LECTURE THE FIFTEENTH.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

PART II.

MATT. xxvi. 26-28.

“And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye and eat, THIS IS MY BODY. And taking the chalice, 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.”

In my last discourse, regarding the Blessed Eucharist, I entered at length into the examination of the sixth chapter of St. John, which I considered as the promise of the institution of that holy sacrament; and I proved to you, from the expressions there used, and from the whole construction of our Saviour's discourse, and from His conduct both towards those who disbelieved, and towards those who believed His words, that He truly did declare that doctrine on the subject which the Catholic Church yet holds, -that is to say, that He promised some institution to be provided in His Church, whereby men would be completely united to Him, being truly made partakers of His adorable Body and Blood, and so applying to their souls the merits of His blessed passion.

According to my engagement, therefore, I proceed this evening to examine those far more important passages that treat of the institution of this heavenly rite, and see how far we may from them draw the same doctrine as we discovered in the promise. In other words, we shall endeavor to ascertain if Jesus Christ really did institute some sacrament whereby men might partake of and participate in His blessed Body and Blood. You have just heard the words of St. Matthew, in which he describes the institution of the Eucharist. You are aware that the same circumstances are related, and very nearly the same words used, by two other evangelists, and also by St. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians. It is not necessary to read over the passages in them all, because it is with reference to words common to all that I have principally to speak this evening.

We have here two forms of consecration, "This is my Body, -this is my Blood." I own that to construct an argument on these words is more difficult than it was on the sixth chapter of St. John; simply and solely for this reason, that it is impossible to add strength or clearness to the expressions themselves. It is impossible for me, by any commentary or paraphrase that I can make, to render our Saviour's words more explicit, or reduce them to a form more completely expressing the Catholic doctrine than they do of themselves. "This is my Body-this is my Blood." The Catholic doctrine teaches that it was Christ's Body and that it was His Blood. It would consequently appear as though all we had here to do, were simply and exclusively to rest at once on these words, and leave to others to show reason why we should depart from the literal interpretation which we give them.

Before, however, completely taking up my position, I must make two or three observations on the method in which these texts are popularly handled, for the purpose of overthrowing the Catholic belief. It is evident that the words, simply considered, -if there were no question about any apparent impossibility, and if they related to some other matter,-would be at once literally believed by any one who believes at all in the words of Christ. His reasoning would naturally be, "Christ has declared this doctrine in the simplest terms, and I receive it on His word." There must be a reason, as I will fully prove to you just now, for departing in this case from the ordinary, simple interpretation of the words, and giving them a tropical meaning. It is for those who say that Christ, by the words, "This is my Body," meant no more than, "This is the figure of my Body," to give us a reason why their interpretation is correct. The words themselves express that it is the Body of Christ. Whoever tells me that it is not the Body of Christ, but only its figure, must satisfy me how one expression is equivalent to the other. I will prove, too, presently, as I just said, that this is necessarily the position in which the controversy is placed; but I cannot resist the desire of exhibiting to you the difficulties in which persons find themselves involved, who wish to establish the identity of the two phrases, and the extremely unphilosophical methods which they consequently follow. I will take, as an illustration, a passage in a sermon delivered a few years ago, in a chapel of this metropolis, forming one of a series of discourses against Catholic doctrines, by select preachers. This is on the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and is directed to prove that it

:

is unscriptural, and ought not to be held. Now hear, I pray you, the reasoning of this preacher on our subject. "We contend that we must understand the words figuratively,”—he is speaking of Christ's words in my text,-"because there is no necessity to understand them literally." What sort of a canon of interpretation is here laid down! That no passage of Scripture is to be taken literally, unless a necessity can be shown for it! that we must on principle take every thing as figurative, till those who choose the literal interpretation demonstrate that there exists a positive necessity for taking it so! I should contend rather that the obvious rule is to take words literally, unless a necessity be proved for taking them figuratively and I wish to know how this rule would stand before those who deny the divinity of Christ, that we are not allowed to take any passage literally, unless a necessity for it be first demonstrated. Therefore, when Christ is called God, or the Son of God, we must first prove a necessity for believing Him to be God, before we can be justified in drawing conclusions from the words of those texts. themselves! He proceeds: "and because it was morally impossible for His disciples to have understood Him literally." Now this is just what requires proof, because on this point hinges the entire question—it is not a proof itself, but the proposition to be proved. Well, the preacher seems to think so too, and goes on to give a proof in the following words :-" for, let me ask, what is more common, in all languages, than to give to the sign the name of the thing signified? If you saw a portrait, would you not call it by the name of the person it represents, or if you looked on the map at a particular country, would you not describe it by the name of that country?" I ask, is this a proof? But let us see what examples he chooses:-"a portrait"—as if there were no difference between taking up a piece of bread, and saying, "This is my Body," and pointing at a picture, and saying, "This is the king!" As if language and ordinary usage do not give the picture that very name; but more than that, as if it were not the very essence of that object to represent another. What other existence has a portrait, than as a type or representative? does not its very idea suppose its being the resemblance of a person? But suppose I held up an ingot of gold without the king's effigy, and said, "This is the king's body," would my audience thereby understand that I meant to institute a symbol of his person, on the ground that, had I showed them his effigy on the coin, and said, "This is the king," they would have easily understood me to intimate that it was his portrait? The second

66

instance he gives is "a map."-What is a map but the representation of a country? What existence has it but so far as it depicts the forms of that country? If it fail to represent it, it is no map, and the expression would be no longer intelligible. But when Christ says of bread, This is my Body," there is no natural connection or resemblance between the two; there is nothing to tell men that he meant, "This is an emblem of my body." In all such assertions there may be declamation; but there is manifestly no proof; nothing to demonstrate that the Catholic interpretation must be rejected.

I will quote another passage from a writer better known: I mean the author of the "Introduction to the Critical Study of the Scriptures." He says, that the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is "erected on a forced and literal construction of our Lord's declaration." The Catholic doctrine is based on a forced and literal interpretation of Scripture! I would ask, where on earth were these two words put in juxtaposition in any argument before?—to call the literal the forced interpretation! I do not believe that in any case, except a controversy on religion, an author would have allowed himself to fall into such a proposition. If any of you had a cause before a court, and your counsel were to open it by saying, "that the case must be adjudged in favor of his client, because the adverse party had nothing in their favor except 'a literal and forced construction' of the statute provided for the case," would you not consider this equivalent to a betrayal of your cause? For, conceding thus much is literally granting that there is nothing to be said on your side. That any writer should, upon an argument so constructed, condemn the Catholic doctrine, is really extraordinary; it is surely accustoming students in theology, if the Introduction be meant for them, as well as other readers, to very superficial and incorrect reasoning, and ought, consequently, to be reprobated in severe terms.

"Evi

These may serve as specimens how far from easy it is to establish grounds, even of plausibility, for the rejection of the Catholic doctrine. But there are graver and more solid writers, who satisfactorily admit, that, so far as our Lord's expressions go, all is in our favor. I will quote one passage from Paley's dences of Christianity," where he is giving proofs that the Gospel's were not books merely made up for a certain purpose, but that whatever they relate did really happen. He says: "I think, also, the difficulties arising from the conciseness of Christ's expression, 'This is my Body,' would have been avoided in a madeup story." Why so? I may ask, if nothing is more common

than to call signs by the name of things signified, and this was as obvious and intelligible a figure as calling a picture of the king by his name. He continues: "I allow that the explanation given by Protestants is satisfactory; but it is deduced from a minute comparison of the words in question with forms of expression used in Scripture, and especially by Christ Himself on other occasions. No writer would have arbitrarily and unnecessarily cast in his reader's way a difficulty, which, to say the least, it required research and erudition to clear up."*

Here, then, it is granted, that to arrive at the Protestant interpretation, it requires erudition and research; consequently, that it is not the simple, obvious meaning, which these words present. When you say, that to establish a construction of a passage, it requires study and learning, I conclude that it is his duty who has chosen that construction to make use of these means; and the burden rests on him of proving his interpretation, not on those who adopt the literal and obvious sense. Therefore, when the explicit, plain, and literal construction of the words is that which we adopt, it becomes the task of those who maintain us to be wrong, and say that the words, “This is my Body," did not mean that it was the Body of Christ, but only its symbol,-I contend, it becomes their duty to prove their figurative interpretation.

Their argument necessarily takes a twofold form. Reasons must be brought by them to prove,-first, that they are authorized, and secondly that they are compelled, to depart from the literal meaning. This is usually attempted by two distinct arguments. First, an attempt is generally made to establish that our Saviour's words may be taken figuratively; that they may be so interpreted as to signify, "This represents my Body, this represents my Blood," by bringing together a number of passages, in which the verb "to be" is used in the sense of to represent, and thence concluding that here, in like manner, it may have the same meaning. In the second place, to justify such a departure from the literal sense, it is urged, that by it we encounter so many contradictions, so many gross violations of the law of nature, that, however unwilling, we must abandon it, and take the figurative signification. This is the clearest and completest form in which the argumentation can be presented. The author, for instance, whom I quoted just now, after giving us his reason why we are not obliged to take these words literally,

*Par. ii. c. iii.