Take away from Christianity its mysteries, and you reduce it to little else than a mere code of Ethics. You feel a repugnance, you say, to the belief in mysteries. But, is not this repugnance the effect of your not having suffi- ciently considered their manifold uses and advantages? In the eyes of the pious Christian, there is nothing, that appears so strikingly as they do, to proclaim, and confirm, the grandeur, the wisdom, and the divinity, of the Christian dispensation. They proclaim its grandeur. Exalting us high above the order of every thing here below, they lay open to our view the divine objects, and the glorious prospects, of another world. They present to us a Saviour, the source of all our hopes ; a God, infinite in every perfection ; a Trinity of divine persons ; a heaven, the seat of eternal happiness, &c. They attest its wisdom. Emanating from the mind of the Almighty, they are adapted to the promotion of His glory, and to the restraint of our passions. They promote His glory, by obliging us to pay to Him the homage of our worship, and the tribute of our faith. They restrain our passions, by humbling our pride, mortifying our self-love, and checking our curiosity. They are, thus, directly suited to the nature of our situation here. For, where, or what, would be the value, either of our 5 obedience or our belief, if, without any clouds, or shades, we beheld, openly exposed to our view, those divine objects, which the wisdom of God has proposed to us for our adoration ? In such case, our obedience and belief would cease almost to be virtues. They confirm its Divinity . It is God alone, that could have taught, and established, an order, or code, of doc- trines, so incomprehensible to human reason, so impenetrable to the senses, and so revolting to the passions ; uniting to them, at the same time a system of morals so plain and simple, but yet, combined with sentiments the most sublime, and ideas the most exalted. It is God alone, that could have put into the minds, and mouths, of a set of ignorant, uneducated, and vulgar men, a series of truths, far surpassing the reach cf all human wisdom, or the dictates of the brightest talents. It is He alone, that could have inspired such truths ; and it is His power alone, that could have triumphantly established them. For these reasons, therefore, I cannot but look upon your Lordship’s repugnance to the belief in mysteries, as a feeling, not less inconsistent, than it is unfortunate. I even think, that nothing, as I have just said, can better proclaim the grandeur, the wisdom, and the divinity, of religion, than its very ob- scurities,— the clouds, which hang round its sanctuary, and the darkness, which veils its divine objects from our sight. It is, too, for these same reasons also, that you should be induced to feel how very wrong it is; and how improper, in any Christian, to undertake, or to presume, to judge of the alleged, or pretended, falsehood of any mysterious doctrine, either by its imputed opposition to the nature of created things, by the testimony of the senses, or by the contracted measure of the human understanding. All this is taking reason beyond its sphere, and placing divine objects within the narrow circle of earthly ones. It is making ourselves the judges of God’s wisdom and omnipotence, and erecting our feeble notions into the standard of His conduct. As if He, in the infinitude of his power, had not the means of doing more than our slender capa- cities can comprehend ! As if He, who, by a word , called the whole order of nature into existence, and formed its laws, had G not equally, — if he so will it, — the means, and facility, of suspending, varying, or changing their operations and effects. In order to reconcile our minds to the belief of the mysterious doctrines of religion, and to dispose them the better to the obedience of faith, it has pleased the wisdom of God to spread a veil of darkness even over the order of Nature itself; and over those very objects, too, which are the most nearly proportioned to the measure of the human understanding. Nature is full of mysteries. It is the seat of abysses, which no mortal eye can explore ; the scene of wonders, which no earthly science can explain. To engage us, indeed, to adore his wisdom, and admire his greatness, God has kindly unfolded to our view the excellences, the beauties, and the splendours, of one great portion of the spectacle of the universe. But, on the other hand, he has, at the same time, — in order to humble our pride, and confound our curiosity, — shed clouds of impenetrable dark- ness over all the rest. Thus, how little, for example, do we understand of that secret power, by which nature is, each instant, producing, and reproducing, itself under such an infinite variety of forms and appearances? how little of that process, by which the union of a little earth and water gives life and beauty to all the plants, and fruits, and flowers, that enrich and adorn creation ? how little of that instrument, or hand, which moves and regulates those glorious orbs, which revolve above us? And not only is this the case, — but not even can any human ingenuity explain the essence, or construction, of the most trifling objects, — of a blade of grass, or a grain of sand. The plainest sciences have their mysteries, which neither a Newton, a Locke, nor a Descartes, have been able to penetrate. We are, ourselves, mysteries to ourselves. For, we neither understand how the soul is united to the body, nor do we comprehend the nature of its modifications, faculties, or ope- rations. It is so, too, in regard of the divinity Himself. For, although every thing around us presents the plainest evidences of his power and wisdom, yet are the nature, as well as the measure, of his divine attributes incomprehensible to our limited capacities. In short, the truth is, that nearly all we know of the objects that surround us, is the fact of their existence ; nearly all we see, is their superficies. Their substance, essence, inodes of existence, &c., are secrets, which no earthly science can explain, nor any earthly wisdom penetrate. Wherefore, my Lord, seeing that nature itself is so full of mysteries, ought it not, hence, to appear to you but reasonable to admit, that religion also, — and still more, — should have her’s? And if, without hesitation, you believe the former, why so much repugnance to believe the latter? or rather, why not, with equal willingness, believe them ? In the order of nature, those truths, which, beyond all others, are the most exalted and sublime, are also, beyond all others, the most inexplicable and profound. Therefore, — judging by the rules of analogy, — it is but consistent, in like manner, to suppose that, in the order of religion, those doctrines which are the most incomprehensible, are likewise, beyond others, the grandest and the most important. “Mysteries” says Fenelon, “give no uneasiness to a pious and enlightened man. Remarking that , in nature itself , every thing is incomprehensible to human reason , he is not, therefore , surprised, that he cannot understand the secrets of the Divinity. His very iveakness thus becomes strength ; and his darkness, light. Diffident in himself, he is all obedience to the voice of God ” Thus, then, it is, my Lord, that neither the greatness of our mysteries, nor their number, ought to form any real subject of annoyance to your feelings. Their greatness is rather the seal of their divinity ; their number, the attestation of God’s mercy and benevolence. You may, perhaps, ask me, “ What, then, such being the case, is the use of our reason, in relation to the mysteries of religion? For, has not our reason, you say, been conferred upon us, in order to be the guide of our spiritual concerns, as it is our director in the temporal interests of the world ? And has not St. Paul reminded us to take care that our faith and obedience “be reasonable ?” To these questions the reply is sufficiently contained in the principles which I have just laid down. The use of reason cannot, of course, be to judge of objects, which are not within the sphere of reason ; not to fathom abysses which cannot be fathomed ; nor daringly to attempt to draw aside the veil, which the hand of the Almighty has hung before the portal of his sanctuary. This, my Lord, — 8 although it is, indeed, the constant practice of YOUR writers , in regard to the mysteries of our religion, — is not the right use of reason. The only right and consistent use of reason, with respect to these sacred objects, is simply this, — to ascertain by the attestations, and aid of testimony, the FACT, whether they have been really revealed or not ; whether there are just grounds for believing that God has indeed spoken, and delivered them to us. The use of our reason is, to conduct us to the threshold of the sanctuary, where He utters his divine oracles, there to listen to his word ; and having once heard this, — humbly to adore. Such is the sole use of our reason, in relation to the mysteries of religion “ Faith,” says one of the best of your Bampton Lec- turers, “ should repose on TESTIMONY. The mysterious doc- trines of religion should he considered, rather as matters of fact, than of science. The fact, once proved — our duty is belief y and acquiescence.” I have just asserted, how much these principles are violated by your writers, whenever there is question of the mysterious doctrines of our religion. Yourself, my Lord, cannot but frequently have remarked, that these men, — many of the most learned and ardent defenders of your Church, — in all their disputes and controversies with the unbeliever, and the latitu- dinarian, — with the Deists, the Socinians, Unitarians, and so on, — very forcibly condemn the practice ; and reprobate the notion of treating the doctrines of religion, as “ a science ; ” of comparing divine things with human ones; or of judging of any mystery by the mystery itself. Reasoning with the afore- said enemies of revelation, your divines then reason, as we Catholics do, contending, that the only consistent and Christian method of ascertaining the truth, or of judging of the nature of any mystery, is simply the authority of testimony, or the evi- dence of the FACT, that it has certainly been revealed. In short, on all these occasions, they reason as the Christian should do. But, see now, and mark, — as, no doubt, you have done, — the conduct, and the language, of these same individuals, when- ever there is question of our religion ; that is, whenever they combat, or pretend to refute, our mysterious doctrines. On all these occasions you have uniformly found that, abandoning, or forgetting, all their Christian principles, they fiercely assail our 9 doctrines with the very arms, and arguments, of the Socinian and the unbeliever. They do not, now, contest the testimony , or the fact , of their revelation ; but, like so many profane philosophists, — or just as the Deists do, in regard of all the Christian mysteries, — they treat them as the objects of “science,” and declare them at once, “ absurd, contradictory, and impossible ;” adding, moreover, to the profaneness of their declarations every indecent form of ridicule and insult, that their illiberality can suggest. Thus, speaking of your clergy, Gibbon says of them, “ They preserve the name of religion, without the substance ; and subscribe the articles of their belief, with a SIGH, OR a smile.” Speaking of your gentry, Mr. Wilberforce says, “ The time is fast approaching, when infidelity will be held the necessary appendage of a man of fashion ; and to believe will be the indication of a feeble arid contracted mind. Having premised these reflections, — which your Lordship will do well to carry with you, as so many monitors, and guides, in your subsequent studies concerning the mysteries of religion, and which also shew the unreasonableness of your repugnance to believe them : — having done this, I will now enter upon the direct reply to your objections. B 10 II. The chief source, you tell me, of your doubts and per- plexities, respecting our religion, are our doctrines concerning the mystery of the Eucharist. At this, since you feel so strong a repugnance to the belief of mysteries, and have not, as yet, studied sufficiently the awful subject, I am not, as I have said already, surprised. The Eucharist is, no doubt, a stu- pendous mystery ; the most stupendous, perhaps, after that of the Incarnation, of all the wonderful institutions of our Redeemer. Incomprehensible to human reason, and confound- ing to the researches of curiosity and pride, it is the exact fulfilment of that definition of St. Paul respecting the mysteries of faith: — “ The substance of things NOT SEEN.” For these reasons, to those who have not studied the evidences of the fact of its establishment, as well as to the profane and the incredulous, it is to all such a stumbling-block and a scandal : it is, just like its divine author, “ a sign, set up to he con- tradicted.” Foreseeing these difficulties, our Saviour, in order to recon- cile the minds of men to the belief, and veneration, of the mystery, has, in his wisdom and tenderness, been pleased to attach to the certainty of its institution, a series of evidences and circumstances, more striking and affecting, than any thing which he has appended to the establishment of any other sacra- ment of the Christian code. Thus, in regard of the promise of the blessed gift, your Lordship will remark, that this , besides being made repeatedly, and made also in the most positive terms, is, moreover, ushered in, by way of proving the possibility of its fulfilment — by a wonderful exhibition of the omnipotence of its founder, in the performance, and display, of miracles. Thus, in its institution, you will equally observe, that this, too, like the promise, is expressed and described in language the most clear and simple ; and accompanied, at the same time, by a scene peculiarly moving and expressive. II Paul, who, in the whole series of his many epistles, does not record one other single action of Christ, records his institution of the Eucharist. This, too, is another fact, which, not less than the preceding, must seem to merit your serious consideration. There is, also, another observation, which, in your study of the sacred pages, will not fail to strike your good sense: — That, in all the descriptions, which the inspired writers have given us of the holy institution, their language, and their accounts, are every where exactly similar and alike; alike plain, clear, and natural, — without metaphor, or figure, comment, or explanation ; without any variation of expression, or any differences of cir- cumstance. St. Paul, too, informs us, that the account which he has furnished of the divine mystery, “ he had learnt from the Lord himself .” From this uniformity of narrative, as well as from this plainness of language, your Lordship’s candour will, I jim convinced, deduce inferences favourable to our Catholic doctrines. Before I cite, and discuss, the passages to which I have been alluding, I will state to you the rule, by which it is my design, and shall be my constant endeavour, to explain them. The rule, then, which I shall adopt for this purpose, shall be your own Protestant rule, or canon, of biblical criticism, pre- scribed for the safe and prudent understanding of the sacred volume. By this rule, it is required, that, whenever the language of the Holy Book is plain, it shall then accordingly be explained in the plain and obvious acceptation of the words. Such is the rule which I propose to follow. It is the very rule, laid down by your Established Church, and imposed strictly u ponton r clergy, for the interpretation, and right under- standing, oPthe Thirty-nine Articles. In the declaration, pre- fixed to these articles, it is ordained, that “ they shall take each article , in its literal arid grammatical sense” This, therefore, is a rule, to which neither your Lordship, nor any other Protestant, can, with consistency, object. Its observance, too, is here, in rela- tion to the mystery of the Eucharist, the more prudent and necessary, as it cannot be reasonably supposed that our Saviour, instituting the most important of his sacraments, would, on such an occasion, have expressed himself in a manner which it was difficult to understand. III. The first attestation, to which I have alluded in favour of the mystery, is the promise of its institution, made solemnly by our Saviour, and related in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John. In your study of the Scriptures, you may, perhaps, have remarked, that it was the occasional practice of Christ, before he executed some of his great designs, to prepare the minds of his disciples for their completion. He did so, for example, in relation to the sacrament of Baptism, forewarning them of its future introduction, and of the necessity of its application. He did so, in regard to some of the mysteries of his Passion, foretelling them that he should be delivered to the Gentiles, and be nailed to a cross ; that he should die, rise up again to life, ascend into heaven, and thence send down the Holy Ghost upon his fol- lowers. Such as this was the order of his wisdom in regard of these, because they were wonderful dispensations of his power and mercy. Accordingly, since, among all his various dis- pensations, there is none more wonderful than the sacrament of the Eucharist, so also, by the like act of his wisdom and benevolence, he was pleased, ere he bestowed the hallowed gift, to prepare the minds of his followers for its reverence and belief. The occasion which he selected for this important purpose, was one particularly suited to the desired effect. It was, when having retired into the desert, accompanied by his apostles and disciples, and followed by a multitude of persons, amounting in number to five thousand, he there performed for their relief and comfort, one of the most surprising of his miracles. He mul- tiplied for them five loaves and two fishes, so as to supply a more than sufficient meal for the whole assembled crowd. This took place on the first day of his arrival upon the scene ; when, again, in the evening also, after his return from the solitude of the mountain, he came back to his apostles, walking upon the waves of the sea of Tiberias. On the succeeding day, attracted by the splendour of the afore- said miracles, and expecting, perhaps, to witness others similar to them, the people again crowded eagerly round Him, at the village of Capernaum. Wherefore, as he had now convinced them of the greatness of his power, and that “ He was the prophet , who should come into the world," seizing upon this opportunity, — than which none could have been more favour- able, — lie proceeded, after having first inculcated the necessity of believing in Him, to lay open to them his design of bestowing upon them, ere long, his divine sacrament of the Eucharist. Let your Lordship but weigh his words with care, and consider attentively the whole instructive and striking spectacle. “ I am,” he says to the listening multitude, “ the living bread, that 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, which I will give for the life of the world. “ The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying. How can this man give us his flesh to eat l “ Then Jesus said unto them, Amen, Amen, I say unto you, unless you do eat the flesh of the Son of Alan, and drink his blood , you shall not have life in you. “For, my flesh is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed. “ He, that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood , abideth in Me, and I in him. “As the living Father hath sent Ale, and I live by the Father , so he, that eateth Me, the same shall also live by Me,” be. Such were the words of our Saviour ; and such the decla- rations,— six times repeated, — which, upon this solemn occasion, he made to the assembled multitude. Now, considering the words themselves, it is clear, that they are such as common sense most easily understands — simple, natural, and plain. No possible form of language could, better than they do, express, both the reality of the Divine Presence in the promised gift, and the excellences of its benefits. As interpreted, according to your canons of interpretation, — “ in their literal, and gram- matical, sense,” — they admit the above, and no other reasonable signification. Accordingly, referring to the manner in which the whole assembled multitude understood them, — for this is the sure criterion of their meaning, — you find, that it was precisely in their literal, and .obvious, sense. For this reason it v/as, that, 14 looking upon the promised blessing, as something too won- derful and extraordinary, they were scandalised, and murmured. “ This, they said , is a hard saying ; and who can hear it ? They strove among themselves, saying , How can this man give us his jlesh to eat Vj His very disciples, shocked at the singular declaration, “ went away; and walked no more with Him .” Now, what, under these trying circumstances, was the conduct of the benevolent Being? Hid he, then, in consequence of all this, soften down his expressions, or explain them in any other sense than what they literally imply ; and in which the multitude and the disciples had understood them — telling them, for example, that they had mistaken his meaning ; and that he was speaking to them only figuratively? So far from any thing like this, he, on the contrary, insisted, still more forcibly, on the reality of what he had just been declaring so explicitly. “ Amen, Amen ,” he added, — the very terms, which, beyond all others, express the strongest confirmation : — “ Amen, Amen, I say unto you, unless you do eat the jlesh of the Son of Man, you shall not have life in you.” — And now, turning to his disciples, he said to them, “ Hoes this offend YOU ? ” Then, — mark this well : — then, by way of reproach for their incredulity, and in order to prove to them his power of performing the promised wonder, he appealed to his own omnipotence, referring them to another stupendous wonder, which, soon, they would be called upon to witness. “ What then,” he asked them, “ if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before ?” This surely, my Lord, is a mode of reasoning, which, if it were not designed to prove the possibility, and the future certainty, of the promised gift, and to engage his followers to believe in the sacred insti- tution, is completely unintelligible, and devoid of meaning. But neither is this all. For, now, the Divine Being, — after having thus witnessed the murmurs and incredulity of the multitude, and the abandonment and desertion of his disciples, — now, turning to his apostles, as he had done to the former, he addressed them, and said, t( And will not YOU also go away And what, then, was their reply; and what the conduct of these more enlightened individuals ? Why, although like the Jews and the disciples, they had, perhaps, been surprised and startled at the proposal, and idea, of so great a mystery, yet. unlike those unbelievers, — recollecting the power, the wisdom, and the mercy, of their Divine Master, and looking back to the miracles which they had just seen him perform, — they , under these impressions, humbly bending down their reason to his word, submitted, and believed. “Lord,” they replied, “to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the ivorcls of eternal life , and we believe. Thou art Christ , the Son of the living God.” Thus, I have laid before your Lordship the history of one of the most striking scenes of our Saviour’s life. Its design, as I have stated, was not to establish, at that time, the sacrament of the Eucharist ; but only to prepare the minds of the faithful for its approaching institution. Accordingly, every thing, yon must have remarked, in the whole series of his conduct, was adapted to produce this effect, — his miracles, his words, his repeated and strong asseverations. In like manner, every thing in the conduct of his followers, — the scandal and mur- murs of the multitude, the abandonment of the disciples, the faith and submission of the apostles, — shew clearly in what sense they, all of them, understood the words and declarations of the Divine Being. They all clearly understood them in their plain and literal sense. Hence, therefore, the incredulity of the multitude ; and hence the faith and submission of the apostles : “ Lord , tliou hast the words of eternal life , and we believe.” May the like consideration of the power, wisdom, and mercy, of your Saviour produce the like effects in your Lordship, which it did in these docile men, engaging you to call out, as they did, “ Lord, thou hast the words of eternal life ; and I believe .” I need not here remark, for you cannot but have already remarked it yourself, how exactly, in the foregoing narrative, every thing accords with our doctrine respecting the holy mystery ; and how very ill with yours — that is, with the doctrines of your Protestant churches concerning the said sacred institution. Our doctrine respecting it is the direct echo of the words of Christ ; our belief, the direct agreement with the meaning of his words: whilst again, every thing, in our notions, corre- sponds with the whole tenourof the extraordinary conduct of our Saviour, on the occasion of the important promise. But, to reconcile your doctrines respecting the mystery, either with the 1 6 words, or the conduct, of the Divine Being, on the eventful occasion, this is a task, which your writers, with all their ingenuity, have never been able to accomplish. For, either these men reduce the mystery to no mystery at all, — contending, that it is but a figure, and a piously commemorative rite; or else, they distort it into an inexplicable riddle, professing to admit a real presence, but reducing this to a real absence; contra- dictingthe plain and positive assurances of Christ — “ my flesh is meat indeed; my blood is drink indeed ;” and violating grossly their own acknowledged rules of Scriptural interpretation. In like manner, it is just equally impossible to reconcile your doctrines with the conduct of Christ, as it is with his words. For, if the Eucharist were, in the mind of the Divine Personage, designed to be only a figure, or pious rite, or the oblation of a little blessed bread and wine, what possible need could there, in such cases, have been for all that solemnity, with which he ushered in and announced the promise of so very simple an institution ? what need of miracles to dispose the public to believe it, or of so many strong asseverations to confirm it? As again, if the insti- tution were so very simple a thing, what room for the scandal, and murmurs, of the multitudes ; for the desertion and incre- dulity of the disciples ; or even for the faith and obedience of the apostles ? The truth is, that the whole narrative of the Evangelist, relating to the mystery, is completely incoherent, as it is explained, or understood, by the Protestant; and plain, obvious, and consistent, as it is interpreted by the Catholic. Having thus laid before your Lordship the history of the promise of the holy dispensation, designed to dispose the minds of men to reverence and adore it, I will now proceed to consider the account of its subsequent fulfilment by the establishment itself of the sacred gift. And here you will trace the most perfect accordance between the two narratives, insomuch, that, if there were any thing obscure in the promise , the obscurity would be done away by the clearness of its fulfilment. IV. The account of the fulfilment of our Saviour’s promise, or of the establishment itself of the divine mystery, is con- tained in the Gospels of three of the Evangelists, as well as in one of the Epistles of St. Paul ; — in the 26th chapter 17 of St. Matthew, in the 14th diopter of St. Mark, in tho 22nd of St. Luke, and in the 11th of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The relation of the great event is expressed in each of these instructive documents, in nearly the very same words. For this reason I need only to cite the narrative which is given by any one of the sacred penmen. The following is that of St. Luke xxii. 19, 20 : — “ And Jesus took bread , and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to them , saying , This is my body, which is given for YOU. Do this in remembrance of Me” Likewise also the cup, after supper, saying, “ This cup is the New Testament in my blood , which shall be shed for YOU.” Such, as recorded by all the above-mentioned writers, was the spectacle of the Last Supper. It was an occasion, which, next to the tragedy upon Calvary, was, of all others, during the course of the Saviour’s career on earth, the most awful and important : whence also, that solemn preparation for it, which T have been describing from the Gospel of St. John. The Divine Being was then establishing the most sacred of all his holy dis- pensations ; introducing a new rite, intended for the sanctification of mankind till the end of time ; and designed also to be the strong and public tie of his religion. He was forming a new alli- ance with his followers ; signing his last will and testament ; and bequeathing to his creatures the last best pledge of his affection for them. Accordingly, my Lord, bearing in your mind these useful impressions, weigh now, and consider seriously, both the words and the conduct of Jesus, whilst seated at the farewell feast. In the former, there is nothing but what is plain and simple ; in the latter, nothing but what is expressive of tenderness and love : “ Loving his own , he loved them to the end.” Taking, says the Evangelist, into his hands the element of bread, and having solemnly blessed and broken it, he then presented it to his apostles, with the positive declaration, “This is Mg hodg adding, moreover, in order to prevent or remove any doubt, or fear, upon the subject, the express assurance that it was the very body which was “given” for them : “ This is My hodg , which is given for you.” His language is not less clear, and forcible, when He presents to them the chalice : for, not only does he then assure them that it was his blood , but the blood also that should be “shed” for their salvation. Now, taking all the above words, or sentences, in their natural and obvious meaning, or explaining them by your own rules of interpretation, they do certainly imply that, what Christ then gave to his apostles, was his own real body and blood. They imply and express this as clearly as any possible form of words can do it. Or else, if such is not their meaning, T can then only say, that never were terms more unintelligible and obscure, expressing precisely what they do not mean. The Divine Being could not, if such be the case, have expressed himself worse. By way of bringing the question, perhaps somewhat closer to your reason, I will, for a moment, appeal to your feelings. Make then with me the following supposition : — suppose, and imagine yourself present with your Saviour in the coenaculum, where the great mystery is preparing and accomplished ; and seated beside Him at the holy table. You behold Him there, — his whole soul absorptin the sacred work, — with a strong desire , as He said, longing to eat the hallowed passover. You see Him lift up his eyes to heaven ; with humble reverence, address his Eternal Father ; bless, with awful solemnity, the elements, 19 which he held in hand ; and then, — these expressive acts com- pleted,— you see him present the now consecrated gifts to his apostles, assuring them, in the clearest and most positive terms, that they were his body and his blood ; the body , that was “given,” — the blood, that was “shed,” for their salvation. 