« PredošláPokračovať »
question, I could not possibly subscribe to any such misconstructions of the ancient doctrine of Christendom on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist: For, in conformity with this doctrine, I most firmly and steadfastly believe, and am ready solemnly and sincerely to call God to witness my belief, that Transubstantiation does verily and truly take place in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and in the manner in which it is taught and explained in the Catholic Church.
In the first place, I believe it because the Catholic Church has always taught it; she has taught it,
hard words against that church ; running up all objections against it into atheism and blasphemy, of which idolatry is the greatest instance. As to the use of images in the worship of God, I cannot but wonder at the confidence of these men to make so bold a charge against them in general, when the images of the cherubims were commanded by God himself (Exod. xxv. 18.); which instance is so plain and obvious to every reader, there being nothing more remarkable in all the Old Testament than the honour done to the cherubim, that 'tis a much greater wonder to me, that those men who advance the objection of idolatry so groundlessly, can so slightly rid themselves of so pregnant a proof against it; till, therefore, it can be proved that the papists worship the images of false gods as supreme deities, or the true God by corporal images and the representations of his divine nature, there can be no footing for idolatry in Christendom.”-Parker's Reasons for abrogating the Test.
because it was revealed to her from heaven; and of its revelation from heaven there is abundant and incontrovertible proof. Yes, if there be one tenet of Christianity more clearly defined, or more frequently illustrated in the sacred writings than another; if there be one article of faith which it appeared to be the object of our Saviour to enforce more strongly upon our minds than usual; if there be one mystery to which more importance is given, or to which more consequence is attached, it is the doctrine of Transubstantiation. It is a singular circumstance, that Transubstantiation should have been the characteristic both of the first and of the last miracle which our Saviour performed in the course of his sacred ministry,—the conversion of water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana, and the conversion of bread into his body, and of wine into his blood, at the last supper.
Like every other tenet of her creed, the Catholic Church can trace the belief in Transubstantiation up to the very æra of the Apostles, by an unbroken series of authentic history, by the luminous evidence of those unexceptionable attestators of truth, the Fathers of the Church.(m)
(m) See APPENDIX, No. XI, where these testimonies are adduced at considerable length.
“It is evident,” says Dr. Samuel Parker, “to all but ordinarily conversant in ecclesiastical history, that, the ancient fathers did, from age to age, assert the true and
But why should we have recourse to the testimony of history, and the opinion of the Fathers, while
real presence in very high and expressive terms. The Greeks called it metaboli, and the Latins, conversion, transmutation, transformation, transelementation, and at length transubstantiation! by which expressions they meant neither more nor less than the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.”—Parker's Reasons, p. 13. “I have often wondered,” says the learned Scaliger,“ that all the ancient fathers should have considered the supper as a real oblation, and have believed, as they unquestionably did, the change of the bread into the body of Christ, for which reason, Protestants can never prove their doctrine from them."-Scaligerana, p. 78.
But as other Protestant controvertists have endeavoured to turn aside the positive and overwhelming testimony of the Fathers of the Church, upon the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist, and never more shamefully and falsely than in the present day, by pretending to produce doubtful, unsatisfactory, and even contradictory opinions amongst them on this point, and by endeavouring to stamp them with the same fickleness, uncertainty, and hesitation in their belief, as is found to prevail amongst Protestants themselves, I will introduce into the APPENDIX the admirable refutation of such notions in the bishop of Strasburg's late triumphant answer to Faber's Difficulties of Romanism. The reader will there see a notable proof of the truth and justice of the observations I have found it necessary to make upon the general character of works of the description of Mr. Faber's, works which are a disgrace to the Church in whose defence they are undertaken -works in which forgery and falsehood are artfully but
we have the evidence of the Scripture, and the words of Christ himself to guide us? It is impossible for any one, with an unbiassed judgment, to read the 6th chapter of the Gospel of St. John, and disbelieve in the real and substantial presence of the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. We there see the express declaration of Christ: I am the bread of life; the bread that I will give is my flesh :(n) and we see the sense in which
unblushingly advanced with a design to delude the ignorant and the credulous into a disbelief of the purest doctrines of Christianity, and for the purpose of upholding a system of imposture and deceit, by which thousands of talented and otherwise respectable individuals derive a luxurious subsistence for themselves and families. See APPENDIX, No. X.
(*) It may be here observed,“that if Christ had wished to inculcate the Catholic doctrine, he could not have done it in terms better adapted to the purpose; and if he meant to inculcate the doctrine of the Church of England, he could have hardly selected words more likely to lead his disciples into error.” (Lingard's Tracts, p. 215.)
During the period of our Saviour's sojournment upon earth, he was God under the appearance of man; and though he proved his divinity by miracles, yet those miracles were momentary and passing, and left mankind without any evidence, that was perceptible by the senses, of so incomprehensible a mystery as a God made man. And why should we require more in the sacrament of the Eucharist? Instead of the Son of God
his words were understood, and the manner in which they were received, by the unbelieving Jews,
under the appearance of man, we behold him under the semblance of bread and wine, and we have his own words in attestation of the fact.
If the second person of the blessed Trinity, united with the nature of man, but veiling his divinity under the form of an infant, had been presented in common with a hundred other infants before any indifferent person, would it have been possible to distinguish him from the rest? Why then should we look for any peculiar distinction in a consecrated host, over one that is not so? If the Son of God could appear amongst men as an infant child, preserving his divinity without altering the ordinary appearances of human nature, why can he not equally veil his divinity under the appearance of bread, without changing the appearance of that bread to the visual faculties of man? And why can He not also delegate the power to do so to his minister,—He who gave power to the rod of Aaron to convert the waters of the Nile into blood, and that blood into water again,-He who was able, by one single word, to call a whole world from nothingness?
The remark of Tertullian, that he believed in Transubstantiation because it was impossible to have been the offspring of the human mind, is worthy of observation. He did not disbelieve and reject it, because it appeared extraordinary and inexplicable! but feeling it impossible thatit could have originated with man, he referred it entirely to God.
“ What is there in the real presence,” says Mr. Corless, in his Reply to Mr. Townsend, “to which the mind of a