DEAR SIR, LETTER XXXVI. To JAMES BROWN, Esq. ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. IT is the remark of the Prince of modern controvertists, Bishop Bossuet, that, whereas in most other subjects of dispute between Catholics and Protestants, the difference is less than it seems to be, in this of the Holy Eucharist or Lord's Supper, it is greater than it appears (1). The cause of this is, that our opponents misrepresent our doctrine concerning the veneration of Saints, pious Images, Indulgences, Purgatory, and other articles, in order to strengthen their arguments against us; whereas their language approaches nearer to our doctrine than their sentiments do on the subject of the Eucharist, because our doctrine is so strictly conformable to the words of Holy Scripture. This is a disingenuous artifice; but I have to describe two others of a still more fatal tendency; first, with respect to the present welfare of the Catholics, who are the subjects of them, and secondly, with respect to the future welfare of the Protestants, who deliberately make use of them. The first of these disingenuous practices consists in misrepresenting Catholics as worshippers of bread and wine in the Sacrament, and therefore as Idolaters, at the same time that our adversaries are perfectly aware that we firmly believe, as an article of faith, that there is no bread nor wine, but Christ alone, true God, as well as man, present in it. (1) Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. Sect. XVI. Supposing, for a moment, that we are mistaken in this belief, the worst we could be charged with is an error, in supposing Christ to be where he is not; and nothing but uncharitable calumny, or gross inattention, could accuse us of the heinous crime of Idolatry. To illustrate this argument, let me suppose, that being charged with a loyal address to the Sovereign, you presented it, by mistake, to one of his courtiers, or even to an inanimate figure of him, which, for some reason or other, had been dressed up in royal robes, and placed on the throne; would your heart reproach you, or would any sensible person reproach you, with the guilt of treason in this case? Were the people who thought in their hearts that John the Baptist was the Christ, Luke iii. 15, and who probably worshipped him as such, Idolaters, in consequence of their error? The falsehood, as well as the uncharitableness, of this calumny is too gross to escape the observation of any informed and reflecting man; yet, in order to keep alive their prejudices against us, it is upheld and vociferated to the ignorant crowd, by Bishop Porteus (2) and the Protestant Preachers and writers in general; while it is perpetuated by the Legislature, for the purpose of defeating our civil claims! (3). It is not, how (2) He charges Catholics with 'senseless idolatry,' and with worshipping the creature instead of the Creator." Confut. P. ii. c. 1. (3) The Declaration against Popery, by which Catholics were excluded from the Houses of Parliament, was voted by them during that time of national frenzy and disgrace, when they equally voted the reality of the pretended Popish Plot, which cost the Catholics a torrent of innocent blood, and which wa hatched by the unprincipled Shaftsbury, with the help of D Tongue, and the infamous Oates, to prevent the succession James II. to the Crown. See Echard's Hist. North's Exam. ever, true, that all Protestant Divines have laid this heavy charge at the door of Catholics, for worshipping Christ in the Sacrament; as all those eminent prelates in the reigns of Charles I. and II. must be excepted, who generally acquitted us of the charge of idolatry, and more especially the learned Gunning, Bishop of Ely, who reprobated the above signified Declaration, when it was brought into the House of Lords, protesting that his conscience would not permit him to make it (4). The candid Thorndyke, Prebendary of Westminster, argues thus on the present subject: Will any Papist acknowledge that he honours the elements of the Eucharist for God? Will common sense charge him with honouring that in the Sacrament which he does not believe to be there?' (5) The celebrated Bishop of Down, Dr. Jeremy Taylor, reasons with equal fairness, where he says, The object of their (the Catholics') adoration in the Sacraments is the only true and eternal God, hypostatically united with his holy humanity, which humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the Sacrament. And if they thought him not present, they are so far from worshipping the bread, that they profess it idolatry to do so. This is demonstration that the soul has nothing in it that is idolatrical; the will has nothing in it, but what is a great enemy to idolatry (6).' The other instance of disingenuity and injustice on the part of Protestant Divines and Statesmen, consists in their overlooking the main subject in debate, namely, whether Christ is or is not really (4) Burnet's Hist. Own Times. (5) Just Weights and Measures. 19. personally present in the sacrament; and in the mean time directing all the force of their declamation and ridicule, and all the severity of the law to a point of inferior, or at least secondary consideration; namely, to the mode in which he is considered by one particular party as being present. It is well known that Catholics believe, that when Christ took the bread and gave it to his Apostles, saying, THIS IS MY BODY, he changed the bread into his body, which change is called Transubstantiation. On the other hand, the Lutherans, after their master, hold that the bread and the real body of Christ are united, and both truly present in the Sacrament, as iron and fire are united in a red-hot bar (7).This sort of presence, which would be not less miraculous and incomprehensible than Transubstantiation, is called Consubstantiation; while the Calvinists and Church of England men in general (though many of the brightest luminaries of the latter have approached to the Catholic doctrine) maintain that Christ is barely present in figure, and received only by faith. Now all the alledged absurdities, in a manner, and all the pretended impiety and idolatry, which are attributed to Transubstantiation, equally attach to Consubstantiation and to the Real Presence professed by those eminent Divines of the Established Church. Nevertheless, what controversial preacher or writer ever attacks the latter opinions? What law excludes Lutherans from Parliament, or even from the Throne? So far from this, a Chapel Royal has been founded and is maintained in the Palace itself, for the propagation of their Consubstantiation and the participation (7) De Capt. Babyl. Osiander, whose sister Cranmer married, taught Impanation, or an hypostatical and personal union of the bread with Christ's body, in consequence of which a person might truly say, This bread is Christ's body. of the Real Presence! In short, you may say with Luther, the bread is the body of Christ, or with Osiander, the bread is one and the same person with Christ, or with Bishop Cosin, that Christ is present really and substantially by an incomprehensible mystery (8), or with Dr. Balguy, that there is no mystery at all, but a mere federal rite, barely signifying the receiver's acceptance of the benefit of redemption (9). In short, you may say any thing you please concerning the Eucharist, without obloquy or inconvenience to yourself, except what the words of Christ, this is my body, so clearly imply, namely, that he changes the bread into his body. In fact, as the Bishop of Meaux observes, the declarations of Christ operate what they express; when he speaks, nature obeys, and he does what he says: thus he cured the ruler's son, by saying to him, Thy son liveth; and the crooked woman, by saying, Thou art loosed from thy infirmity (1). The Prelate adds, for our further observation, that Christ did not say, My body is here; this contains my body, but, this is my body: this is my blood. Hence Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, and the defenders of the figurative sense in general, all, except the Protestants of England, have expressly confessed, that admitting the Real Presence, the Catholic doctrine is far more conformable to Scripture than the Lutheran. I shall finish this letter with remarking, that as Transubstantiation, according to Bishop Cosin, was the first of Christ's miracles, in changing water into wine; so it may be said to have been his last, during his mortal course, by changing bread and wine into his saered body and blood. I am, &c. J. M. (8) Hist. of Transub. p. 44. (9) Charge vii. (1) Variat. 1. T. ii. p. 34. |