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. — S eneca. 
 
 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. Such, we see it every day, is the 
 almost universal method in which your writers, and divines, 
 treat the mysteries of our religion ; reasoning always, in all their 
 contests against us, like so many Socinians, Deists, or un- 
 believers. This is an observation, which has frequently been 
 made by the disciples of the modern schools of infidelity. And 
 it is owing, in part, to this circumstance; but, still more, to the 
 leading principles of the Reformation, that these men, delighted 
 with the dreadful thought, have confidently predicted, that 
 Protestantism will, and, ere long, must, terminate in complete 
 Socinianism. “ Ses ramifications” says Diderot, “ se devel- 
 loppant ; et s etendant continuellement , ne peuvent pas manquer 
 de faire , bientbt, du Protestantisme en general un Socinianisme 
 parfait , qui absorbera, peu-a-peu, tous les differens systemes 
 de ces errans” This prediction — already frightfully verified 
 in most Protestant states — is unhappily, in this country, too, 
 very rapidly hastening, it is greatly to be feared, to its fulfil- 
 ment; and, above all, amongst the higher orders of its society. 
 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. Thus, 
 again, you will be struck with the circumstance, that, whereas 
 many of the great and extraordinary actions of our Saviour are 
 related, some of them, by only two ; some of them by but one, 
 of the Evangelists, — the institution of the Eucharist is related 
 by all the four , — a fact, which cannot but appear to you sin- 
 gular, if not providential. But, neither is this all : for, St. 
 
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. Hence it was, that, kindly addressing his apostles, he 
 said to them, “ With a strong desire have I longed to eat this 
 j)assover with you before I die.” 
 
 Now, my Lord, considering these circumstances, and com- 
 bining them with your convictions of the wisdom, the mercy, 
 and the omnipotence of Christ, you cannot but allow that, if 
 upon any occasion he would speak plainly, or that he would 
 really mean what he positively averred, it must have been upon 
 an occasion like the above. To suppose the contrary, appears to 
 me an impeachment of his wisdom. He had indeed often, 
 during the course of his ministry, spoken to his apostles in the 
 language of parables. But, as if alluding to the great mystery, 
 he had told them likewise, u The time cometh when I shall no 
 more speak to you in parables” Now, if so, then never was 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 there any occasion, when the fulfilment of this assurance was 
 either so necessary, or so natural ; — giving, as he then was, his 
 last instructions to his disciples, and instituting the greatest of all 
 his sacraments. 
 
 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. 
 Here, then, I appeal to your feelings. Supposing yourself 
 present on this awful occasion, would you, after witnessing the 
 above scene, and hearing the aforesaid assurances, — would you, or 
 rather, could you, have refused to believe Him? or could you 
 have conceived that he did not then mean what he so positively 
 asserted ; and that what he called his “ body ,” and his “ blood 
 were not, after all, his body and blood, but merely a little blessed, 
 and unchanged, bread and wine; or a pious figure? Making 
 the supposition, that the Divine Being had presented, with his 
 own hands, the hallowed gifts to you , with the express decla- 
 ration, that they were his own flesh and blood, I am convinced, 
 that you , so far from even doubting the exact truth of his word, 
 would, just like the apostles at Capernaum, humbly adoring 
 his omnipotence and mercy, have exclaimed, “ Lord, thou hast 
 the words of eternal life , and I believe” 
 
 Considering, indeed, the history of the sacred institution, with 
 all the striking circumstances appended to it, there is nothing 
 related in the series of the Scriptures that should seem more 
 manifest, than that the words and declarations of its Divine 
 Author should be taken and understood, in their obvious, and 
 literal, sense. Every other interpretation of them is forced, 
 distorted, and incoherent ; a direct violation, as I have already 
 said, of your own rules of biblical criticism, and an infringement 
 of that universally received maxim, that all last wills and testa- 
 ments ought always to be explained, according to the clear, and 
 obvious, meaning of the words of the testator. 
 
 Considering, in like manner, the sanctity and infinite im- 
 portance of the mystery ; considering the high trust, which 
 Christ committed to his apostles ; — considering these things, it 
 cannot but appear evident that, if there had been any thing 
 obscure, or doubtful, in the assurances and conduct of the 
 Divine Being ; — any thing which the apostles did not, or might 
 not understand, he, surely, in such a case would, and indeed 
 ought , to have explained it to them. For they, in the course of 
 
20 
 
 a few days were to become the interpreters of bis words, and 
 the ministers of the Holy Sacrament. He knew, moreover, 
 that in every revolving age, and in every region cf the globe, 
 the Christian world would understand his words in their plain, 
 and literal, signification. If, therefore, this were not their true 
 and genuine import, ought he not, as he had frequently done on 
 other, and on far less important, occasions, to have explained 
 their real and proper meaning? or at all events, ought he not to 
 have expressed himself in a different way from what he has 
 done? His mercy, I conceive, as well as his justice, renders this 
 incontestable. 
 
 The same kind of observation applies almost equally to the 
 conduct of the sacred writers, as it does to that of our Saviour. 
 For, if the words of this Divine Being are not to be taken in 
 their obvious meaning, or if those holy penmen understood them 
 in any other, would not they , or rather, ought not they too, 
 both in charity and in justice, to have revealed the important 
 secret ? Or, at least, ought not they to have presented some clue, 
 or thrown out some hint, or other, by means of which the happy 
 discovery might be made? Whereas, what is the fact? The 
 account, as your Lordship has remarked, which they give of the 
 sacred institution, besides being related by each of them in pre- 
 cisely the same manner, is, at the same time, described in terms 
 plain, clear, and intelligible, as any thing that the simplicity of 
 language could have suggested or supplied, — an artless nar- 
 rative, without either comment, hint, or observation. Surely 
 then, if the words of Christ ought not to be taken in their plain 
 and obvious sense, or if the apostles did not understand them 
 thus, how strange, how passing strange, it is that they should 
 all have expressed themselves, as they have done, in language 
 which conveys no other idea but that of a real and substantial 
 presence ? not even adding so much as the slightest insinuation 
 to the contrary. The plainness, therefore, of their narratives, on 
 the one hand, and their silence on the other, are, I think, to the 
 open and unprejudiced mind, a sufficient evidence, that the 
 words of our Saviour in the divine institution ought certainly to 
 be understood in their plain, and only natural, signification. 
 
 I have stated that, besides the Evangelists, St. Paul likewise 
 has recorded, and described, the establishment of the holy 
 
mystery, — a circumstance, I have also remarked, which ought to 
 appear to you, as it certainly is, both striking and providential : 
 because it is the only action of our Saviour that, in the series of 
 his various Epistles, he has recorded. And then, too, he records 
 and relates this, informing us at the same time, that “ he had 
 learned it from the Lord himself .” And neither is this the sole 
 attestation of the apostle in favour of the mystery. For, in the 
 course of his many instructions, addressed to the faithful, he 
 delivers to them several lessons relating to it, which tend, all of 
 them, not only to confirm the truth of our doctrine concerning 
 the Holy Sacrament, but even of themselves to prove it. 
 
 In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, describing the esta- 
 blishment of the mystery, he tells them, li 1 have received of the 
 Lord that , which also I delivered unto you ; that the Lord 
 Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread ; 
 
 “ And when he had given thanks , he broke it and said, Take, 
 eat , This is Mg body, which is broken for you. Do this 
 in remeynbrance of Me. 
 
 “ In the same manner also, He took the cup , when he had 
 supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament IN MY 
 blood,” &c., xi. 23. &c. Such is the account which the 
 Apostle, instructed by Christ Jesus himself, has given of the 
 Sacrament. It is precisely the same as that recorded by the 
 three Evangelists, — clear, simple, and devoid of any figure. 
 Explained, or understood, in the ordinary and obvious accep- 
 tation of the words, it admits no other meaning but that, which 
 I have been attributing to the language of those sacred writers. 
 
 Accordingly, I now invite your Lordship to remark carefully, 
 (for they are full of meaning,) the inferences and lessons which 
 St. Paul, after having thus described the establishment of the 
 mystery, inculcates, and deduces from it. All these, as T have 
 said, are of themselves sufficient both to confirm and to prove 
 the truth of our doctrine relating to it. 
 
 “ Wherefore ,” says the Apostle, “ whosoever shall eat this 
 bread, or drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily , shall be 
 guilty of the body and blood of the Lord .” Such is the first 
 inference which he deduces from the character of the mystery, 
 declaring, that whosoever receives the sacred food “ unwor- 
 thily,” is guilty of a crime of the blackest dve, even of the 
 
22 
 
 profanation of the person himself of Jesus Christ. This frightful 
 inference is at once intelligible, as the mystery is explained by our 
 doctrine, — admitting, as we do, the true and real presence of the 
 Divine Being in the awful institution. But, as it is explained by 
 you , that is, by your Protestant Churches, such inference is in- 
 comprehensible. For, how is it possible to imagine, that a man 
 can be “guilty,” as the Apostle declares he is, “of the body and 
 blood of the Lord,” if the body and blood be not truly, and 
 really, present in the sacrament ? 
 
 In order, therefore, that the faithful may avoid the guilt of an 
 unworthy participation of the hallowed food, the Apostle next 
 inculcates the obligation of a rigid examination, which the com- 
 municant ought to institute, before he ventures to approach to 
 the holy table. u Let a man,” he says, “examine himself; 
 and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” 
 Even this precaution alone cannot but seem to your Lordship to 
 insinuate that the food, which is thus to be received, is some- 
 thing much more sanctified and awful, than a portion of blessed 
 bread and wine; or than a pious figure, in commemoration 
 of the sufferings and death of Christ. 
 
 But see how the Apostle proceeds : what follows, explains, — 
 no words could do so more forcibly, — both the reason of the 
 above precaution, and the nature of the sacred banquet. 
 “For,” adds the Apostle, “he that eateth and drinketh unwor- 
 thily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not dis- 
 cerning the body of the lord.” Now, after you have 
 weighed this frightful denunciation candidly, and thus seen, 
 that an unworthy communion is so great a crime as to merit 
 everlasting reprobation, can you, let me ask you, seriously 
 believe, that the Eucharist is, after all, neither more nor less in 
 itself, or of its own nature, than a substantial and unchanged 
 portion of bread and wine ; or else, but a holy figure l Surely, 
 to attach the punishment of damnation to any participation of 
 objects such as these, is a notion at once extravagant and 
 absurd. The only consistent, and rational, method of explaining 
 the frightful denunciation, or of reconciling it with the ideas of 
 the Divine justice and wisdom, is to suppose, and believe, that 
 Christ Jesus is therefore, Himself, really present in the tre- 
 mendous mystery. It is thus, and only thus, we “ discern 
 
as the Apostle requires, “ the Body of the Lord:” and thus 
 also, considering' the Sacrament as the purest of all holy things, 
 we, of course, clearly understand, that no crime is more justly 
 deserving of “ damnation” than its abuse, and profanation, by 
 an unworthy communion. With this interpretation of the 
 words of the Apostle, every thing is plain and intelligible : 
 without it, every thing is dark and incomprehensible. 
 
 But St. Paul continues : and this again is a farther proof 
 and illustration, both of the real presence of Christ Jesus in the 
 mystery, and of the truth of our doctrine relating to it. “ For 
 this cause,” he concludes, — referring to the crime of unworthy 
 communions, — t( for this cause , many among you are weak and 
 sickly ; and many sleep.” That is, so insulting to the divine 
 sanctity are such communions, — because the partakers of them 
 “ do not discern the body of the Lord,” — that in the severity of 
 his justice and displeasure, God visits them, sometimes with 
 illnesses, sometimes even with death itself. 
 
 Thus, then, I have laid before your Lordship those principal 
 passages of the Scriptures, which relate to the mystery of the 
 Eucharist, — appending to them a few brief and obvious con- 
 siderations. It is not for me to say what impressions they have 
 made upon you. You cannot, however, but feel this, — that, if 
 your Protestant rule of interpreting the Sacred Volume is correct, 
 — those passages do just as clearly establish the certainty of the 
 real presence of Christ Jesus in the Holy Sacrament, as do any 
 passages or texts of the said sacred pages establish or confirm 
 the truth of any other mystery of revelation. Indeed, it is the 
 fact that there is not any one mystery, or tenet, of the Christian 
 code, that is more forcibly attested, and hung round with more 
 convincing evidences, than the mystery of the Eucharist. 
 
 V. I might here cite to your Lordship, if not by the way of 
 engaging you to believe our doctrine, — at least to lessen your 
 disbelief of it, — the opinions and authority of the early Fathers 
 of the Church, concerning the divine institution. For, if 
 opinions and authority ought, any where, or upon any subject, 
 to command deference and respect, it should be the opinions 
 and authority of an order of men like these — the best, the 
 wisest, that adorn our Christian annals. However, I shall not 
 
appeal to their testimony in the present stage of our discussion. 
 I will do so only when I come to that part of our considerations, 
 which form the chief subject of your perplexities, — the doctrine 
 of Transubstantiation. The omission here is, in fact, imma- 
 terial : for the same documents of the Fathers, which attest 
 the truth of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, attest equally, 
 and alike, the doctrine of the real presence. So that passing 
 over these, for the present, I will just show your Lordship the 
 sentiments and tenets of your chief Protestant Churches, and 
 of their most distinguished writers, respecting the holy mystery ; 
 that is, respecting the real presence. 
 
 VI. To ascertain exactly what has been at various epochs, or 
 what is, at present, the direct belief of any of your Protestant 
 Churches, concerning almost any of the doctrines of revelation, 
 would be a perplexing, and arduous, task ; — so many, and so 
 frequent, have been the variations and changes, which they have 
 every where, and unceasingly, undergone. This is even the 
 remark of Mosheim. “ To judge,” says the historian, “ of the 
 belief of the Reformed Churches, by their creeds, confessions, 
 symbolic books, or public declarations, is not now any criterion 
 at all of the real opinions and sentiments of their respective 
 members.” These, which were once deemed sacred instruments, 
 and which, indeed, the pastors of each Church still solemnly 
 sign, and even, in many instances, still more solemnly, swear to — 
 these, the historian adds, “ are now little better than a dead 
 letter ; obsolete things, which few, or none, believe.” These 
 are very awkward and untoward facts. For, no Church that 
 has varied, or varies, in its faith, can, with consistency, be 
 deemed a true Church ; since nothing is so unvarying, and 
 unvariable, as the divine doctrines of religion. 
 
 Wherefore, in regard of the doctrine which I am now dis- 
 cussing, — that of the real presence , — it is a fact, that not only 
 have the largest and most learned portions of your Protestant 
 Churches admitted this dogma, but that, moreover, they have 
 advocated and defended it, with a greater degree of ardour, 
 than any other tenet of their belief. This was the case with all 
 the Lutheran Churches, and communions, — once the most widely 
 extended societies of the Reformation. Luther, indeed, informs 
 
25 
 
 us, that, urged by rancour and hostility to his parent Church, he 
 had strained every nerve, and conjured up every argument, in 
 order, if possible, to persuade himself into the disbelief and 
 denial of the mystery. “ But ,” he adds, “ in vain. I wished 
 to have denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist , on 
 purpose to have the more effectually vexed the Papists. But 
 the words of the Scriptures are so plain and strong in favour of 
 the mystery , that , spite of all my wishes, and although I 
 strained every nerve to reject it, yet I could never bring my 
 mind to adopt the hold expedient ” (Ep. Car. Amic.) In like 
 manner, he allows, — speaking of the belief of the ancient 
 Fathers, (this is a testimony which should strike your Lordship, 
 and every Protestant) — he allows that, u amongst all the ancient 
 Fathers of the Church, there is not so much as one, that ever 
 entertained a doubt concerning the mystery of the real presence 
 of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.” (Defens. Verb. Coenae.) 
 Nay, he even goes so far as to declare, that the denial of the 
 real presence “is a piece of downright blasphemy ; an impeach- 
 ment of the divine veracity ; an act of treachery to Christ ; 
 and an artifice of seduction to the public.” Whence, also, he 
 elegantly calls the deniers and disbelievers of the sacred insti- 
 tution, “ a set of deviled , bedeviled, perdeviled, and super- 
 deviled wretches.” Such as these were the sentiments and the 
 belief of Luther, respecting the doctrine of the real presence : 
 and such also, as his, were the opinions of all the Lutheran 
 Churches ; opinions, too, which they long laboured to pro- 
 pagate, not only by every effort of industry and learning, but 
 even by every exertion of force, violence, and bloodshed itself. 
 The doctrine is still the professed doctrine of these Churches ; 
 but alas ! such is the progress of infidelity and indifference, it 
 is a doctrine which now, neither their pastors, nor their flocks, 
 hardly any where, if any where, believe. # 
 
 * The first apostle of the Reformation who denied the real presence, 
 was Zuinglius. And he, according to his own account of the matter, was 
 instructed and engaged to do so in consequence of “ a vision;” that is, in 
 consequence of as pitiful a delusion, as any thing that is recorded in the 
 history of fanaticism, or in the annals of religious folly. u It was ,” says 
 Zuinglius, “ on the thirteenth of April, early in the morning, that the event 
 took place. My conscience obliges me to tell the truth, although I doit with 
 
 D 
 
It was from Luther principally and his disciples, that the first 
 founders of the Church of England derived the chief part of 
 their peculiar doctrines. From them they borrowed their doc- 
 trine concerning the Eucharist, professing, along with them, the 
 belief in the real presence. This belief, accordingly, is no 
 doubt the genuine belief and doctrine of your Established 
 Church. Thus, referring, for example, to your Common 
 Prayer Book, — the most authentic document of your religion, — 
 we find there the following question and reply : — “ What is 
 the inward part of the Sacrament ?” The answer is, — u The 
 body and blood of Christy which are verily, and indeed, 
 taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Sujiper.” In 
 like manner, in the action of receiving the Sacrament, the com- 
 municants are instructed to address themselves to God in 
 expressions, such as these : — “ Grant to us, therefore, so to eat 
 the FLESH of thy dear Son, Jesus Christ ; and so to drink his 
 blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by HIS body.” 
 
 some reluctance. Early in the morning, I seemed to myself \ in my sleep, to be 
 seriously disputing with my antagonist. I was, by and bye, struck dumb , and 
 so much confused, as to be unable to defend what I knew at the same time to be 
 the truth. A t once, most opportunely for me, there appeared to me a monitor. 
 But, whether he were white or black, I do not now remember. He said to 
 me, You Dunce ! why don't you answer what is written in Exodus xii. 2. 
 — ‘ It is the Pascli , that is, the Passover of the Lord ’ Having been thus 
 favoured by the vision, I at once awoke, jumped out of bed, examined the 
 passage referred to, and by the light of it, I dispelled every doubt from my own 
 mind, as well as from the minds of my hearers.” 
 
 Such is the relation given by Zuinglius himself of this very important 
 revelation ! — such the origin and the cause of the disbelief and rejection of 
 the first and best of all the divine institutions of Christianity ! How the 
 followers of the Reformer, or the public, on hearing or reading the pitiful 
 tale, could possibly have given any credit to it, is what ought to appear sur- 
 prising. But that they should have believed and given credit to it, “ so as to 
 have dispelled every doubt from their minds,” this is what ought to appear 
 absolutely impossible. Luther, speaking of the enlightened “ white or lhack 
 Monitor,” calls him “ the Father of lies : ” whilst, describing the followers 
 of Zuinglius, he denominates these a set of “ masked devils, — Diaboli 
 larvati, heretics, infidels, blasphemers , pagans,” Sfc. However, so it now is : 
 for, notwithstanding all the folly of the above scene, and the impurity of 
 the source from which the doctrine is derived, the doctrine of Zuinglius 
 is, after all, that which at present forms, and indeed has long formed, the 
 prevailing tenet of all the Protestant Churches. 
 
27 
 
 Delivering the Communion, the minister says, — “ The body of 
 our Lord , Jesus Christ , which was given for thee , preserve 
 thy body and soul unto everlasting life. The blood of our 
 Lord, Jesus Christ , which was shed for thee , preserve thy 
 body and sold unto everlasting life ” Such is the language of 
 your Book of Common Prayer. And surely, no terms, no possible 
 form of expression, no language made use in our Catholic Church, 
 can better, or more clearly than this, point out the doctrine, or 
 mark the belief of the real presence . # 
 
 Referring, in the next place, to the sentiments of the most 
 distinguished writers of your Church, — the men who by their 
 learning and talents have given the chief lustre to its annals, — 
 you find that these, during a series of its brightest periods, were 
 alike the believers and the defenders of the mystery. “ As for 
 the Church of England,” says Archbishop Laud, “ nothing is 
 more plain , than that she believes and teaches the true and 
 real presence of Christ in the Sacrament “ TVe believe,” 
 says Bishop Andrews to Bellarmin, “ the reed presence as 
 much as you cloy Archbishop Seeker, in his Lectures, attests, 
 that “ The Church of England has edways acknowledged the real 
 presence I could cite a multitude of attestations to the same 
 effect, and similar to these. But these, J conceive, are suffi- 
 cient to convince your Lordship, that the genuine doctrine 
 of your Established Church is that of the reed presence . Ob- 
 
 * If there be any instruments of faith which ought to be clear, and easy 
 to be understood, they should, of course, be those which are designed for 
 the use and instruction of the general body of society, — for the simple, the 
 illiterate, the ignorant, and so on. For this reason, nothing ought to be 
 so plain as a catechism ; nothing so intelligible as the prayers addressed 
 to Almighty God. The words should, in each case, exactly mean what 
 they clearly and directly express. By this rule, then, only consider the 
 above words. The Catechism says, — “ The body and blood of Christ are 
 “ verily, and indeed,” received in the Lord’s Supper. Now, what ideas, 
 or what notion, can a child or any simple or ignorant individual, form 
 of these words, or borrow from them, save that, if the body and blood of 
 Christ are “ verily and indeed ” received, the body and blood must then, of 
 course, be verily and indeed, — that is, really and truly, present in the Sacra- 
 ment. To suppose that a child, or any uninstructed person, would infer, 
 from such mode of expression , that the body and blood are present only in 
 figure, or by faith, or as emblems, are notions, it is quite obvious, that 
 could never enter into heads, or minds, like theirs. 
 
28 
 
 serve, however, that I speak only of the genuine doctrine of this 
 Church. For I am very far from thinking that such is now either 
 the doctrine which its clergy teach, or which its members, with 
 hardly an exception, any where, believe. Its clergy, just like 
 the clergy alluded to by Mosheim, have nearly all, if not all, 
 (such is the march of intellect) abandoned this once revered, 
 and long-defended, tenet of your Church. By an unhappy, 
 though not a singular revolution in them , — they now believe, as 
 Calvinists, or Zuinglians. “ On many points” says Bishop 
 Marsh, — the most learned member of your Episcopal bench, — 
 “on many points I am a Calvinist. I am a Calvinist in the 
 doctrine of the Eucharist.” This opinion of the learned prelate, 
 but still more that of Zuinglius, appears to be, at present, the 
 prevailing sentiments of your clergy and their flocks, reducing, 
 thus, the great mystery to no mystery whatsoever. 
 
 VII. Having thus stated to your Lordship a few of the 
 many attestations and arguments, which establish the truth of 
 our doctrine relating to the real presence, I come now to those 
 which regard the mystery of Transubstantiation, — the chief 
 source, you tell me, of your present perplexities and doubts. 
 However, before I present to you the direct proofs of this great 
 miracle, I will first, — by way of preparing you the better for its 
 belief, — suggest to you a few preliminary observations. 
 
 In the first place then, I will observe, that the Protestants, 
 with hardly an exception, — and I dare say it is the case with 
 your Lordship, — entertain very mistaken notions concerning our 
 doctrine, or the nature of Transubstantiation. They look upon 
 Transubstantiation as a more incomprehensible, and a more 
 incredible, mystery than the real presence. Whereas, such is 
 by no means the case. The mystery of the Eucharist consists, 
 — I do not say solely, — but, principally, in the real presence . 
 Now this is a truth more sublime and wonderful than any 
 thing comprised in the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Transub- 
 stantiation, in fact, is not so much the mystery itself of the 
 Eucharist, as its consequence and effect. It is the way, or 
 method, by which we explain the mystery, and explain it, as 
 Mr. Hal lam has remarked, more consistently than it is done by 
 any of the leading systems of the Protestant Churches. Speak- 
 
29 
 
 ing of these, and comparing them with ours, he candidly says : 
 — “ In my opinion that of the Church of Rome, by Transub- 
 stantiation , is the best.” 
 
 In the next place, it is a fact that, although your writers and 
 your preachers are for ever deriding our belief, and insulting 
 our doctrine of the mystery, yet, amongst these unholy scoffers, 
 hardly is there any where an individual who has either studied 
 the awful subject candidly, or who really knows correctly what 
 our doctrine is relating to it. Their works and sermons abun- 
 dantly, and every day, prove this. Our doctrine relating to the 
 mystery is simply this : — we believe, that by an act of that 
 same Divine Omnipotence, which by a word called the whole 
 order of nature into existence, and by a word again still regu- 
 lates its movements, — by the operation of this same Omnipotence , 
 and by virtue of this same word, directed by Christ Jesus to be 
 used, and pronounced, by his priesthood in the solemn act of 
 Consecration, the substance of bread and wine is miracu- 
 lously converted into the SUBSTANCE of the flesh and blood of 
 the Sacred Being ; the outward appearances, meanwhile, of the 
 consecrated elements, — by the will and virtue of that same 
 infinite Power, — remaining still unaltered and unchanged. So 
 that we, thus, consider every thing in the holy mystery as the 
 work, and effect, of the Divine Omnipotence. 
 
 In the third place, when we speak of the body of Christ, as 
 present in the Sacrament, we do not speak of his body as 
 present there, in the same manner in which it existed whilst he 
 dwelt on earth, and conversed with his disciples ; that is, we do 
 not speak of a body in its ordinary, and natural, shape and pro- 
 portions. We speak of a true and real body; but of a body 
 which has passed into a different state from ours ; of a body 
 which is now glorified and impassable ; in short, of a body whose 
 mode of being, — since this is a mystery, — is beyond the reach of 
 our imperfect comprehension. Thus, neither can we explain 
 or understand, by what means our Saviour, contrary to all the 
 known laws of matter, could possibly have entered, — “ the doors 
 being shut,” — into the apartment where the disciples were 
 assembled. Neither, in like manner, do we comprehend how, 
 whilst still seated at the right hand of his eternal Father, he ap- 
 peared to St. Paul, as he had done also to St. Peter and to 
 
30 
 
 more than five hundred of the brethren. Why, even in regard 
 of these bodies of ours, — these, although still remaining true 
 and real bodies, will, at the time of their resurrection, be com- 
 pletely changed. They will then deposit their earthly and 
 sensual qualities, and be clothed, — provided they be the bodies 
 of the just, — in properties heavenly and angelical. “For, in 
 heaven” says Christ Jesus, “we shall neither eat nor drink, 
 but be like unto the angels” “ The body ” says St. Paul, “ is 
 sown in corruption : it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in 
 dishonour : it is raised in glory. It is sown a natural body ; 
 it is raised a spiritual body : for there is a natural body, and 
 there is a spiritual body.” Considering only these circum- 
 stances, the inference cannot but seem obvious, that, if it 
 should so please the mercy and the wisdom of our great Redeemer, 
 — He, in the plenitude of his power, is, without any even the 
 slenderest difficulty, able to bestow his sacred flesh upon us, 
 under whatsoever form he may deem most proper. Indeed, 
 making the supposition, that he does think proper to bestow 
 himself upon us in the holy mystery, it is again manifest, that, 
 under no possible form, could he have done this more effectually 
 for the exercise of our faith ; more amiably for the delicacy of 
 our feelings ; more appropriately for the nourishment of our 
 souls, than under the humble, simple, and pleasing appearances 
 of bread and wine. To have given us his body and blood, under 
 the ordinary shapes of flesh and blood, would have been painful 
 to our sensibilities, and a bar to the delightful participations of 
 the Sacrament. 
 
 There is, too, another consideration, which I will just suggest 
 to your Lordship’s piety ; and which we ought always to 
 carry with us in all our views and contemplations of the 
 mysteries of religion. It is this, — that the whole system of the 
 Christian religion is a system of love. Every thing in the divine 
 dispensation may be compressed into these two words, — “ God 
 hath so loved the world.” This is the clue to all our mysteries, 
 the key to all God’s counsels, and the best solution of every 
 difficulty. Therefore, as an act of prudence, as well as of piety, 
 carry with you these useful recollections in the discussion, above 
 all, of what relates to the mystery of the Eucharist ; for, this, 
 beyond any other institution of the Christian code, is the dis- 
 
31 
 
 tinguishing testimonial of the Saviour’s love for man. Do this, 
 and it will contribute powerfully to allay your doubts, and to 
 reconcile your reason with your faith. 
 
 Having premised these observations, I will proceed to ex- 
 amine the arguments which establish the doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation, and which do this, we contend, just as clearly as 
 they establish the truth of the real presence. I will here, too, 
 remind your Lordship, that in my rapid discussion of the im- 
 portant question, I shall still adhere to that same rule of inter- 
 pretation, which I have hitherto observed ; — following, that is, 
 your own Protestant principle, which requires, that the plain 
 words and texts of the Scriptures shall be explained and under- 
 stood in their plain and obvious sense. 
 
 VIII. Placing then, my Lord, once more before you the spec- 
 tacle, and circumstances, of the Last Supper, attend seriously 
 to the declarations of your Saviour on the awful occasion, and 
 candidly weigh the direct meaning of his words. After having, 
 with great solemnity, consecrated the sacred elements, you see 
 Him then present the divine food to his disciples, with the 
 assurance that it was His body. “ Take, and eat” he said to 
 
 them, “ this IS My body” Now that these words do imply 
 the certainty of a real presence, — this I have already shown you, 
 is the concurrent agreement, — at least, it was so once , — both of 
 the Lutheran Churches, and of your own Establishment. Well 
 
 then, I will put the question at once to your Lordship’s own 
 good sense. If they do prove this, — if they establish the truth of 
 a real presence, why do they not equally establish the truth of a 
 substantial presence ? For, a real presence, which is not at the 
 same time a substantial presence, appears to me to be very like 
 an absurdity. 
 
 According, to the ordinary, and established, rules of social, or 
 human, language, the sentence or words of Christ, “ Take, and 
 eat, this is My body ” are similar to the following: — sup- 
 posing that myself were to present to your Lordship, for 
 example, a piece of bread, saying at the same time, “ Eat this , 
 it is a piece of bread:” in this case my meaning would, of 
 course, be, — neither do the words admit any other sense, — that 
 what I thus presented was both really, and substantially, a piece 
 
32 
 
 of bread, — bread, and nothing else. If such were not the case, 
 or if what I thus offered were not substantially what I had 
 declared it to be, my assertion would be either a falsehood, or 
 nonsense. The fact is, that by the common laws and use of 
 language, there is no difference, nor any distinction, whatsoever 
 between the reality of an object and its substance . So that 
 when I say, “ This is a piece of bread,” I am at once, and just 
 as well, understood to mean, that it is substantially , and to all 
 intents and purposes, a piece of bread, and only bread, as if, 
 when I presented it, I had needlessly added the term sub- 
 stantially. Such as this is, in every society, the fixed order of 
 human discourse. Therefore, unless it can be shown that our 
 all-wise Redeemer thought proper, on the occasion of his Last 
 Supper, to violate this order (and that occasion, as I have 
 remarked, was precisely the occasion when he should not have 
 violated it ; when, beyond any other time, he should have 
 expressed himself most plainly, exactly meaning what his words 
 declared), unless this departure from the established rules of 
 language can be proved, the consequence then manifestly is, 
 that when the Divine Being positively declared, “ This IS My 
 body” he as certainly meant, — and was as clearly understood to 
 mean, — that it was as completely and substantially his body, as 
 if he had added those superfluous words to his assurance. 
 
 “This,” he said to his Apostles, “ is My body” Now, if 
 it were not such, — if it was still, substantially , only a piece of 
 bread, — then it must be admitted that the declaration is, at all 
 events, a very strange one, — as strange, indeed, as if I, taking up 
 a loaf of bread, were to say, “ This is the body of such a one.” 
 For the case is, that between a piece of bread, and a human 
 body, there is neither any resemblance, nor any connexion, 
 whatsoever. The one is neither by custom, nor convention, nor 
 by figure, — nor by any thing else, — the representation, nor the 
 emblem, nor the sign, of the other. If, therefore, when our 
 Saviour declares, “ This is My body,” it is not truly and sub- 
 stantially such, but a piece of bread, still remaining bread, in 
 such case, not only is his language strange, it is absolutely 
 false. For bread, still remaining bread, can neither really be, 
 nor reasonably be called, “ a body ” But, at all events, if the 
 Divine Being did indeed design to call a piece of bread “His 
 
33 
 
 body,” he then ought, surely, both in charity and in justice, to 
 have given some kind of reason and explanation ; or, at least, 
 some warning, or hint, for so singular and unaccountable a 
 deviation from all the fixed laws of language, and from all the 
 notions of social life. Of such explanation, however, or of such 
 warning, the Scripture presents to us neither any proof, nor any 
 vestige. 
 
 “This,” says Christ, “is My body ” Only mark well, my 
 Lord, the two expressive words, — the pronoun, “ this,” and the 
 verb “ is.” He does not say, “ Here is My body ; IN this is 
 My body; with this is My body .” In any of these cases 
 there might have been room for perplexity and cavil. No ; 
 employing the demonstrative “This,” — which always points 
 out, and indicates the substance of any object, — and using 
 the positive but plain affirmative, “ is,” he simply declares, in 
 the usual language, and sense of men, “This is My body ;” 
 an assurance this, as I have just now said, which would not be 
 true, if it were not substantially his body, since bread can 
 neither be his body, nor has he any where established it as the 
 sign of his body. Therefore, in order to reconcile the assurances 
 of our Saviour with the truth, and his conduct with the dictates 
 of charity and wisdom, the most rational, or rather, the only 
 rational expedient is, to suppose, that, by an act of his Divine 
 Omnipotence, for which he had before prepared the minds 
 of his Apostles, and his followers, he converted the substance of 
 the bread into the substance of his flesh, only veiling this under 
 the humble appearance of the earthly element, — an act, which 
 in Him was easy ; and moreover, consistent, — seeing that the 
 holy institution w'as designed to be mysterious. It was thus, no 
 doubt, that the Apostles must have understood him ; for they had 
 beforehand heard his promises, seen his miracles, and knew his 
 power. Thus also it is, that his Church, — the interpreter of 
 his words, and the depository of his will, — has, in every age, 
 explained his declaration. And can you then, my Lord, seri- 
 ously believe that, as in his omniscience he knew that such 
 would be the case, — can you believe, that, if such interpretation 
 were wrong, he would not, in the excess of his mercy, have 
 better instructed, and undeceived, his beloved “fold?” 
 
 “This,” he says, “is My body;” words, as I have re- 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 marked, sufficient of themselves to establish his substantial 
 presence in the mystery. However, lest they should not be 
 sufficiently understood, the divine Saviour, by an act of his 
 tenderness, in order to remove every doubt respecting their 
 signification, and to prevent, or check, the artifices of error, was 
 pleased to add to them the following express assurance, “ This 
 is My body , which is given for you;” or as St. Paul, 
 instructed by the Lord himself, perhaps still more strikingly 
 expresses it, “My body , which is broken for you” If incre- 
 dulity, my Lord, and prejudice, were not blind, or unwilling to 
 see the truth, hardly, it should seem, could these words, or 
 declarations, be misunderstood. We have thus the express and 
 plain assurance of Him, who is power, and goodness, and 
 wisdom itself, that the body which is given to us in the sacra- 
 ment of the Eucharist, is that very same body which was once 
 “ GIVEN” for our salvation, and “ broken ” for us upon the 
 altar of the cross. If these words do not imply a true and 
 substantial presence of the sacred victim, I put it then to your 
 own ingenuity to find out what other form of terms could pos- 
 sibly express it better. If indeed, such is not their real signifi- 
 cation, I will then repeat what I have said already, in regard of 
 the real presence, that our great Redeemer, with all his wisdom 
 and his mercy, has expressed himself most strangely, and in a 
 way, moreover, that is directly calculated to mislead us, — en- 
 gaging us to believe, that what he assures us is his body, — the 
 very body w hich was “ given and broken for us,” — is still, 
 after all, neither more nor less than a morsel of real, and 
 unchanged, bread. You, no doubt, feel the impropriety of so 
 unbecoming an imputation. 
 
 If these few rapid considerations have not sufficed to con- 
 vince your Lordship of the truth of our doctrines concerning the 
 adorable mystery, they must, at all events, have engaged you 
 to feel this, — that, inasmuch as they are judged of, or decided 
 by your Protestant rules of biblical interpretation, — no Christian 
 mysteries are proved, or attested better. In regard, moreover, 
 of our doctrine of Transubstantiation, besides being thus clearly 
 evinced by the words of Christ, and resulting directly from the 
 fact of the real presence, it is, at the same time, the only 
 rational and consistent method of explaining the mystery. For, 
 
if what was bread becomes, as your Church teaches, by virtue of 
 consecration, “ Verily , and indeed , the flesh of Christ,” what 
 inference can, in this case, be more natural and obvious, than that, 
 therefore, the substance of the bread has been thus converted 
 into the substance of that heavenly food ? precisely as at the 
 feast of Cana, the substance of the water was changed into the 
 substance of the wine. It is, in reality, plain, that no substance 
 remaining what it actually is , can possibly be, at the same 
 time, another substance. Thus, the wine at Cana was not, 
 — could not be, at the same time, xcater : it could only be one 
 thing or the other ; not both together. Therefore, in like 
 manner, if the Eucharist be “ Verily, and indeed ,” as your 
 Church asserts, the body of Christ, it is not — cannot be, of course, 
 at the same time, bread. Whence, also, the plain consequence 
 is, that by an act of the Divine Power, authorised by our 
 Saviour, and performed by his priesthood in the celebration 
 of the sacred mysteries, the substance of the bread is changed 
 into the substance of His flesh ; thus verifying his declaration, 
 “This IS My body , which is BROKEN for you.”* 
 
 * In a preceding note I have stated it as a curious fact, that the first 
 cause of the rejection of the real presence by a great body of the Pro- 
 testants was the enlightened instruction which Zuinglius received from 
 his “ Black or white monitor ,” on the occasion of his conference with that 
 learned theologian, whom Luther very impolitely calls the “ Devil.” 
 
 Now it is a fact, not at all less curious, that the first cause of the 
 rejection of Transubstantiation by another great body of the Protestant 
 Churches, is founded precisely upon the strength of a similar conference 
 of Luther with the very same learned theologian. Luther, just as Zuin- 
 glius has done, has himself given us a long and minute account of the 
 scene which took place on the awful occasion, and of the dialogue which 
 ensued between the two well-trained disputants. The occurrence took 
 place at the solemn hour of midnight. “ At midnight ,” he tells us, “ I 
 was suddenly seized with a dreadf ul fright. Satan began to dispute with me in 
 the following manner : — ‘ Hear ,’ he said, ‘ O Luther, thou highly learned 
 doctor .’ Ibi Satan mecum ccepit ejusmodi disputationem : Audi, inquit, 
 Luthere , doctor perdocte, fyc.” He then goes on in the same strain of happy 
 absurdity which had marked the conference of Zuinglius, and relates the 
 very important contest. The conclusion of it was, that as the Devil proved 
 the better divine, Luther was persuaded to reject Transubstantiation, just 
 as Zuinglius, by the eloquence of the same orthodox monitor, had been 
 engaged to reject the real presence. Such was the origin, and such were 
 the causes of the rejection, and disbelief, of the two leading and most con- 
 
IX. It is an interesting, as well as a more or less enter- 
 taining-, subject to trace the reluctant homage which the enemies 
 of our religion, in their quarrels and disputes among themselves, 
 are very frequently induced, or compelled, to pay to the truth of 
 our doctrines, and to the wisdom of our practices. It is strikingly 
 so in regard of the mystery of the Eucharist. In the disputes 
 between the Lutheran, and Calvinistic, sects respecting the holy 
 institution, your Lordship knows with how much acrimony and 
 pious horror, the former reprobated, and condemned, the latter 
 for having rejected the doctrine of the real presence, and for 
 refusing to explain, in their literal and obvious sense, those 
 texts and passages of the Scripture, which attest so plainly and 
 positively the truth and certainty of this mystery. So that we 
 have thus in the defence, and favour, of the doctrine of the real 
 presence one immense, and perhaps the largest, portion of the 
 Protestant Churches. 
 
 In like manner, with respect to our doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiatron, the circumstance is alike curious, and important. 
 For, here again, we have the whole, and widely extended, bodies 
 of the Sacramentarian and Calvinistic Churches, — not, of course, 
 defending our doctrine of Transubstantiation, — but loudly, and 
 even sternly, maintaining, in opposition to the Lutherans, that if 
 once the doctrine of the real presence is admitted ; or if the 
 texts and passages of the Scripture relating to the mystery are 
 to be understood in their literal signification ; they then directly, 
 and by a necessary consequence, prove the truth of the doctrine 
 of Transubstantiation. Nay, they even contend that the belief 
 and admission of the real presence, without the belief at the 
 same time, and the admission of Transubstantiation, is neither 
 more nor less than a downright piece of absurdity. So that thus 
 again, precisely as we have the whole body of the Lutheran 
 
 soling mysteries of the Christian code, — founded upon a delusion as 
 pitiful and ridiculous, as it was impious and profane. Speaking of the 
 miserable tale, Chillingworth states it as his opinion, that the chief 
 reason why the Devil argued against Transubstantiation, was to induce 
 Luther to continue saying Mass. 
 
 It would seem that the great apostle of the Reformation was wont to 
 hold frequent conferences with the Devil. For he tells us, that “ He made 
 him pass very often hitter and distressing nights: — Multas nodes mihi satis 
 amarulentas, et acerbas , reddere ille nuvit. >> 
 
37 
 
 Churches approving of the doctrine of the real presence, we 
 have here the entire mass of the Sacramentarian and Calvinistic 
 Churches, acknowledging, — on the supposition of the truth of 
 the real presence , — the truth also of the doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation. But, as the question here is curious, as well as 
 interesting, and as the concessions of adversaries have fre- 
 quently more weight than the best arguments from the sup- 
 porters of any cause, I will, for these reasons, present to your 
 Lordship a few passages from the works of the authors, and 
 leading members, of the last-named Churches. 
 
 “ If the word is,” says Zuinglius in his Reply to Billicanus, 
 “ is to he taken literally , then no doubt the Papists are in the 
 right ; and it is hut proper to believe , that the bread is 
 changed into flesh.” In his treatise on the Last Supper, he 
 reasons again in the same manner: “If,” he says, “in the 
 words , * This is My body ,’ the word ‘ is ’ is to be explained 
 icitliout any figure , then it is impossible but that the substance 
 of the bread should have been changed into the substance of the 
 body of Christ ; so that what was bread before, should be now 
 bread no longer In his work against Luther, he tells the great 
 Reformer, “If the word ‘ this’ denotes bread, and the ivords 
 of Christ are not to be interpreted figuratively, in this case it 
 follows , that what WAS bread before, is suddenly changed into 
 the body of Christ ; — Jam panis transit in corpus Christi ; et 
 est corpus subito, quod jam p>unis erat.” He says elsewhere 
 to the arch-apostle : — “If you are so obstinate as not to admit 
 our figurative sense , then the Pope is in the right in asserting 
 that the bread is changed into the body of Christ.” 
 
 In like manner the learned reformer, Beza, — at the con- 
 ference of Montbelliard, — comparing our belief with that of 
 those Protestant Churches which admitted the real presence, 
 but rejected Transubstantiation, says: — “ Of the two doctrines , 
 that of the Catholics is the most consistent, and the most con- 
 formable to the institution ” Hospinian asserts the same. 
 “ If the words of Christ,” he says, “ are not to be taken figu- 
 ratively, then the doctrine of the Pajrists is true. For Christ 
 does not say, Here is My body, or My body is within this, or 
 OUT of this, or this CONTAINS My body ; but simply the words , 
 This is My body.” Such, too, as these, are the reasonings of 
 
38 
 
 Calvin, and of the most learned Calvinistic writers ; all allowing 
 and contending, that if the words of Christ in the holy institution 
 are not to be interpreted figuratively, they in this case clearly 
 establish the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
 
 I will cite to your Lordship but one other testimony from the 
 schools of the above believers, respecting our Catholic doctrine. 
 It is a testimony peculiarly striking, and which, as it was dic- 
 tated by the united wisdom of a large body of distinguished 
 men, may therefore possess, perhaps, some weight upon your 
 feelings. I allude to the decision of the synod of Czenger. 
 The members of that assembly, after having condemned 
 the doctrine of Luther, and of all the believers in the 
 real presence without Transubstantiation, proceed to say : — 
 “ As the wand of Moses did not become a serpent but by Tran- 
 substantiation ; as water did not become blood in Egypt , nor 
 wine at the marriage-feast of Cana , without a change ; so 
 neither can bread in the Eucharist become the body of Christy 
 unless it be changed into his flesh, by losing the substance of 
 bread” Such is the decision of this important Synod, — a 
 decision, as Bossuet remarks, alike replete with good sense, as 
 it is with candour. For, bread, still continuing bread, can no 
 more be the body of Christ, than a wand, still remaining a 
 wand, can be a serpent; or than water, still being water, could 
 have been either blood in Egypt, or wine at Cana. In short, 
 comparing doctrine with doctrine, and our doctrine of the real 
 presence by the means of Transubstantiation, with your, or 
 your Churches’, doctrine of the mystery, — that is, of the real 
 presence, without Transubstantiation, — we have thus in our 
 favour, besides the plainest texts of the Scripture, the decided 
 approbation of the writers and schools of the Sacramentarian 
 and Calvinistic communions, all candidly acknowledging that, if 
 the words of Christ, in the institution of the holy banquet, are to 
 be understood in their literal signification, they, in this case, 
 establish clearly the truth of our doctrine of Transubstantiation, 
 as the obvious, and necessary, consequence of the real pre- 
 sence.* 
 
 * For some time after the beginning of the Reformation, Luther did not 
 condemn the doctrine of Transubstantiation. He then allowed his fol- 
 lowers to believe, as they thought proper on the subject. “ 7 allow ,” he 
 
39 
 
 X. Having thus proposed to your Lordship’s consideration 
 those Scriptural evidences, which establish the truth of our 
 doctrine, I will proceed to lay before you a brief statement of 
 the testimonies, and authorities, which very strikingly and 
 forcibly confirm it. 
 
 It is a maxim, then, which your Lordship is too reasonable to 
 contest, that the best and safest commentary upon the words of 
 Christ, or the texts of the Scriptures, is the interpretation, which 
 has always — in every age from the time of the Apostles to the 
 present day — been attached to them by the pastors and members 
 of the Church. There is not, in fact, any maxim of religion that 
 is more undeniable, and conclusive, than this : — that, whatsoever 
 has been believed, “ always , every where , and by all , — semper , 
 ubique , et ab omnibus , — is not, therefore, a human invention, 
 but a revealed, and certain, truth.” Indeed, not only this, but it 
 is the case in reason itself, that no principle presents a more 
 incontestable evidence of the certainty of any proposition, or of 
 
 said, “ all who choose it, to believe either one opinion or the other. Let each 
 one know, that, without endangering his salvation, he may adopt either one or 
 the other** (Cap. De Ba. T. ii.) It is true, indeed, that subsequently he 
 changed his language. But, I have stated the reason of the change. It 
 was, as the great Reformer not only owns, but boasts, — because his 
 monitor, whom himself calls “ Satan,’* had now instructed and per- 
 suaded him, that Transubstantiation is an error. 
 
 In this country, for a considerable time after the creation of the 
 Established Church, even till a late period in the reign of the Second 
 Charles, its bishops and divines did not, in general, make any great 
 opposition to the belief in Transubstantiation. “ Transubstantiation ,’* says 
 the candid, and learned. Archdeacon Glover, “ did not then form ** (he 
 alludes to the time of Elizabeth,) “ either the chief, or even a principal 
 feature in the separation of the two Churches. In fact, there have never ceased 
 to be amongst our own clergy, — even among the best and brightest pillars 
 of our faith, very considerable differences of opinion respecting the awful 
 mystery.** (Remarks.) The fact is, that, until the epoch above alluded 
 to, many of the most eminent divines of the Established Church con- 
 sidered, and allowed, the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be the most 
 obvious and consistent method of accounting for the mystery of the real 
 presence. “ Many Protestants,** says Bishop Forbes, “ too boldly , and too 
 dangerously , deny that God can transubstantiate the bread into the body of 
 Christ. For my part, I approve of the opinion of the Wittenberg divines, who 
 assert , that the power of God is so great , that He can change the substance of 
 bread into the substance of the body and blood of Christ.’* (De Euch.) 
 
40 
 
 the reality of any fact, than the constant, united, and perennial 
 agreement of mankind in their admission and belief. It is this 
 striking harmony, founded alike upon the immutable laws of 
 providence and reason, that constitutes a moral certitude — a 
 certitude, not only excluding all rational doubt, but creating 
 a conviction more powerful and satisfactory than any speculative 
 argument whatsoever. Thus, let the question, or the fact, be 
 what they may, — whenever it so happens that they are, and 
 always have been, admitted and attested by innumerable wit- 
 nesses, — men of different ages and different nations; of different 
 characters and different interests; men, whose ideas, pre- 
 judices, and passions, are various, and dissimilar; men, again, 
 too enlightened to be deceived, and too virtuous to deceive; 
 where such as this is the case, it is impossible to suppose, — it 
 would be worse than absurd to suppose, — that their united testi- 
 mony could be false. Their united testimony, thus grounded 
 and recommended, forms an evidence , which nothing but the 
 most obstinate incredulity, and the blindest prejudices, can 
 pretend to call in question. 
 
 Accordingly, what I now invite your Lordship to do, is this : 
 — I request you to apply the above considerations, or maxims, 
 to the subject of your present investigation, — the doctrine 
 of Transubstantiation. Conducted by them, you will early 
 discover, that there exists as manifest a chain of evidences in 
 favour of this mystery, as any thing that occurs, either in the 
 records of history, or in the annals of Christian literature. 
 You will find men of every age, and every nation ; of every 
 character and station ; men of opposite interests and of different 
 views ; the bad equally with the good ; the learned equally with 
 the illiterate ; — you will find all these, every where, always, and 
 alike, united in the belief, and combined in the worship, of the 
 sacred mystery ; regarding it even as the chief and dearest 
 object of their piety and adoration. Whence also, this fact 
 is true, — that hardly any where, in the whole history of con- 
 troversy, can there be found a grosser attempt to impose upon 
 the credulity of the public, than those daring assertions of your 
 writers, who unblushingly proclaim, that our doctrine of Tran- 
 substantiation is but a modern innovation, the effect of popish 
 artifice, and the dictate of superstition. 
 
41 
 
 But, before I state to you those positive evidences which 
 attest the perennial belief of the mystery, I will first call your 
 attention to certain facts, which I will denominate negative 
 evidences ; but which, if candidly considered, are in reality 
 equivalent to any thing that is received as positive. At all 
 events, they form an argument, which your Lordship’s good 
 sense will, I am sure, admit as the strongest presumption in 
 favour of our belief. 
 
 It is then a well-known fact, that, during the early ages of 
 the Church, — during the periods of the Pagan persecutions, — 
 there was no secret, however important, that was deemed nearly 
 so sacred ; nor any, therefore, that was observed so religiously, 
 as the secret which regarded the mystery of the Eucharist, and 
 the participation of the Holy Communion. It was denominated 
 u The Discipline of the Secret .” So profound was the veneration 
 of the faithful in reference to it, and so strict the precept of 
 keeping it always inviolate, that the pastors and Fathers of the 
 Church were wont to declare, that, rather than betray it, it were 
 better, nay, even an imperious duty, to sacrifice life itself. It is, 
 in reality, true, that, rather than do this, — that is, rather than 
 reveal the awful secret, — there were multitudes who did suffer 
 torments ; some, who laid down their lives. Such was the 
 nature of “ The Discipline of the Secret” 
 
 Now, my Lord, I will here, in the first place, just remark, 
 how impossible it is to reconcile any thing in the above facts, — 
 the deep secrecy, the severe injunctions of the pastors, the 
 heroic piety of the faithful, — with the belief and doctrines of any 
 of your Protestant Churches, respecting the adorable mystery. 
 For, if the pastors of those ages, or the faithful, had considered 
 the sacred institution, — like your Churches, — either as no other 
 than a holy figure ; or else, only as a portion of blessed and 
 sanctified, but still unchanged, and substantial bread and wine, 
 
 • — can you, I ask, seriously conceive, that there could, in such 
 cases, have existed any necessity, or even so much as the slen- 
 derest motive, for all such solemn and inviolable secrecy ? In 
 such cases, as there was no real mystery in them, so neither was 
 there any real cause for any secrecy whatsoever. Secrecy, in 
 such cases, would have been an act of imprudence, or, rather, of 
 folly. For what, during the epochs referred to, was the situ- 
 
 F 
 
42 
 
 ation of the Christian public ? They were, every where, calum- 
 niated, reviled, and persecuted, by the surrounding- pagans. 
 They were accused of committing in their religious assemblies 
 the most heinous crimes and enormities. They were even put, 
 not unfrequently, to the torture, in order to extort from them, if 
 possible, what passed there upon those occasions. Now, surely, 
 if they had looked upon the Eucharist as a mere holy rite, 
 designed as a commemoration of the sufferings and death of 
 Christ, and its participation, as the act of receiving what was 
 substantially but bread and wine, — if such had been their belief 
 of the Sacrament, — why not, in this case, have at once thrown 
 open the doors of their assemblies, and exposed to the public 
 view the simple, harmless, and inoffensive, character of their 
 observances ? Why not even have invited their persecutors to 
 attend thereat, in order to see with their own eyes, that what 
 was passing there, was neither more nor less than piously eating 
 a little bread, and drinking a little wine, as memorials of the 
 death of Christ, and as emblems of their own mutual union 
 amongst themselves? Every thing, it is quite manifest, would, 
 with your Protestant notions of the mystery, have urged and 
 impelled them to do this, — prudence, common sense, solicitude 
 for their own security, and charity even for the pagan. In 
 short, nothing can be more obvious, than that to pretend to 
 reconcile the impenetrable secrecy, and the whole conduct of the 
 first Christians, in relation to the Eucharist, with the belief and 
 opinions of your Protestant Churches, is alike inconsistent and 
 preposterous. 
 
 But see now, my Lord, and consider the secrecy, and the 
 conduct, of these Christian heroes, as they bear relation to our 
 doctrine, and as they are connected with our belief. Here 
 every thing, both in their secrecy, and their entire conduct, 
 appears only natural and coherent. It is precisely what the 
 pious and well-instructed Catholic would equally, if placed in 
 similar circumstances to theirs, both feel and practise, at the 
 present day, since there is nothing in the divine order of 
 religion, that we consider more sacred and adorable, than the 
 mystery of our altars. We too, therefore, — if now the holy 
 dispensation were exposed to the insults and ridicule of the 
 profane, — should endeavour to conceal it from the knowledge, 
 
43 
 
 and its celebration from the gaze of the public and the curious. 
 Accordingly, it is by this rule, — that is, on account of the 
 infinite sanctity of the mystery, — that it is easy to explain, why, 
 in the early ages, the pastors of the Church were so careful to 
 enforce, and the faithful so scrupulous to observe, the deepest 
 secrecy in its regard. Their secrecy then was but the natural, and 
 necessary, result of their belief. For, had the pagan been 
 admitted into their assemblies, and heard the nature of the 
 sacrifice described, they would, in their ignorance, have ridiculed 
 it as a piece of folly; and have blasphemed it as an act of the 
 wildest superstition. Their prejudices would have been increased, 
 and their rancour heightened against a religion, and a mystery, 
 which men could only be induced to reverence and believe, by 
 the process of instruction, and by a course of gradual and slow 
 advances. Thus, therefore, it was, that respect for the divine 
 institution on one side, and prudence and charity on the other, 
 induced the early pastors of the Church to be extremely careful 
 to conceal, both its nature, and its celebration, from the know- 
 ledge of the public. 
 
 Yes ; and not only was this the case, in regard of the pagan 
 public, but, moreover, (such was the veneration of these holy 
 men for the mystery) they still farther were wont cautiously to 
 hide even its very nature from the knowledge of their own 
 flocks, until such time, as having been well instructed, and 
 long, and prudently tried, they were now at length deemed 
 fitted and prepared for the awful revelation. Thus, if your 
 Lordship only consult the instructions, which those pious and 
 enlightened guardians of the Sacrament were used to address 
 to the Catechumens, Postulants, and so on, who had not as 
 yet been admitted to the holy table, nor initiated into the full 
 acquaintance with the divine oblation, you will find that, even in 
 these instructions, — although addressed most commonly to per- 
 sons already eminent for their virtue, — those prudent men, 
 notwithstanding this, still spoke and expressed themselves with 
 the most studious caution and reserve. Their language, upon 
 these occasions, was obscure, and their terms frequently am- 
 biguous. All this was, again, but another piece of consistency ; 
 the dictate, and result, of those same prudential motives, which I 
 have just described. It was, lest by speaking openly, they 
 
44 
 
 might have betrayed, too soon, the holy secret, and thus have 
 exposed the divine mystery, either to the possible danger of 
 profanation, or else to the risk of ridicule and insult. Such was 
 the ancient “ Discipline of the Secret ; ” an enigma, w hich, 
 explained by our doctrine, is just as plain and intelligible, as 
 when compared with yours, it is unmeaning and incompre- 
 hensible.* 
 
 XI. As your Lordship may have considered the foregoing 
 arguments as only negative , and therefore, as insufficient to 
 establish the consequences which I have deduced from them, I 
 will, for this reason, now lay before you a few of those positive 
 attestations, which, both explaining the import of the awful 
 “ Secret,” and expressing clearly the ancient faith, will leave no 
 doubt upon a mind so candid as yours, what was the doctrine of 
 the early ages of the Church respecting the holy mystery. 
 
 Behold, then, the time at length happily arrived, when, — the 
 persecutions being over, and the Church more or less trium- 
 phant, — its pastors might now, without danger, or the fear of 
 insult, reveal to the faithful the important secret, and expose 
 publicly the nature of the sacred institution. Accordingly, 
 mark now, — for, these are the occasions and testimonies to which 
 prudence and candour should appeal, — mark now the change of 
 
 * It is from certain obscure and ambiguous expressions in the works of 
 the early Fathers, addressed to the still uninitiated members of their 
 flocks, that our Protestant adversaries have borrowed their chief argu- 
 ments against the exact resemblance of our doctrine with the belief of the 
 first Christian Churches. This, although an artful stratagem, is, at the 
 same time, a piece of great inconsistency. For, the very obscurity and 
 ambiguity of those expressions, — since they were directly founded upon the 
 forestated causes, — so far from proving any difference between our doctrine, 
 and that of the early Christians, serve rather to prove the reverse ; and 
 make much more in our favour than against us. At all events, it is not 
 from the instructions, and discourses, addressed to the new made converts , 
 and to the still uninitiated , that men, or the Protestant, should appeal, in 
 order to ascertain the exact belief of the early ages, concerning the holy 
 mystery. To expect clearness where obscurity is commanded, or to look 
 for openness where secrecy is ordained, is surely both inconsistent and 
 unreasonable. And hence, therefore, the injustice and the incongruity 
 of those writers of yours, who, citing against our doctrine the alleged 
 authority of the Fathers, appeal only to passages and expressions of the 
 above description. 
 
45 
 
 conduct, and the difference of the language, in which those 
 enlightened men began to address their flocks, and to instruct 
 the Neophites, who were preparing to approach to the holy 
 table. Throwing open now the portals of their Churches, and 
 drawing aside the veil, which had hitherto concealed the sanc- 
 tuary from the public view, they now confidently spoke out their 
 belief ; and, discarding their former obscurity of expression, 
 unfolded clearly the divine character and excellences of the 
 mystery. The language which they now made use of, in order 
 to explain and express its nature, was just as plain and intel- 
 ligible as any thing that either myself, or any Catholic catechist, 
 or preacher, could employ for the same purpose at the present 
 day. Exactly as we do now, — or as our books of piety incul- 
 cate, — they formally, and explicitly, teach the reality of Christ’s 
 presence in the adorable mystery ; the substantial change in the 
 consecrated elements ; the infinite sanctity of the divine obla- 
 tion ; the obligation of adoring it, &c. 
 
 In regard of Transubst antiation , — the present subject of our 
 inquiry, and the mystery, which, once proved, implies and 
 involves in itself the truth of all our other doctrines relating to 
 the divine institution, — in regard of this great object, — this 
 stumbling-block to you Protestants, — I could, without any diffi- 
 culty, adduce extract upon extract from the writings of the 
 Fathers, — after the periods before referred to, — invincibly 
 proving that those enlightened men believed, and taught, upon 
 this awful question, exactly what we do now. The few fol- 
 lowing passages may suffice to illustrate this. 
 
 Saint Cyril, addressing himself to the persons who had lately 
 been baptised, speaks to them thus: — “ The bread and wine , 
 which, before the invocation of the blessed Trinity , were only 
 bread and wine, become, after that invocation, the body and 
 blood of Christ . In Cana of Galilee , Christ once changed 
 water into wine, by the mere effort of his will. And shall we 
 think it less deserving of belief, that he changes wine into his 
 blood ? ” (Cat. Mystag.) 
 
 “ The virtue of consecration ,” says St. Ambrose, “ is more 
 powerful than that of nature ; because , BY IT, nature itself is 
 CHANGED. Moses held the rod. He cast it upon the ground , 
 and it became a serpent. He took the serpent by the tail, and 
 
46 
 
 it again became a rod” The Saint then, after having adduced 
 other similar miraculous changes recorded in the Scriptures, 
 adds : — “ Now, if the blessing of men was thus 'powerful enough 
 to change nature, what must we not say of the divine con- 
 secration, wherein the very words of Christ operate V’ (L. De 
 Init.) 
 
 Saint Chrysostom writes thus : — “ Let us believe God in 
 every thing. Let us not gainsay Him, even ivhen what he 
 says, may appear repugnant to our reason, and to our senses. 
 Let His word be preferred to both. Accordingly, let us apply 
 this to our mysteries, not regarding what is exposed to our 
 eyes, but only HIS WORD. For, HIS WORD is infallible , and 
 our senses are easily deceived. Wherefore, since His Word 
 declares , — 4 This is My body ,’ — let us believe , and view this 
 body with the eyes of our souls.” (Horn. 83. In. Mat.) Such as 
 this is the manner, in which, — when the Discipline of the Secret 
 was no longer necessary, the pastors of the Church were wont 
 to express their belief in the mystery and miracle of Transub- 
 stantiation. No Catholic notv could possibly express it better. 
 
 Similar to these attestations of the Fathers are the testi- 
 monies of those equally instructive and important instru- 
 ments, — the Liturgies of the early ages. Liturgies are the 
 authentic documents and declarations of the belief and practices 
 of each, and every sect, or religion, — be these what they may, — 
 to whose faith and worship they are carefully adapted. The 
 ancient Liturgies — and this is a circumstance which deserves 
 attention — were not composed, or, at least, not made public, till 
 towards the close of the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth, 
 centuries. Until these periods, not only was “ the Discipline of 
 the Secret” very strictly, and religiously, observed, but even the 
 mere words of the divine consecration were confided only to the 
 memory of the priesthood; for fear, lest by being written and 
 transcribed, — and thus rendered public, — they might possibly 
 become the occasion of ridicule or profanation. Hence, there- 
 fore, that well-known sentence, and injunction to the priest- 
 hood : — “ Sit vobis codex vestra memoria.” However, at the 
 epochs just referred to, — as the danger was no more, and religion, 
 as I have observed, was more or less triumphant, — so now the 
 various Churches began to prepare, and to use their own 
 
47 
 
 respective Liturgies. Well; and what, therefore, again, do 
 these authentic instruments attest respecting the Holy Sacra- 
 ment? Why, precisely the same thing as what I have just 
 cited from the writings of the Fathers. Speaking of the divine 
 mystery, and of the elements of the Holy Sacrifice, they every 
 where speak of these as being now, by virtue of the miraculous 
 power of consecration, converted into the true and substantial 
 body and blood of Jesus Christ. For example: — 
 
 The Liturgy of Jerusalem : — “ Have mercy upon us, O God , 
 Almighty , and send down thy Holy Spirit ; that , coming , he 
 may make this bread the life-giving body ; the saving body ; 
 the heavenly body ; the body giving health to our souls , and 
 bodies; the body of our Lord God, and Saviour , for the 
 remission of sin ; and for eternal life to those who receive it. 
 Wherefore , we offer up to Thee, O Lord , this tremendous, and 
 unbloody sacrifice, that thou mayest not deal with us according 
 to our iniquities,” fyc. 
 
 The Liturgy of Alexandria: — “ O Lord, Jesus Christ, the 
 only Son ; Word of God the Father, bless this bread, and this 
 chalice, which ive have here placed upon this priestly table. 
 Sanctify them ; consecrate them; and CHANGE them, so that 
 this bread may BECOME thy holy body ; and what is mixed in 
 this chalice may become thy precious blood. We, therefore , 
 adore thee,” fyc. 
 
 The Liturgy of Constantinople : — “ We offer up to thee , O God, 
 this reasonable, and unbloody sacrifice : and we beseech thee to 
 send down thy Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these gifts. 
 Make this bread the precious body of thy 
 Christ; and what is in this chalice, the precious 
 blood of THY Christ, CHANGING them by thy Holy 
 Spirit,” fyc. 
 
 Induced by these, and by many other similar evidences, — the 
 most learned, perhaps, amongst all your learned Protestant wri- 
 ters, — Leibnitz, and Grotius, — both of them candidly acknow- 
 ledge, that the doctrine and belief of Transubstantiation are the 
 genuine doctrine and belief of the ancient Churches. “ Pious anti- 
 quity,” says the former, u has plainly declared, that the bread is 
 changed into the body of Christ. It has instructed us, that, 
 
48 
 
 by virtue of the action of consecration , A CHANGE OF SUB- 
 STANCE is effected .” (Sys. Theol.) 
 
 “ I finely ’ says the latter, “ in all the Liturgies , Greek, 
 Latin , Arabic, Syriac , and others, prayers addressed to Gocl , 
 that, by His Holy Sjnrit, He would consecrate the gifts offered 
 up, and make them the body and blood of His Son. I ivas, 
 therefore , right in asserting , that a practice so ancient and 
 universal, must be considered as having come down from the 
 first ages, and ought not to have been altered” (Votum pro 
 Pace.) 
 
 Yes ; and neither are they the Liturgies of the Catholic 
 Churches alone, that present this uniform testimony and evi- 
 dence, in favour of the doctrine and belief of Transubstantiation, 
 during the early ages of the Church. The Liturgies, just 
 equally, of those various ancient sects and heresies, which, 
 so early as in the fourth and fifth centuries, detached themselves 
 from the parent Church, exhibit, all of them, upon this subject, 
 — and indeed, upon all that relates to the mystery of the 
 Eucharist, — precisely the same concord and agreement. Dif- 
 fering from each other, as well as from the Catholic Church, 
 in regard to certain articles of faith, — these sects, without any 
 exception, have been always, and it is still the case with their 
 present members, — unanimous , and united, in their belief and 
 profession, of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. They, all of 
 them, — just as we do, — admit, that, by virtue of the sacred 
 action of consecration in the sacrifice of the Mass, the elements 
 of the bread and wine, offered up therein, are miraculously 
 changed into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Such is the 
 evidence presented, every where, in the still extant Liturgies of 
 the ancient Christian heresies and sects ; Liturgies, of course, 
 not of one nation, nor of one language, but of nations diffused, 
 and of languages made use of, throughout various parts of 
 Asia, Africa, and Europe : and which, moreover, have been 
 constantly, and are, as yet, still regularly used in the Churches of 
 each different sect. Thus, speaking, for example, of the pastors 
 of the various Greek Churches, your learned Bishop, Dr. Forbes, 
 says of them : — “ These men, all of them , most openly admit 
 Transubstantiation : — Qui, omnes, apertissime Transubstan- 
 
49 
 
 tiationem confitentur ." (De Each.) Sir Edwin Sandys says the 
 same. “ With Rome ” he tells us, “ the Greek Churches concur 
 in opinion of Transubstantiation, and generally in the sacri- 
 fice, and whole body, of the Mass. Their Liturgies are the 
 same , too, as in old time, namely, St. Basil's , St. Chrysostom's, 
 and St. Gregory's, translated : and these without any bending 
 of them to that change of language , which their tongue has also 
 suffered." (Rel. of West. Eel.) 
 
 We know, my Lord, that, blinded by their prejudices and 
 passions, or misled by the love of interest, there are multitudes 
 in life, — and these, too, learned and well instructed, — “ who have 
 eyes, and do not,” — will not, — •“ see “ who have ears, and do 
 not,” — will not , — “ hear.” If such were not the case, how easy 
 would it not be for them to trace in the evidence alone of the 
 above facts, the truth of our doctrines relating to the Eucharist? 
 We have thus the plainest vouchers, and the most incontestable 
 testimonies, of a multitude of different Churches, sects, heresies, 
 and religions, dispersed through a countless number of nations, 
 inheriting, each of them, their doctrine from the earliest ages of 
 Christianity ; and moreover, still preserving this uninterrupted, 
 and unchanged, down to the present day, — we have the plainest 
 vouchers of all these communions, admitting and professing, just 
 as we do, the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as well as all our 
 other essential tenets respecting the Holy Sacrament. Not 
 their errors in all other regards ; not their schisms ; not their 
 hostility and rancour towards the Church, which had cut them 
 off from her communion, could ever excite, or induce therm 
 even so much as to call in question the truth of her belief con- 
 cerning the mystery of the Eucharist. Now, only, my Lord, 
 ask yourself the question : — “ Whence, in the first place, — con- 
 sidering the multitude and variety of these sects, — whence all 
 this striking and uniform agreement among themselves, in 
 regard of this mystery in particular ? and whence also, in the 
 next place, this exact accordance with the faith of their parent 
 Institute? That they did not, would not, borrow their belief 
 from this Church, at any epoch after their separation from her, 
 — this is a truth which no one will offer to contest. The ancient 
 separatists, — just like our modern ones, — all, animated by ill- 
 will, detested the Church, which had cut them off from her 
 
 G 
 
50 
 
 society. They, most certainly, neither borrowed, nor would 
 borrow, any thing from her that was new, In like manner, it is 
 equally manifest, that the Catholic Church neither did, nor 
 would, borrow her doctrine regarding the mystery from these, or 
 from any one of these sects. This, too, is evident; for this 
 Church borrows no new doctrine from her enemies. Where- 
 fore, the plain and direct consequence is, that at the eras , when 
 ail the aforesaid sects and heresies separated themselves, or 
 were separated, from the Catholic Church, the doctrine and 
 belief of Transubstantiation were the unanimous and universal 
 doctrine and belief of the Christian universe. I think this 
 inference manifest, and that your Lordship, reasoning honestly 
 upon the subject, will, equally with me, allow it. At all 
 events, consulting or considering all the ancient Liturgies, — 
 both those of the Catholic Church, and those of the Churches 
 disunited from her, — you will be candid enough to own this : — 
 that, in the first place, there is nothing to be traced in any one 
 of these instruments, on the subject of the Eucharist, that 
 accords with your Protestant doctrines: — secondly, that the 
 assertions of your writers, who pretend that our doctrine of the 
 mystery is a modern innovation of the Church of Rome, are the 
 dictates, as I have said before, of the basest design to impose 
 upon the ignorance and credulity of the public ; or else, the 
 effect of the grossest ignorance in those deceivers. t( If the 
 cause of the Protestants and Catholics,” says Faustus Socinus, 
 concerning Transubstantiation , were to be decided by the autho- 
 rity of the Fathers , the former , in such case, must necessarily 
 own themselves vanquished .” The Magdeburg Centuriators 
 
 assert the same. “ Saint Gregory of Nyssa ,” for example, 
 they say, “ St. Chrysostom , St. John Damascen, the venerable 
 Bede, all, maintained the doctrine of Transubstantiation” 
 Thus, then, my Lord, — as I did on the subject of the real 
 presence , — I have presented to your consideration a few, both 
 of those plain Scriptural proofs, and of those historical docu- 
 ments, which evince and certify the truth of our doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation. May they only convey to your mind, as I 
 hope they will do, those convictions which you are seeking 
 to attain. At all events, they cannot fail but make you sensible 
 of this, that our doctrine is very clearly expressed in the texts 
 
51 
 
 of the holy Scriptures, very forcibly confirmed by your own 
 rules of biblical interpretation, and supported by all the best 
 sanctions, and authorities, of the best, and brightest, ages of the 
 Christian Church. They will too, — when you reflect upon 
 them seriously, — compel you to look back with pain, if not with 
 remorse, upon those oaths, — those frightful oaths, — which, in 
 your capacities of a senator, and a magistrate, you have, more 
 than once, incautiously taken, in reference to the mystery, — 
 declaring before God, as you have done, that our worship of it 
 is “ Idolatry ; ” and that myself, of course, as well as all other 
 Catholics, are so many benighted and lost Idolaters ! ! May 
 heaven forgive you the unchristian and unkind appeal ! * 
 
 * The oaths of our Protestant Legislators, &c., are monuments of 
 bigotry, and illiberality ; such as exist no where now, but in this country ; — 
 the disgrace of an enlightened nation, and the scandal of a Christian one. 
 Invented by a man, — “a name,” as Dryden says, “ to all succeeding ages 
 curst;” — composed by malevolence, fanaticism, and political animosity, 
 they were forced upon the nation, during an epoch of religious madness 
 and persecution. They are made up of imputations and principles, the 
 most ungenerous and unjust. Uncharitable ; — for what can be more uncha- 
 ritable, than to swear, that the far largest portion of the Christian world 
 (for, such are the believers in Transubstantiation) are a miserable body 
 of damnable idolaters? Rash; — for, before any one can, with safety, 
 appeal to the Divine veracity, he ought essentially to be sure, or at least, 
 very prudently convinced, of the certainty of the fact, or of the truth of 
 the proposition, which he thus solemnly avers. And yet, where is the 
 senator, or the magistrate, who possesses even the slenderest knowledge 
 of our real doctrine of Transubstantiation ? Swearing boldly, that our 
 worship of the mystery is an act of idolatry, they, with hardly an 
 exception, know just as much about the matter, as do the children of the 
 Universities, who, at the ages of twelve or fourteen, are compelled to 
 swear that they believe in the Thirty-nine Articles, which yet, they have 
 never, for the most part, so much as read ; but which, most certainly, they 
 do not understand. Needless; — for, what has either the disbelief, or the 
 belief, in Transubstantiation to do with the functions of a legislator, or the 
 duties of a magistrate? False ; — for, so far are we from adoring, as the 
 oaths imply we do, the elements of bread and wine, — we, on the contrary, 
 believe, that there is neither bread nor wine existing in the mystery. 
 Our adoration is addressed solely, and entirely, to the divine person 
 of Jesus Christ. Inconsistent; — for, if Christ is “ Verily , and indeed ” 
 present in the Sacrament, as your Creed declares he is, — why, in this case 
 condemn us as idolaters for adoring Him ? Considering these, and many 
 other similar circumstances, it is indeed astonishing, how men, who admit 
 
XII. But, I come now to the consideration of those chief 
 objections, which your Lordship has proposed to me, respecting 
 our doctrine of Transubstantiation. They are objections, in- 
 deed, which, although every where common amongst you 
 Protestants, are founded, not at all upon the principles of 
 Christian faith, but upon dictates of human reason ; not, as true 
 piety ordains, upon the basis of humility, but upon the sug- 
 gestions of proud, and profane, philosophy. They are founded 
 upon the alleged nature, and properties, of the mystery itself ; 
 its incomprehensibility ; its opposition to the testimony of the 
 senses ; its wonderful and stupendous character, See. Such are 
 your principal difficulties ; and it is chiefly upon the score of 
 these that you hesitate, you tell me, to acknowledge the whole 
 truth of our religion. 
 
 ** The mystery ” you say, “ is incomprehensible This, my 
 Lord, I willingly admit. But, surely, you cannot, as a Chris- 
 tian , pretend, with any thing like consistency, either to reject 
 it, or so much as to object to it, on the presumed force of this 
 objection. For, the case is, that, not only is the mystery of 
 Transubstantiation incomprehensible, but such als<3 is the nature 
 of all the mysterious doctrines of revelation. They are, all of 
 them, incomprehensible. And it is this precisely, — this incom- 
 prehensibility, — that constitutes their essence, and that gives 
 the merit to their belief. To disbelieve and reject any mystery 
 upon the pretence that we do not comprehend it, would prove 
 
 the awful sanctity of oaths, — men of honour, piety, and religion, — can 
 thus, without remorse or fear, declare solemnly before God, that our 
 worship, — which yet they know nothing at all about, — our worship, which 
 was that of the saints and sages of every age of the Christian Church, — is 
 in reality no other than so much stupid and profane idolatry. Surely, 
 before they thus venture with desperate courage to pronounce the dread 
 appeal, they ought seriously to pause. And having once taken the 
 dreadful oaths, they must , methinks,— if piously thoughtful, — not only 
 experience uneasiness and pain, but tremble at the act of rashness. 
 
 It was but the other day, that the Edinburgh Reviewers, speaking of 
 the multiplication of oaths in this country, and of their habitual pro- 
 fanation, made the following too true reflections : — “ Of all nations in the 
 world , past or present , Pagan or Christian, the English is the one most 
 infamous for the contempt of religious obligations : and if on any national 
 wickedness the wrath of God is visited , we may soon have cause to lament with 
 Jeremiah , that i because of swearing, the land mournethj” 
 
53 
 
 equivalently, and in the order of consistency, the rejection of 
 every mystery in religion. 
 
 “ The mystery is incomprehensible . ” True : but, is not such 
 even the case with the very works of nature itself? For, are 
 not many of these just alike inexplicable as it is? They are 
 indeed such, that no science, however profound, can penetrate 
 them ; no individual, however enlightened, and gigantic his 
 mind, can so much as conceive them. “ Nature,” says Bayle, 
 “is an abyss , which no human mind can fathom. Its springs 
 are known only to Him, who has formed and directs them. I 
 am sure, that no philosopher will deny , or contest this. The 
 essence of the most simple , ordinary , and inanimate objects, is 
 buried in deep and impenetrable darkness .” 
 
 u The mystery is incomprehensible .” Well, but is it not 
 again the fact, my Lord, that, in the order of nature itself, 
 nearly all its operations are conducted, and its effects produced, 
 by the very process and power of Transubstantiation ? Those 
 constantly varying' forms and developements, which we every 
 where trace around us ; those wonderful changes and meta- 
 morphoses which hourly take place, in ten thousand objects, are 
 all the effects of Transubstantiation. Thus, the small gelatinous 
 molecule is transformed into an active and beauteous being; 
 the crawling worm, into a brilliant insect ; the trifling seed, into 
 a stately tree. It is the simple union of a little earth and water, 
 that clothes our fields with verdure, loads our gardens with 
 fruits, and in reality gives food to the whole creation. It 
 is Transubstantiation that constitutes the source and basis of our 
 very life, health, and vigour ; converting, as it does, whatsoever 
 we eat and digest, into blood, flesh, bones, &c. And again, 
 how wonderful is that operation, — an operation pervading the 
 whole order of animal beings, — by which, for the sake and 
 support of their new-born progeny, the food of the female 
 parent, — which until now had been turned into blood, — is now, 
 at once, for the nourishment of their young, Transubstantiated 
 into milk. These, and such as these, are among the num- 
 berless, endless, transmutations, which we may every instant 
 see taking place throughout the whole spectacle of nature. 
 But, if so, — if nature itself is thus full of incomprehensible 
 changes, — why then, upon the pretext of the incomprehensibility 
 
54 
 
 of that which occurs at our altars, why, upon this pretext, either 
 reject it, or even hesitate to believe it? To the omnipotence of 
 God, one form of change is alike easy as another : whilst seeing 
 that the soul is so much more precious than the body, it is, 
 hence, but reasonable to suppose, that, as in his mercy 
 He performs such, and so many wonders for the benefit of the 
 latter, so also he may, and does equally, perform them for the 
 benefit and salvation of the former.* 
 
 “ The mystery is incomprehensible In stating this objec- 
 tion, my Lord, you are not perhaps, aware, that you appeal to 
 an argument, which militates equally, — or rather far more, — 
 against the doctrine of your own Church, respecting the holy 
 institution, than against ours. For, after all, great and incom- 
 prehensible as is the mystery of Transubstantiation, yet it is easy 
 to conceive, that, if Christ Jesus do so will it, he can, by virtue 
 of his infinite power, without any difficulty convert the sub- 
 stance of bread and wine into the substance of his own flesh and 
 blood. To conceive this is easy. But, to conceive the truth, or 
 comprehend the wisdom of the doctrine of your Church repect- 
 ing the mystery, this, to my apprehensions, appears impossible. 
 Dryden, who had studied it with assiduous care, declares it a 
 system of downright “ nonsense” Even your learned Bishop, 
 Poynet, speaking of the methods in which many of your divines 
 have undertaken to explain the mystery, allows them to be 
 “ unaccountable and unintelligible ” In fact, there is no wonder 
 that they are so. For example, your Church teaches, that the 
 Eucharist “is verily, and indeed, the flesh and blood of 
 
 * “ It requires ,” says Mr. Fairholm, “ but a glance around us to perceive, 
 that , by the laws , to which all things have been submitted by the Almighty , — to 
 which we generally give the unmeaning name of “ The Laws of Nature ” — 
 matter is constantly assuming a different form. The stately oak moulders 
 into dust , and becomes food for the plants. The ox changes grass into flesh. 
 His flesh passes, at his death, into other beings, who, in their turn, undergo 
 the same metamorphose. All created beings move, without ceasing, from one 
 form to another. Man himself, being laid in the earth, fertilises the soil. His 
 flesh becomes food for plants, which are eaten by animals, which man, in his 
 turn, devours. His Creator has announced to him this great truth , — ‘ For, 
 dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return .’ * Even the most solid portions 
 of the mineral world are not exempted from these general laws.” (Geology of 
 the Scrip.) 
 
Christ^ And yet, it teaches at the same time that it is still 
 “ verily , and indeed” a substantial, and unchanged, portion of 
 bread and wine. It admits a real presence, united with a real 
 absence. It admits a real presence, but it admits no way of 
 accounting for such presence, — neither impanation , nor com- 
 panalion , — nor, of course, Transubstantiation. It neither inter- 
 prets the words of Christ literally, nor figuratively ; nor, 
 according to its own rules, “ grammatically In short, it 
 converts the sacred institution into a complete riddle. Whence, 
 
 I am not surprised at the severe sentence of Dryden, deno- 
 minating it a piece of “ nonsense.” 
 
 In order to point out to your Lordship the incomprehen- 
 sibility of your Church’s doctrine, and to show you how strangely 
 it is explained by multitudes even of its modern clergy, — I 
 could easily cite many striking examples from their works, — 
 and from the works of some of its most learned theologians. 
 In these, if you think proper to consult them, you will find 
 exactly verified that reproach of Bishop Poynet to the clergy in 
 his time, that their methods of explaining the Sacrament are 
 “ unaccountable and unintelligible.” But, by the way of illus- 
 trating this seemingly harsh imputation, I wili just cite one 
 specimen, or example of them ; an example, too, not borrowed 
 from the works of an obscure or unlearned writer, but from 
 those of a prelate, who, besides being celebrated for his learning, 
 was deemed, moreover, the very model of Protestant orthodoxy : 
 1 allude to the late Bishop of Durham, — the pious, and ardently 
 zealous, Dr. Barrington Let me, however, before 1 cite the 
 proposed example, just remind you, — in order that you may feel 
 the thing more sensibly, — to bear in your remembrance the 
 definition of the mystery, as it is expressed in the most authentic 
 instruments of your Church. In these, as you have seen, the 
 doctrine of the real presence is laid down, and stated, in the 
 plainest terms, — in terms just equally plain as ours, — in fact, in 
 the very language of the Council of Trent. # In the Com- 
 munion Service, which once was drawn up by Cranmer, Ridley, 
 
 * Many Protestant writers, comparing the doctrine of the Established 
 Church, — as it is expressed in its best instruments of faith, — with the doc- 
 trine of the Catholic Church, have declared that they can discover no 
 difference between them. “ It must be owned ” says Cox, in his Life of 
 
56 
 
 and other learned divines, it was there inculcated to the public 
 as an important and pious instruction, that “ The whole body of 
 Christ is received under each particle of the Sacrament 
 Such as these, my Lord, are the official and authentic decla- 
 rations of your Church respecting the mystery, which I wish 
 you to retain, in order that you may the better feel the strange, 
 — u the unaccountable and unintelligible” — manner, in which 
 the learned and enlightened portions of your divines are now 
 pleased to describe, and explain its nature. Wherefore, to 
 the example just alluded to in the works of Bishop Bar- 
 rington. 
 
 The good prelate, you perhaps remember, excited by the 
 tenderness of his pastoral solicitude for the salvation of his 
 flock, — as well also as for that of the public, — addressed, a few 
 years ago, in sundry charges, a variety of instructions to his 
 clergy concerning the Eucharist. In these, after having very 
 devoutly abused our Catholic doctrine, and well nigh preached 
 a holy crusade against our persons, he proceeds, by way of 
 enlightening and edifying his readers, to present to them a 
 plain orthodox, and lucid explanation of the doctrine of the 
 Established Church, concerning the sacred institution. For 
 this purpose, and as the ground of his elucidations, he selects 
 those striking words of our Saviour : — “ My flesh is meat 
 indeed , and My blood is drink indeed. Except you eat the 
 flesh of the Son of Man , and drink His blood , ye have no life in 
 you” No passage could have been better selected for the 
 pious design than this : for, no words can be more simple and 
 expressive. However, so it is. Of these simple and expressive 
 
 Melancthon, “ that it would require good spectacles to discern any very 
 essential difference between them 
 
 “ For the life of us says another acute writer, “we cannot attach any 
 other than a real and corporal interpretation to the following interrogatories 
 of the Catechism: — Question: “ What is the inward part , or thing , sig- 
 nified ? ” Answer: “ The body and blood of Christ , which are verily , and 
 indeed , taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper ” If this 
 is not Transubstantiation, we do not know how it can be otherwise expressed 
 
 Such too as this is the opinion stated but the other day by the learned 
 and candid prebendary, Dennis. He, therefore, recommends in his 
 address the revision of the Liturgy : — “ Because,” he says, “ both its 
 present Catechism, and its Communion Service , contain Transubstantiation” 
 
57 
 
 words, the learned Prelate, in the effusions of his piety and 
 wisdom, is pleased to give five different, and very luminous, 
 interpretations. I shall cite these, as they are stated in the elo- 
 quent Tracts of Dr. Lingard, presenting at the same time, but 
 abridging, the observations of that learned writer upon them. 
 
 The first explanation : — “ To eat Christ," says the Bishop, — 
 and in these words he comprises the meaning of the various 
 passages and texts which relate to the Sacrament, — u To eat 
 Christ , is to incorporate with the mind the spiritual food of 
 faith and righteousness .” This, observes Dr. Lingard, is a 
 hard saying. For, although the idea of incorporating with the 
 mind the food of faith may be perspicuous to an orthodox mind, 
 to mine it is an unknown tongue. 
 
 The second explanation : — “ To eat Christ, is to imbibe his 
 doctrines , to digest his precepts, and to live by his example” 
 In this explanation there is comprised the mental incorporation 
 just cited; that is, drinking doctrines, digesting precepts, and 
 living by example. 
 
 The third explanation : — “ We eat Christ , by having Him in 
 our minds, and meditating on his life and sufferings .” This is, 
 surely, a very harsh, and unnatural, form of expression. For, 
 to say we eat the flesh, and drink the blood, of Christ, by thinking 
 on his life and sufferings, is a kind of metaphor as extravagant 
 as any thing that can be met with in the style of Oriental 
 literature. 
 
 The fourth explanation : — “ To eat Christ, is to believe in 
 Him. And to eat his flesh , is to keep up the remembrance of 
 Him — especially of his death.” This is only an extension of 
 the limits of the preceding explanation ; and, to me, just 
 equally unintelligible. 
 
 The fifth explanation, — which is also the winding up, and 
 conclusion of the whole : — “ To eat the body of Christ, there- 
 fore, and to drink His blood, at the Sacrament, are figurative 
 terms , to denote an act of faith , by which we profess our faith 
 in Christ , and commemorate his death, by eating the repre- 
 sentative, and vicarious, elements of bread and wine.” 
 
 Such, my Lord, are the explanations of the Sacrament of the 
 Eucharist, which a prelate eminent for his learning, and pre- 
 eminent for his orthodoxy, presents to his clergy, and to the 
 
 H 
 
58 
 
 public, by the way of instruction ; proposing 1 thus to enlighten 
 their ignorance, and to enliven the dulness of their devotion. 
 Whether they may have produced either of these effects in your 
 Lordship, or whether, with all your talents, you have been so 
 fortunate as to understand them, I do not pretend to know. 
 Only, if you do understand them, or if any individual under- 
 stand them, I will then say, that both yourself, and such en- 
 lightened personage, are blessed with a share of penetration, to 
 which I have no pretension. If, indeed, they do contain any 
 real meaning, — to me, it appears to be this, — that, as the 
 Eucharist is but “a representative , and vicarious” thing, so it 
 is, consequently, neither more nor less than the bare, simple, and 
 unsubstantial, figure of Zuinglius ; — its alleged mystery, there- 
 fore, no real mystery at all ; the Sacrament, but an imposing 
 name ; and the Communion, but a pious ceremony. If such is 
 not the import, and the upshot, of the good Bishop’s language, 
 let sagacity, more acute than mine, undertake to show what is. 
 But, at all events, what a strange elucidation of an institution, 
 which, in the eyes of faith, and to the feelings of piety, is, 
 beyond any other, the most interesting in the whole Christian 
 dispensation ! However, the thing is not, after all, surprising ; 
 neither is the pious prelate, with all his strange, and unintelligible, 
 explanations, either alone, or singular. For, in nearly all those 
 which we daily meet with in the writings of your clergy, we 
 find little else than ambiguity, paradox, and equivocation. 
 Whence, also, it has been always my opinion, that, amongst the 
 many pious, excellent, and well-meaning individuals, who fre- 
 quent your Communion Tables, there are few indeed, if any, 
 who carry with them there any exact, well-formed, and 
 distinct ideas, respecting the real nature of the Sacrament, 
 which it is their design, and their wish, to venerate. 
 
 Your Lordship has not stated to me in your letter, what 
 may be the precise nature of your own belief respecting the 
 Sacrament. If, however, I were allowed to conjecture what it is, 
 I should suspect, and fear, from the character of your objec- 
 tions, and from your acknowledged repugnance to the admission 
 of mysteries, that you, like Dr. Barrington, considering the 
 Eucharist as but “ a vicarious and representative ” thing, regard, 
 and respect it, therefore, only as a pious figure. If, my Lord, 
 
59 
 
 such are indeed your notions of the Holy Institution, allow me, 
 in this case, to intreat you to pause seriously over so dangerous 
 an opinion ; — an opinion, alike repugnant, as I have shown you, 
 to the positive assurances of Christ ; to the language of the 
 Scriptures ; to the authority of the best ages of the Church ; 
 and even to the genuine doctrine of your own Establishment. 
 You cannot, with your good sense, help feeling, — and your 
 candour will, perhaps, allow, — that if the declarations of Christ, 
 instituting the Sacrament, were designed to convey, or do 
 convey, no other than a figurative signification, it is truly in 
 this case astonishing, that, during the long course of fifteen 
 hundred years, such signification should never have been dis- 
 covered ; never have been even conjectured by all the talents, 
 wisdom, and learning, of those ages ; never have been so much 
 as thought on, until Zuinglius, instructed by his “ black or 
 white ” monitor, came forward to reveal it. But, can you 
 really believe, or imagine, that, if the Eucharist is no other, or 
 little else, than a pious figure, the secret could possibly have 
 remained so long concealed ? And can you, in like manner, 
 conceive, that the secret, — if it were communicated so late, or 
 at all , — would have been communicated through the medium of 
 a man, who was, acknowledgedly, tutored by the lessons of the 
 “ Prince of darkness ? ” 
 
 I know, that, by way of defence, or as an illustration of the 
 justness of the figurative sense, your Lordship may, perhaps, 
 cite, — as your divines adduce for ever, — certain expressions 
 of our Saviour, which, they contend, are parallel, and similar, to 
 those which He made use of on the occasion of the Last Supper. 
 Such are the expressions, or sentences, — “ J am the door — I 
 am the vine ,” and so on. But surely, my Lord, all this is very 
 feeble, and wretched reasoning. For, the truth is, — these ex- 
 pressions are manifestly plain, ordinary, and obvious, figures of 
 speech, which nobody can misunderstand. If, indeed. He had 
 said : — “ I am this door ; I am this vine,” — for these are the 
 expressions parallel and similar to the expressions, “ This is 
 My body ; THIS is My blood ; — if he had spoken so, then there 
 might have been some little room at least for sophistry to 
 dispute and cavil, although no one could have understood the 
 
GO 
 
 extraordinary and extravagant, metaphors. Strange, indeed, is 
 the mode of reasoning, that because Christ did, on some occa- 
 sions, make use of figures. He, therefore, used them, at his 
 Last Supper, — the very occasion when he should not have used 
 them, and the very time, as I have remarked before, when, 
 beyond any other, he ought to have spoken, — as he did speak , — 
 most plainly, and without the slenderest shadow of any figure. 
 Thus it is that your neologists, and modern unbelievers, torturing 
 the Holy Scriptures, and twisting the clearest texts and passages 
 into metaphors, parables, hyperboles, and figures, are reasoning 
 away all the mysteries of religion. It is thus that the Socinian, 
 the Unitarian, &c. — “ wresting the Sacred Volume to their own 
 destruction,” — have converted into figurative meanings all the 
 texts, however plain, which relate to the most essential Christian 
 mysteries, — the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, Ori- 
 ginal Sin, &c. But to proceed with your objections. 
 
 XIII. “ The mystery you go on to say, “ is repugnant to 
 the testimony of the senses .” Well, my Lord, — and let me 
 observe : — How many beings, and objects, do there not, every 
 where, exist, — and which we know exist,— of whose existence, 
 nevertheless, we have neither any proof, nor any attestation, 
 from the senses ? We admit, for example, the existence of a 
 multitude of spiritual beings — the angelic hosts, the soul, the 
 divinity itself, — substances which no eye has seen, nor any sense 
 reported. We believe, and know, the existence of a world of 
 physical objects, — animal, mineral, and vegetable, — in which 
 there are concealed properties, qualities, &c., so secret, that 
 neither any art can discover, nor any science comprehend them. 
 Why, even in the order of insects, — a class of well-organised 
 and perfect animals, — there are millions of these every where 
 around us, so minute, as to be invisible to the sharpest eye, and 
 undistinguishable to all the senses. “ The mind is lost in 
 wonder ,” adds the learned writer, just quoted in the preceding 
 note, “ and is incapable of conceiving what no tongue can 
 express, — that there are in almost all fluids animals , as perfect 
 as ourselves in bodily structure and action , so minute , that it 
 would require ?nillions of them to form the compass of one 
 
61 
 
 single grain of sand.” # With the consideration of these wonders 
 present to your mind, you cannot, my Lord, be surprised, that 
 religion also should have its wonders : neither can you rea- 
 sonably infer, that, because an object is invisible to the eye, or 
 imperceptible to the senses, it does not, therefore, exist. 
 “ Miraculousness” says Sharon Turner, “ is the true character 
 of created nature” But, if so, how much more appro- 
 priately still is it the true character of uncreated religion? 
 
 “ The mystery is repugnant to the testimony of the senses .” 
 This, my Lord, is a vulgar, and unfortunate, error. Transub- 
 stantiation is not repugnant to the testimony of the senses ; 
 neither do our senses deceive us at all in its regard. On the 
 contrary, we believe the testimony of our senses. We believe, 
 that all the outward forms and appearances of the Sacrament, 
 — for these are all that the senses can pretend to judge of, — are 
 such precisely as we perceive them. If we contended that 
 Transubstantiation is a visible, or sensible, change, then it is 
 true, we should, in such case, contradict the report of our senses. 
 But we do not maintain, nor believe this. We believe exactly 
 the reverse. We believe that it is not a visible and sensible 
 change, but an invisible and insensible one ; and consequently, 
 that, as our senses are not the judges of invisible and insensible 
 objects, so, of course, our senses do not deceive us. But, what 
 then is the fact? Why, we believe, that it is not the exterior 
 forms and qualities of the bread and wine, that are changed in 
 the divine mystery, but their substance. Now who, or what 
 philosopher, can even pretend to deny this? For who, or what 
 philosopher, can pretend either to understand the nature of 
 substance, or even to know what substance is ? “ The substance 
 
 * The same author tells us, that “ he had lately the opportunity of demon- 
 strating in the most unequivocal manner , that it would require from one to 
 three millions of some active animalcula to form the hulk of one single grain of 
 sand.” There are in the works of Dr. Roget, Professors Grant, Ehrenberg, 
 &c., many similar, if not even more striking, examples of the wonders of 
 nature, than the above. Well does Sir Humphry Davy say: — “ We 
 cannot embrace the millionth part of the objects surrounding us. And yet we 
 have the presumption to reason upon the infinite universe , and the Eternal Mind 
 by which it teas created , and is governed. On these subjects I have no confidence 
 in reason. I trust only to FAITH. And as far as we ought to inquire, we 
 have no other guide but revelation.” 
 
62 
 
 of bodies,” says Locke, “ is entirely unknown to us.” Newton 
 says the same : — “ Intimas corporum substantias, nullo sensu, 
 nulla actione rejlexd , cognoscimus” What alone we can pre- 
 tend, or should presume to reason upon, in regard of substance, 
 is little or nothing more than its surface, — the outward forms 
 and accidents which clothe it. And why, therefore, — seeing 
 that God is the author both of the substance, and of its outward 
 forms and accidents, — why refuse to believe, that if He so will 
 it, He has not the power to change the internal substance of 
 any body, and still leave the external forms? Or why not just 
 as easily believe, that, by the omnipotence of his word , he can 
 convert the substance of bread into the substance of his flesh, as 
 by virtue of that same word he performed so many other 
 striking miracles ; — changing water into wine at Cana ; raising 
 the dead to life ; giving sight to the blind, and hearing to the 
 deaf ; curing maladies, &c. ? To refuse to believe this, or to 
 contest it, would be equivalently the denial of his Divine power. 
 Hence, therefore, the error of your Lordship : you mistake the 
 external forms and accidents of substance for the substance 
 itself. And such also is, unhappily, the common error of nearly 
 all you Protestants.* Whereas, the fact is, — the former are 
 
 * “ It is” says the Bishop of Durham, Dr. Van Mildert, in his 
 Bampton Lectures, — “ it is because Transubstantiation is repugnant to the 
 senses, that it is rejected by Protestaiits.” Now, although it may he more 
 or less true, — in relation to ordinary cases, and to the general objects 
 which surround us, — that we may commonly judge of them, and of their 
 reality, by the testimony of the senses, — yet, to assert that their tes- 
 timony should always be admitted, or even consulted, in extraordinary 
 cases, and in regard to the mysteries of religion ; — this is, indeed, neither 
 the dictate of Christian theology, nor the principle of wise philosophy. It 
 was precisely by this very argument that the Jews were induced to reject 
 the divinity of our great Redeemer. “ Is not this, they said, the Car - 
 penters son ? ” They judged of Him by the testimony of their senses ; 
 and accordingly, they, for this very reason, refused to believe in Him. 
 
 And how many examples are there not in the Scriptures, in which, by the 
 appointment of God, the senses of his servants were deceived ? We see 
 there, that on many occasions, the angels, — bodiless beings, — appeared in 
 the shape of solid human bodies, — of men, in all the forms and attitudes 
 of earthly creatures ; — in the case, for instance, of Abraham, eating and 
 drinking with him ; in the case of Jacob, wrestling with him, &c. The 
 report, therefore, of the senses is not always, nor on extraordinary occa- 
 
63 
 
 merely the veils which shroud and conceal the latter. So that 
 what we believe respecting the mystery is, that, by virtue of the 
 Divine power, and by a miracle, imperceptible to our senses, the 
 substance of bread and wine is, in the holy sacrifice of the Mass, 
 converted into the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ ; — 
 the external surface, meanwhile, as a veil, or curtain, concealing 
 the Eternal Being from our sight. It was thus, that, in the 
 mystery of the incarnation, the divinity of this same sacred 
 personage was concealed, and hid, beneath the veil, or curtain, 
 of his flesh. It was from these considerations, and from the 
 better knowledge of our doctrines, that Mr. Hallam has, in his 
 candour, been induced to say, — “ The doctrine of Tran - 
 substantiation does not , as vulgarly supposed , contradict the 
 evidence of the senses , — since our senses can report nothing as 
 to the unknown being which the schoolmen denominate ‘ Sub- 
 stance : ’ and which ALONE was the subject of this conversion” 
 (Const. Hist.) 
 
 After the above-stated objections, your Lordship still further 
 urges, that “ the alleged mystery , besides being so incom- 
 prehensible , and repugnant to the senses, is, moreover, so tran- 
 scendently wonderful, as to appear quite incredible. For, how 
 imagine, or believe ,” you remark, “ that the great Lord of 
 Heaven and earth should stoop so low, as to shroud his omni- 
 potence ; and under the humble form of a little portion of 
 bread and wine, bestow His whole Self upon his crea- 
 tures 7 . Such miracle you say, “ is, surely, too stupendous to 
 be credible” Now, my Lord, allow me to observe, that this 
 objection, although very common among you Protestants, and 
 the unbelievers, is, at the same time, a very profane, and un- 
 christian one. It implies the bold presumption of pretending to 
 measure the extent of God’s omnipotence, and of prescribing 
 
 sions, nor in the order of religion, the principle by which we ought to 
 judge of the dispensations of God’s infinite wisdom, or of the institutions 
 of his Almighty power. 
 
 In fact, even in the order of nature itself, to pretend to judge of a 
 variety of objects by the report of the senses would be not only a source of 
 mistakes and errors, but an absurdity. There is not one single sense, — 
 neither sight, hearing, taste, touch, — but what often, or rather constantly, 
 misleads, and deceives us. 
 
64 
 
 laws to the infinitude of his mercy. Mercy, beyond every other 
 quality, is the favourite attribute of the Divine Being : and He 
 has even done more to display this in the order of religion , than 
 He has done, in the works of nature , to manifest his greatness. 
 The whole system of religion is a system of mercy, and love, for 
 man. The consequence, therefore, is, that the circumstance of 
 Transubstantiation appearing, — or being,— so peculiarly won- 
 derful, — so far from being an additional motive for its disbelief, — 
 is, on the contrary, in the eyes of Christian piety and wisdom, 
 an additional reason for its admission, and the very principle 
 which ought to awaken in our hearts a higher veneration for 
 such blessing. It is the very stamp of its divinity ; and the 
 broad, deep, seal, impressed upon it by the hand of the Almighty. 
 It is God alone, that could have conceived and invented so 
 astonishing an institution ; — He alone, that, with any thing like 
 confidence, could have proposed it as a certain truth ; He alone, 
 that, with the slenderest chance or prospect of success, could 
 have at once engaged a corrupted and unbelieving world, not 
 only to believe and adopt it, without murmur or hesitation, but 
 even to cherish it, as the best source of their consolations, and 
 the main object of their worship. 
 
 I will just remark here to your Lordship the effects of habit 
 and education. You easily believe, and sincerely revere, — and 
 so also do the public, — the mystery of the Incarnation. Well, 
 think now only upon the nature of this sacred dispensation, — 
 the subject of everlasting wonder to angels, and to men. You 
 thus believe that the divinity itself, — the great King of Heaven, 
 and the Creator and Lord of all things , — “ took ujyon Himself 
 the form of a SERVANT and in that mean and humble shape, 
 suffered himself to be insulted, despised, and oppressed ; to endure 
 every kind of indignity and injustice ; and, ere long, to be con- 
 demned to a cruel and ignominious death. You believe, that this 
 eternal and infinite Being, — He, whose immensity is boundless, — 
 whose centre is every where, and whose circumference no where, 
 — was thus shut up, and confined, within the narrow compass of a 
 human body. Now, I ask your Lordship, is not all this alike 
 wonderful, and incomprehensible ; — alike repugnant to the senses, 
 as is the mystery of Transubstantiation? The Divine Being, 
 you thus own, humbles Himself to the very lowest state of 
 
65 
 
 degradation, and infinitude is reduced to the contracted measure 
 of a trifling span. Hence, then, believing this, as you happily, 
 and willingly do, — and as the whole Christian world does 
 equally, — is it not surprising, and inconsistent, that you should 
 object so forcibly to the doctrine of Transubstantiation ? What, 
 then, is the cause, or reason, of the discrepancy 1 Or why admit 
 one mystery, and reject the other ? The real reason is this : — 
 education, habit, prejudice, and insult, have not armed you, and 
 the public, against the belief of the Incarnation : whilst all 
 those principles, — education, habit, all the arts and artifices of 
 injustice, insult, ridicule, and misrepresentation, — have armed 
 you against the belief of Transubstantiation . For, comparing 
 both mysteries together, the Incarnation is, of the two, the 
 most stupendous and inconceiveable. It is more difficult to con- 
 ceive and imagine, how the great Lord of heaven and earth 
 should subject Himself to all the miseries of human nature, and 
 confine his infinitude within the limits of a mortal body, than 
 that (this same body being now glorified, immortal, and im- 
 passable) he should bestow himself upon us, under the pleasing 
 and significant form of earthly food. To reject Transubstan- 
 tiation , therefore, on the pretext that it is too wonderful to be 
 credible, and yet admit the Ijicarnation, which is still more 
 wonderful, is, in fact, a piece of inconsistency. Making, indeed, 
 the supposition, — as I have done before, — that our Divine 
 Redeemer did, in his mercy and wisdom, design to give us his 
 sacred flesh, in order to nourish our souls with his heavenly 
 graces ; to perpetuate the remembrance of his death ; to excite 
 in our hearts the feelings of love ; and to exercise the obedience 
 of our faith ; supposing this, it is impossible to imagine any 
 other form more perfectly adapted to all these purposes, than 
 that which he has assumed in this adorable institution. He 
 thus, — which is the great end and aim of religion, — unites us 
 to Himself, “ abiding in us, and we in Him He places before 
 our minds the tragedy of his sufferings ; by his amiable con- 
 descension, veiling the splendours of_his greatness, He renders 
 Himself accessible to us, — awakening our confidence, and 
 inspiring those sentiments of St. Austin,— “ The lower He 
 stoops , the more I love Him: ” whilst, moreover, by the great- 
 ness of the mystery, He presents to us the occasion of prac- 
 
 1 
 
GG 
 
 tising the humility of faith, and the virtue of submission. 
 Wherefore, since the veil, which He has thus assumed, is, 
 beyond every other, the best suited to our circumstances and 
 situation here, — and as, to His omnipotence, it is alike easy to 
 bestow His blessed flesh upon us, under whatsoever form He 
 chooses, — so, I infer, it is but reasonable to believe, that it is 
 under the alleged form — according to His own clear and express 
 assurances, — that He communicates to us His unspeakable and 
 heavenly benefits. 
 
 T cannot, of course, pretend to say, how far the arguments 
 and reflections, which I have thus presented to your Lordship’s 
 consideration, may have contributed, either to reconcile you 
 to the belief of our doctrine, or to lessen your incredulity in its 
 regard. I will flatter myself, indeed, that the former is, — or at 
 least will be, ere long, — the happy result of your pious medi- 
 tations. But, at all events, the arguments and reflections, which 
 I have suggested, cannot have failed to convince you of the 
 indecency of those writers and preachers of yours, who, because 
 their little, brief capacities are unable to comprehend the divine 
 mystery, and unwilling to ascertain its truth, treat it, there- 
 fore, as “ an impossibility, a contradiction, an absurdity,” — 
 “ blasphemantesy quod ignorant .” As if, deluded men, they 
 had measured the length and breadth of God’s omnipotence, or 
 knew the precise extent of his wisdom, and his mercy. As if 
 they had wings to soar up to his eternal tabernacles, or eyes to 
 penetrate into the deep abysses of his counsels, — they, poor, 
 puny things ! who are incapable of understanding even the 
 most simple objects of nature, and who know absolutely nothing 
 respecting the substance, the essence, the interior mechanism, 
 and construction, of any body whatsoever. The truth is, that, 
 did these men only reason, and act consistently, they would, by 
 the very same process of argumentation, which they employ 
 against the mystery of Transubstantiation, reject half, — if not 
 all, — the mysteries of revelation. For these are just as incom- 
 prehensible to their reason, and as impervious to their senses, as 
 is that sacred institution. The Protestant, it is indeed certain, 
 believes too much, and too little ; — too much , if he follow the 
 dictates of human reason too little , if he consult the injunc- 
 tions of Christian faith. 
 
XIV. In the early part of this letter, describing the cha- 
 racter of the mysteries of religion, and pointing out the method 
 of ascertaining the certainty of their revelation, I observed to 
 your Lordship, that the proper means of doing this, or of judging 
 of the truth of these divine objects, is not by consulting the 
 dictates of our reason, the suggestions of proud philosophy, nor 
 the report and testimony of the senses. I stated, at the same 
 time, the reason for these restrictions. It is, I remarked, 
 because the mysteries of religion are objects placed beyond the 
 pale of created things, and out of the circle of the senses, — 
 divine secrets , whose properties, therefore, man can neither 
 comprehend in this life, nor, with prudence, attempt to pene- 
 trate. The whole, and the only proof which we do, — and can, — 
 possess here, (and I showed you this, upon the authority of your 
 own divines) of the truth and certainty of any mysterious doc- 
 trine, is simply the fact of its revelation, and the evidence of 
 the testimony that God has really delivered it to us. It is this 
 alone, — this fact and testimony , — that, as Christians, we ought 
 to investigate, or can investigate consistently : because it is only 
 this that we can pretend to understand. “ Faith comes,” says 
 St. Paul, u from the HEARING. It is the substance of things 
 not SEEN.” So that the consequence thus is, that the circum- 
 stance of any mysterious doctrine being more or less wonderful, 
 or more or less obscure and incomprehensible, is, in the eyes of 
 the enlightened Christian, completely immaterial ; — a subject 
 neither of doubt, perplexity, nor surprise. All that he looks to, 
 or regards, is the fact , or testimony , that God has spoken, and 
 revealed it. This, once ascertained, he is satisfied, ile then, 
 like St. Peter, humbly bowing down his reason in calm sub- 
 mission, exclaims “ Lord , thou hast the 2vords of eternal life ; 
 and I believe 
 
 Accordingly, it was by adopting, and following up, these 
 maxims, that your Lordship ought to have proceeded, — or if you 
 have not already done so, should proceed, — in your study and 
 investigations of our doctrine of Transubstantiation. This, 
 besides being the only Christian and consistent method of ex. 
 amining the vital question, is moreover, as I have just said, the 
 process recommended by the authority of your own most learned 
 theologians. Thus, Dr. Faber, — although the bitterest enemy 
 
of our religion, — says, — “ The doctrine of Transubstantiation , 
 like the doctrine of the Trinity , is a question , not of abstract 
 reasoning , but of pure evidence. We believe the revelation 
 of God to be essential and unerring truth. Our business, most 
 plainly, is, not to discuss the abstract absurdity, and the ima- 
 gined contradictoriness of Transubstantiation, but to inquire , 
 according to the best means we possess, whether it be indeed a 
 doctrine of Holy Scripture. If sufficient evidence shall deter - 
 mine such to be the case, we may be sure that the doctrine 
 is neither absurd, nor contradictory. I shall ever contend, 
 that the doctrine of Transubstantiation, like the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, is a question of pure evidence.” These prin- 
 ciples and sentiments are alike the suggestions of good sense, as 
 they are the dictates of sound theology. Happy would it be for the 
 cause of Catholicity, if they were only acted upon and followed. 
 Their observance would furnish very easy triumphs to our 
 religion. Be it then yours, my Lord, to adopt them ; and 
 under their guidance and direction,— not now any longer as a 
 philosopher pretending to measure the height and depth of God's 
 omnipotence — not daringly attempting to draw aside the veil 
 which He has hung before his sanctuary, — investigate only the 
 evidences and the testimony which establish the fact of the 
 revelation of the mystery. Conducted by these safe and 
 enlightened guides, you will early be reduced, if not to acknow- 
 ledge, at all events to feel, that, among all the mysterious doc- 
 trines of the Christian code, there is not any one that is better 
 attested, or more manifestly revealed, than it is : and you will, 
 with me, condemn both the inconsistency and the profaneness of 
 your writers, who every where, and every day, denounce it to 
 the ignorant and benighted public, as “an absurdity, an impos- 
 sibility, &c.” # I have, indeed, this confidence in your Lord- 
 
 * Speaking of the unbecoming language of these men, the learned 
 writer, above quoted, says : — “ While arguing upon this subject,” (Transub- 
 stantiation,) “ some persons , I regret to sap, have been too copious in the use of 
 those unseemly words, ‘ absurdity , and impossibility / To such language the 
 least objection is, its reprehensible want of good manners. A much more 
 ser ious objection is, the tone of presumptuous loftiness which pervades it, and is 
 wholly unbecoming a creature of very narrow faculties . Certainly , God will 
 do nothing absurd, and can do nothing impossible. But it does not , therefore, 
 
ship’s piety and candour, that, provided you suffer yourself to 
 be conducted by these guides, your objections, — if you still have 
 any, — will soon be hushed, and your perplexities be done away. 
 Alas ! if truth were to give way to a few objections, and 
 evidence to be sacrificed to difficulties, because we are unable to 
 comprehend them, — if this were the case, — tell me what truth 
 or mystery of religion — nay, what truth, or mystery of nature 
 itself, would men believe ? for the book of nature, like that 
 of religion, is full of incomprehensibilities. Our objections, 
 therefore, and our perplexities, are the effects of our present 
 weakness, ignorance, and pride. We see things now through 
 clouds, obscurely: "but, ere long, these clouds will vanish and 
 disappear. Then, — provided only that we have been humble 
 and obedient, — then, plunged in the great ocean of light, we 
 shall behold both the mysteries of religion, and the wonders of 
 nature, in all their brightness and beauty. There is, even in 
 this life, a satisfaction in the docility of the piously believing 
 Christian, that is far more delightful and soothing to the heart 
 than all the learned pride of the philosopher, who, labouring to 
 know every thing, is for ever doubting and perplexed ; and 
 therefore, also, for ever restless and uneasy. 
 
 If, however, it do unfortunately so chance, that the argu- 
 ments, which I have been suggesting, have not sufficed to 
 reconcile your Lordship to our belief in the mystery, and to 
 remove your perplexities and misgivings in its regard, — let me, 
 in this case, recommend to your consideration the conduct, once, 
 of the celebrated Pelisson, — a convert from Protestantism to 
 the Catholic religion. He tells us, that, when pressed by the 
 
 follow , that our view of things should be always perfectly correct , and free 
 from misapprehension. Contradictions we may easily fancy, where , in truth, 
 there are none. Hence, therefore , before we pronounce any doctrine a con- 
 tradiction, we must be sure we perfectly understand the nature of the matter 
 propounded in that doctrine: for, otherwise , the contradiction may not be in 
 the matter itself, but in our mode of conceiving it. In regard of 
 myself , — as my consciously finite intellect claims not to be an universal measure 
 of congruities and possibilities, — I deem it to be both more wise, and more 
 decorous, to refrain from assailing the doctrine of Transubstantiation, on the 
 ground of its alleged absurdity, or contradictoriness, or impossibility. By 
 such a mode of attach, we, in reality , quit the field of rational and satisfactory 
 argumentation . 1 ? (Difficulties of Rom.) 
 
70 
 
 acute and learned Aubertin, concerning the very question which 
 now forms the chief source of your hesitations, he was wont, on 
 those occasions, to cast up his eyes towards Heaven, to reflect 
 upon the infinite greatness of God, and to consider his own 
 littleness. “And at once,” he adds, “all my doubts and appre- 
 hensions vanished. I found God so great, and myself so 
 little, that I even ivondered how any doubt could possibly 
 have ever entered into my mind” Do you then, my Lord, 
 imitate the conduct of this great man, making, like him, the 
 same Christian and wise reflections. The effect will be, — or, at 
 least, I will so flatter myself, — that, with those reflections 
 present to your mind, and well impressed upon your feelings, 
 you will experience no more difficulty in believing our doctrine 
 of Transubstantiation, than you do in admitting any other 
 mystery of the Christian revelation. 
 
 XV. After the statement of the difficulties which your Lord- 
 ship experiences respecting our doctrine of the Eucharist, and 
 your request to me to offer you some explanation of them, you 
 still further tell me, that, being now sensible of the importance 
 of salvation, you are, therefore, anxious to know the true faith, 
 and to find out the true Church of Christ. Hence you, more- 
 over, desire me to suggest to you some instructions likewise 
 upon these important subjects. As your mind, you say, is 
 neither satisfied with your own Church, nor, as yet, reconciled 
 to ours, so, in this state of suspense, you are restless and dis- 
 tressed. These sentiments, my Lord, are worthy of you. And 
 they are alike the dictates of reason, as they are the suggestions 
 of Christian wisdom. For, to know the true faith, and to be a 
 member of the true Church of Christ, is not only a duty, but the 
 strict obligation imposed upon every individual. It is so much 
 so, that the severest threatenings of God’s displeasure, and the 
 heaviest effects of his vengeance, are appended to the neglect and 
 violation of the awful precept. Thus, our Saviour says, — “ He 
 that believeth not , shall be DAMNED. He that will not hear 
 the Church, shall be as the heathen and the publican.” The 
 cause of these severe injunctions is, that the true faith, and the 
 true Church, are essentially, each of them, divine ; and therefore 
 also, each, essentially one. “ There is one Lord,” says Christ 
 
71 
 
 Jesus, “and ONE faith. There is ONE fold, and ONE shep- 
 herd.” The prospects and promises of salvation are, for these 
 reasons, made by the Divine wisdom to depend upon the express 
 condition of believing this “ one faith f and of belonging to this 
 “ one fold ” 
 
 These principles are, in fact, so incontestable, that they are 
 not only admitted, but very forcibly inculcated, by your own 
 Established Church. Thus, in the Athanasian Creed, — the 
 authentic testimony, of itself, upon this subject, — it is declared, 
 that “ the very first requisite ” for the security of salvation is 
 the belief “ in the One true Catholic faith” And in order 
 that this maxim may be the more deeply impressed upon the 
 minds of the public, — or for fear lest they should not always care- 
 fully remember it, — your clergy, — the pastors, that is, of every 
 congregation, — are strictly commanded by your canons to pro- 
 claim it loudly to them, at least fourteen times in the year. 
 “ Whosoever they solemnly call out, <s will he saved , before 
 all THINGS it is necessary to hold the true Catholic 
 faith ; which faith, except every one do keep WHOLE, and 
 undefiled , without doubt he shall perish everlastingly 
 
 Hence then, my Lord, seeing thus that the hopes and pro- 
 spects of salvation are directly attached to the belief of the true 
 faith, it is, consequently, plain, that whosoever does not enjoy 
 this blessing, is, in conscience, and in as much as he values his 
 own future happiness, bound strictly to labour to make it his. 
 Here his care and assiduity, — proportioned to the importance of 
 the end, — should be earnest, and unremitting; biassed by no 
 human respect ; stayed by no worldly interest. “ Here,” says 
 Bishop Butler, “ inattention , negligence , the want of serious 
 concern about the discovery , is as real a moral depravity , as 
 the neglect of religious practice .” (Analogy.) Here, indeed, 
 any neglect is a real vice ; and ignorance, a crime. For, where 
 there is question of salvation , the means of attaining it can 
 neither be neglected without guilt, nor omitted with impunity. 
 
 But, independently of the above considerations, your Lord- 
 ship must also be aware, that it is peculiarly the duty of every 
 Protestant, — in order to he consistent , — to endeavour seriously 
 to find out the true faith. For, according to the very first rule, 
 and the main principle, of Protestantism, the belief of the Pro- 
 
72 
 
 testant ought necessarily to be founded upon the dictates of his 
 own judgment, and the convictions of his own private con- 
 science, — an effect which implies, of course, the process of 
 study, comparison, and research. This, indeed, is the very 
 essence of Protestantism, and the whole justification assigned by 
 its first apostles, and best defenders, for their apostacy, or 
 secession, from the parent Church. “ When the Protestants ,” 
 says Archdeacon Blackburn, “first withdrew from the com- 
 munion of the Church of Rome, the principles they went upon 
 were such as these : — ‘ Jesus Christ has , by his Gospel, called 
 all men unto liberty, and restored them to the privilege of 
 working out their salvation by THEIR OWN UNDERSTANDINGS 
 AND endeavours.’” “ The principle of the Reformation ,” 
 adds Bishop Warburton, “was that Christian liberty which 
 gives every man the right to worship God , according to his own 
 conscience .” Whence, Bishop Tomline asserts, that “it is the 
 unalienable privilege of every Christian to form his own religious 
 opinions .” 
 
 As, therefore, it is thus both the duty, and the privilege, of 
 every Protestant to judge for himself, and so form his religious 
 creed, so also, in order to do this consistently, and with prudence, 
 it cannot but appear proper, or rather necessary, that, ere he 
 determine his belief, he should examine seriously, and impar- 
 tially, the doctrines and the claims of his mother Church ; — of 
 that Church, which, far beyond any other, invites his con- 
 sideration, — the school of the saints, and the nursery, but a 
 few years past, of his own, and your Lordship’s, ancestors ; — a 
 Church, venerable for its antiquity, undivided in its faith, mag- 
 nificent, and boundless, in its diffusion. Surely, to study the 
 doctrines, and consider the claims of a Church like this, ought to 
 appear to every Protestant, — as it happily does to your Lord- 
 ship, — an act of prudence, as it is in fact, even according to his 
 own principles, an imperious duty . 
 
 I have made the observation already, — and it is, therefore, 
 superfluous, perhaps, to repeat it, — that, although it is thus 
 manifestly both the duty, and the obligation, of every prudent 
 and consistent Protestant to examine the claims of our religion, 
 yet it is a duty, and an obligation, which are almost wholly, and 
 every where, neglected ; and neglected equally by the learned. 
 
73 
 
 as they are by the illiterate and the vulgar. I am sure of this, 
 — that in the circles of my own Protestant acquaintance,— 
 several of them clergymen, many of them men of talents and 
 erudition, — I never met with so much as one , who appeared to 
 me, (and I have often conversed with them on the subjects of 
 religion,) even tolerably instructed in the real tenets of our 
 Church. To account, indeed, for the ignorance of the public , 
 concerning the doctrines of our religion, nothing is more obvious. 
 For the public, every where, instead of giving themselves the 
 trouble to study our doctrines, where alone they are stated accu- 
 rately, do directly the reverse. They study, and read, and 
 hear every kind of accusation against them, but not a line, nor 
 word, in their defence. They read the books of a crowd of 
 writers, and devour the sermons of a set of preachers, who, 
 violating, alike, all the dictates of truth, the charities of mode- 
 ration, and the decencies of honour and decorum, verify exactly 
 that sentence of Tertullian, describing the character of the 
 enemies of the Church, in his time: — “ Nihil illis interest , 
 licet diversa tractcintibus, dum ad unius veritaiis expugna - 
 tionem conspirejit.” Hence, therefore, that gross, and nearly 
 universal ignorance, which pervades the public mind, in regard 
 of our religion : and hence, also, — as the natural effect of this 
 ignorance, — that heavy and disgusting mass of bigotry, pre- 
 judice, illiberality, ill-will, and injustice, towards both our 
 religion, and its professors, which still disgrace the Pro- 
 testantism of this country. # 
 
 * One of the most eloquent of the periodical writers, describing, the 
 other day, the conduct and characters of the great Protestant body, which 
 is now reviling our religion, — and which would be too happy again to per- 
 secute it, — says : — “ They do more than accumulate inflammatory materials , — 
 they apply the torch. They rail, they insult , they vituperate , they denounce. 
 The character, and the creed, of the Catholic, are perpetual themes, in their 
 mouths, of rancorous declamation. They are as covetous of hatred, as other 
 natures are of love. They lose no occasion of demonstrating to the people, that 
 they are actuated by as fierce a spirit of intolerance , as ever drew sword , or 
 kindled a fagot. Their language is the barking of the bloodhound. Now 
 Popery, now the Papist, is the object of their rabid animosity. Popery 
 is * idolatrous, blasphemous, profane, impious, abominable, damnable,’ and 
 whatever there is else of insulting epithet in the bigot’s foul vocabulary . The 
 Papist is e a bigot; a creature steeped in crime, and superstition,’ to be 
 trampled upon like a slave, or exterminated like a wolf. This is the sum, and 
 
 K 
 
74 
 
 There are, indeed, besides the above causes, several others, 
 which, withholding the public from the study of our religion, 
 account also, more or less, for their ignorance of it. Men do not 
 like to study a religion, which they do not like to practise. And 
 ours is a religion, strict, rigid, and severe. They do not like to 
 study a religion, whose profession, they conceive, would prove 
 injurious to their worldly interests. The philosophy of this 
 world is to provide, first for this life ; afterwards, for the next. 
 And ours is a religion, to which, until yesterday, all the avenues 
 of honour and distinction, all the gates to wealth and opulence, 
 were strictly closed and bolted. They do not like to study 
 a religion, whose adoption, they are aware, would draw down 
 upon them the persecution of their families, and the reproaches, 
 and ill will, of their friends. And ours is a religion, whose 
 adoption — they know it well, — would be sure to bring down all 
 these effects upon them. For, let an individual, — however 
 hitherto beloved, and cherished, become a Catholic, straight his 
 family, and his friends, — such is the general bigotry, are in 
 arms against him ; always insulting, and by no means unfre- 
 quently abandoning him. In short, men do not like to study 
 our religion, because, as our Saviour has said, — u They love 
 darkness better than the light .” Thus are the reasons obvious, 
 why the Protestant is so little acquainted with the truths, and 
 character of our religion ; and why, therefore, he entertains so 
 many prejudices against it. # 
 
 But, as the foregoing observations do not relate at all to the 
 
 substance, of what they vociferate, — the pith , and marrow, of a thousand 
 sermons , and a thousand speeches in church , conventicle, club, 8fc., in town and 
 in country. The whole conduct, and language, of these men is, indeed, 
 brutal, savage, and atrocious. 
 
 * It may be remarked, that exactly in proportion as the Protestants are 
 acquainted with our religion, — so also, with hardly an exception, 
 they respect, and esteem it; and all their hostility, and prejudices against 
 it, completely melt away. Thus, it is the observation of Mr. Hallam, that, 
 in the time of Charles the First, when its doctrines were still correctly 
 known, and understood, by a considerable portion of the nation — 
 “ Nothing excited so much alarm, as the perpetual conversions to the Catholic 
 religion. They became the news of every day. Protestant clergymen, in 
 several instances, but especially women of rank, became proselytes to that 
 religion** He again states, that, “ In the times of Henry, Edward, Mary, 
 
75 
 
 case of your Lordship, so I, therefore, needed not, — ought not, 
 perhaps, to have made them. Wherefore, to resume : — 
 
 “ You are anxious,” you say, “ to know the true faith, and to 
 settle your belief upon the solid grounds of Christian con- 
 fidence, and security.” Well, then, such being your happy 
 disposition, — the question, which I here propose to your serious 
 consideration, is this, — whether you really can acquire that 
 knowledge of the truth, and attain that security, which you long 
 for, by following your own fundamental principles ? What these 
 principles are, I have stated already. They are “ the alleged 
 prerogatives of Christian liberty, — the right of private judg- 
 ment;” and “ the unalienable privilege” as Bishop Tomline 
 calls it, “ of every Christian to form his own religious opinions.” 
 These, indeed, are the very essence, and soul, of Protestantism ; 
 the real grounds of the Reformation, and the only alleged 
 justification of that great apostacy. Their observance by every 
 Protestant is so necessary, that, whoever has not adopted, and fol- 
 lowed them, in the formation of his belief, is — although a Pro- 
 testant, — an inconsistent one. However, before I exhort your 
 Lordship to apply these principles to your own case, I will advise 
 you first to consider well their character, and bearings. For, if 
 they are false , they, then, in this case, can neither impart the 
 knowledge, nor give you the security which you are seeking. They 
 even prove , — since the Reformation is founded upon them, — ■ 
 that Protestantism itself is no other than a baseless fabric. 
 
 It is, then, the duty of every Protestant, or, as Dr. Tomline 
 says, “ his unalienable privilege to form his own religious 
 opinions” Now, my Lord, think you that such a privilege as 
 this is really wise, or yet rational ? For, taking the great herd 
 of society together, — the ignorant, the weak, the vicious, and so 
 on, (for all these, by your charter of the Reformation, are con- 
 
 and Elizabeth , the greater 'proportion of the nobility, and gentry , appear to have 
 preferred the Catholic religion” (Const. Hist.) 
 
 There is another remark of the same learned and candid historian, 
 which is also applicable to the present subject. He asserts, that, “ The 
 whole class of our Antiquaries — the persons, who, beyond all other Pro- 
 testants, are the best acquainted with our religion, — “ scarce keep on the 
 mash of Protestantism.” The fact is, the very stones of our antiquities, and 
 our venerable monuments, speak , and eloquently preach the divine cha- 
 racter of our religion. 
 
76 
 
 stituted the judges, and the arbiters, of their own belief) can you 
 believe, that such individuals are either suited to form, or 
 capable of forming, for themselves a safe code of religious 
 opinions? You cannot, I am sure, believe so palpable an absur- 
 dity, — an absurdity still greater than it would be to ordain, that 
 every man should be his own lawyer, or his own physician; — an 
 absurdity just equally great, and alike cruel, as it would be to 
 place a set of raw, inexperienced landsmen, in an ill-built, crazy 
 vessel, and bid them sail, without anchor, helm, and compass, 
 to India, or the Pole; — no pilot to guide them but their own 
 ideas ; no star to direct them but the visions of their own fancies, 
 and imaginations. The fact is, that even in the most ordinary 
 subjects of literature, there are few, — very few, — amongst the 
 vulgar, or in the general paths of society, who are capable 
 of judging of them, with any thing like wisdom. Hence, then, to 
 constitute all such beings, — as your Charter does, — the arbiters 
 of their own belief, and the judges of the deep, difficult, and 
 mysterious doctrines of religion, — this, to say the least of it, is 
 grossly unreasonable. Whence, also, I here infer, that the very 
 first rule of Protestantism is false ; and not only false, but, 
 moreover, (since it must generate confusion,) irreligious and 
 profane, — fatal to truth, and ruinous to piety. 
 
 In fabrica, si falsa est regula prima. 
 
 Omnia mendose fieri, atque obstipa, necessum est : 
 
 Prava, cubantia, prona, atque obsona tecta. Lucret. 
 
 This is not an inaccurate description of the fabric of Protes- 
 tantism. 
 
 It is true, that, in the foregoing reflections, I have alluded 
 principally to the vulgar, and to the less educated orders of 
 public life, — to the great mass of society. Well, then, to refer 
 now to the more favoured portions of its members, and to the 
 well-instructed, — to individuals, even the most eminent for 
 their talents, and the most distinguished for their learning, — 
 think you, my Lord, I will again ask, that even these are com- 
 petent to the task of framing for themselves, by the observance 
 of your rule of faith, a secure code of Christian doctrines? If 
 you consider the subject candidly, you will not, I am per- 
 suaded, be induced to believe this. For, what is the fact, even 
 in regard of these individuals ? They, not less than the ignorant* 
 
77 
 
 and the uneducated, have, of course, their passions, and their 
 weaknesses, their prejudices, partialities, &c. And these, giving 
 a bias to the mind, and darkening the beams of truth, render 
 hence the acquirement of exact knowledge extremely difficult 
 even to them. And, is it not, moreover, the case in relation to 
 these men, that they too — not less than the vulgar and the 
 illiterate, — possess very different degrees of talents, and very 
 various forms of tastes, notions, and ideas? They see objects, 
 still more than the ignorant, in a far greater multitude of shapes, 
 attitudes, bearings, and relations. Whence, also, it is the fact, 
 that there is no set of men, who differ so much amongst them- 
 selves, or who, by following your rule of faith, have fallen into 
 so many errors, and broached so many false doctrines, as they 
 have done. Why, only make, for a moment, the following 
 supposition : — Let any given number of your most learned 
 Protestant friends, — men, too, distinguished for their abilities, 
 and respected for their piety, candour, and good sense, — let 
 these, — the Bible in their hands, and their commentators, if you 
 will, before them, — sit down seriously to form, each one for him- 
 self, — according to your leading rule, — a code of religious opi- 
 nions. What, even in this case, (for this is genuine Pro- 
 testantism) would be the result? Would their respective codes, 
 or opinions, agree together? No, not so much as any two of 
 them, although it were merely for this plain reason, that no two 
 minds, nor any two men, are alike. Their respective codes, or 
 opinions, would, therefore, differ. Therefore , I again infer, that 
 the very first, and most essential, rule of your religion is alike 
 false, and groundless; whether it be considered as relating to 
 the learned, or regarding the unlearned and the ignorant. For 
 the rule which does not generate truth, unity, and concord, can 
 neither be the dictate of the Divine wisdom, nor be the foun- 
 dation of wise security.* 
 
 * The Charter of the Reformation has always been the theme of the 
 loud, and unceasing, praises of the Protestant writers. It immortalises, 
 they triumphantly contend, its authors ; emancipates men from the yoke 
 of spiritual tyranny ; and restores them to the rights, and privileges, of 
 Christianity, of liberty, and reason. Such, and far more than these, are 
 the eulogies, which we read, and hear, every day, of this “ glorious, and 
 sacred,” instrument. But is it, then, true, that it does really deserve these 
 
78 
 
 If your Lordship admit the truth of the foregoing obser- 
 vations, you must then feel, how unsafe, and imprudent, it is for 
 
 exalted praises ? Why, if it be right to judge of causes by their effects, or 
 of principles by their consequences, it, in these cases, most certainly, does 
 not. Judging of it thus, it is impossible for wisdom not to see, or for 
 candour not to own, that so far from deserving the boasted praises, it is, 
 on the contrary, the very source of confusion, error, and impiety. Never, 
 indeed, did the spirit of irreligion invent any thing more fatal than it is 
 to the unity of truth : nor has the genius of independence ever forged 
 aught, that is more injurious to the harmony of social order. In regard 
 of religion, it is the basis, and the sanction , too, of all those false, foolish, 
 and conflicting, creeds, and opinions, which, every where, — in every 
 Protestant country, — disgrace the wisdom, or defile the sanctity, of 
 Christianity. All these are alike its offspring ; and alike founded upon 
 its principles. It is so, too, with respect to all those dreadful, and pro- 
 fane, systems of infidelity, impiety, and philosophism, which have so 
 deeply undermined, and are labouring so assiduously to destroy, both the 
 fabric of faith, and all the safe-guards of piety, and morals. All these 
 are just equally its creatures; and are, all, just equally grounded upon its 
 maxims. It is, accordingly, solely by its alleged authority, that all the 
 advocates of these monstrous codes, — the Socinian, the Deist, the very 
 Atheist himself, — not only defend, but affect to prove, their respective 
 doctrines. Their doctrines are, in fact, just as consistently founded upon it, as 
 are those of any of the other sects, or religions, of the Reformation. And it 
 is for this very reason, as I have stated before, that it has been, long 
 since, foretold, that Protestantism must ere long terminate in complete 
 Socinianism, — “wof,” as the French Encyclopedists remark, “ for the 
 honour of that religion , but for the credit of its philosophy.” “ What- 
 soever /’ says the impious Bayle, “ 1 either believe , or disbelieve , I believe , 
 and disbelieve, on the principles of Protestantism.” 
 
 In regard of the order of social life. It is here, also, the case, — nearly as 
 it is in the order of religion, — that the chief cause of that restless spirit of 
 insubordination, which is now, and has been long, so prevalent in Europe, 
 are the principles of the Reformation. The effect is only natural. For, if 
 men are instructed, and allowed to believe, and think, as they please, they 
 will soon, also, act , as they please. Action is the immediate result of 
 opinion, and thought. Whence, as for the most part, — seduced by some 
 passion, or other, — men judge, and think amiss, so likewise they act 
 amiss. Accordingly, referring to the epoch of the Reformation, we find, 
 that, no sooner was its boasted Charter proclaimed, and adopted, than, 
 straight, the spirit of independence, and the demon of anarchy, took pos- 
 session of its admirers : and states, once the happiest, and most sub- 
 missive, became the prey to sedition, bloodshed, and rebellion. The 
 works, indeed, of the first Reformers,— independently of their great 
 charter of liberty, — are replete with revolutionary, anti-social, ajid licen- 
 
79 
 
 yourself, — or for any other individual, — to risk the prospects of 
 salvation upon the sanctions of any creed, concocted by the 
 dictates of private judgment, or founded upon the privileges of 
 your ‘‘immortal” Charter. However, as I have said that 
 I would apply those observations to your own case, I will now, 
 for this end, suppose, that, — as a consistent Protestant, — you 
 have, in compliance with your favourite rule, and under its 
 direction, framed for yourself a set of religious opinions, — some 
 kind of creed. I will suppose this, and still farther, that you 
 have done so with the utmost sincerity, and according to the 
 dictates of your very best judgment. All this is real Pro- 
 testantism. Well then, let me, still, ask you: — Are you, after 
 all, satisfied, and convinced ? Are you sure, that your opinions 
 are true? Are you sure, that the sense which you have put 
 upon the texts of your Bible, and applied to its various pas- 
 sages, is their only right sense? You cannot, of course, be 
 infallibly sure, — because you admit no infallibility. But are 
 you prudently sure ? No ; not even so : because the sense, and 
 interpretation, which your Lordship has put upon them, are 
 different from the sense, and interpretation, which, you find, are 
 put upon them by multitudes of individuals, who are at least 
 equally learned, enlightened, and virtuous, as yourself. The 
 real fact is, that the creed, which you have thus made out 
 for yourself, most probably is, — or rather, certainly is,— (as 
 every creed must be that is formed by the dictates of private 
 judgment,) a creed by itself; that is, a creed differing from 
 any, and every, other. For, as all private judgments differ, so 
 also must the opinions, which they generate. Under these cir- 
 
 tious, maxims. “ The political writings of the Reformers, ” says Chalmers, 
 “ were what we now reprobate as Jacobinical, being equally irreconcilable with 
 the principles of established society, as inconsistent with the pure precepts of 
 the Christian religion.” It was, in fact, Luther, Beza, and the gang of their 
 fellow-apostles, that first conjured up from the dark abyss those dreadful 
 maxims of liberty, equality, and the rights of man, which have deluged 
 nations and states in blood ; and which, it is greatly to be feared, are now 
 preparing fresh scenes of misery for mankind. It was after having 
 calculated the bearings of the Reformed Charter, and foreseeing the evils 
 which it was destined to produce, that Melancthon, in the gloomy fore- 
 bodings of his penetrating mind, exclaimed ; — “ Great God , what calamities 
 have we not been preparing for posterity ! }> 
 
80 
 
 curastances, therefore, you cannot, — if you reflect piously upon 
 the subject, — you cannot feel, and enjoy, those calm, and 
 unhesitating convictions , which are the best ingredients of 
 Christian happiness, nor possess that certitude , which is the 
 essential quality of Christian faith. If you possess, — as I trust 
 you do, — any share of humility, you must, in this case, doubt. 
 The belief, indeed, of every Protestant, who has formed his 
 religious notions consistently , — according to the dictates of his 
 own judgment, — is not faith, but opinion ; not certitude , but 
 conjecture ; not enlightend conviction, but sentiment, fancy , or 
 fanaticism. He says, indeed, “ My religion is the Bible” 
 Vain pretext! For, what constitutes a man’s religion, or his 
 belief, is not the dead letter of his Bible, but his own living 
 interpretation of it. In like manner, he calls the Bible his 
 “ Rule of faith.” Illusive idea, again ! For he, in reality, 
 makes his own judgment the rule of the Sacred Volume. And 
 hence, and thus, it is, that the divine but insulted book is 
 made the ground of every form of error, and the alleged proof 
 of every species of absurdity. It is converted into a mantle, to 
 conceal, and cover, every kind of disgusting ulcer. 
 
 XVI. I have, thus far, shown your Lordship two clear and 
 important points; the first, that the belief of every Protestant, 
 in order to be consistent, should be founded upon the dictates 
 of his own private judgment; the second, that such foundation 
 is neither the real basis of Christian faith, nor the solid grounds 
 of Christian security. I have, however, spoken only of con- 
 sistent Protestantism ; of an order of belief, formed according 
 to the leading principles of the Reformation. But so, my Lord, 
 it is : consistency is not any where the prominent characteristic of 
 Protestantism. So far is this from being the case, that nothing is 
 more grossly violated by its Churches, nor less heeded by its 
 members. In regard of the latter, — or of the Protestant public, 
 — your Lordship cannot but know, how very few there are, any 
 where, of those thinking, and reasoning individuals, who, by 
 the process of serious study, and impartial investigation, have 
 either composed their own religious creeds, or who have ever so 
 much as considered the grounds of the religion which they 
 profess. The case almost universally is, that born, and brought 
 
81 
 
 tip, in such and such a sect, they continue,— save when enticed 
 away by the cant, and noise, of some artful fanatic ; or else, 
 charmed away by the eloquence of some favourite preacher, — 
 they continue to live on unconcernedly in it, neither questioning 
 its claims, doubting of its truth, nor yet knowing its real doc- 
 trines. It is so, my Lord, most commonly, in your own Established 
 Church. For, how very few of its members are there, who 
 have ever attentively studied the Thirty-nine Articles of its 
 singular creed? And, what multitudes, again, who have never 
 given themselves the trouble so much as to read them over ? 
 And what, therefore, is the consequence? Why, that, of 
 course, all these live on, and believe, inconsistently ; violating 
 the very first rule, and law, of Protestantism. They live on, 
 and believe, under the influence, and control, of the very rule, 
 and law, which they profess to reject, — that is, under the 
 guidance of authority , — thus observing in practice , what they 
 reprobate in principle . 
 
 But, it is in your Churches themselves, as I have stated, and 
 above all, in your powerful and richly endowed Churches, that 
 these violations of consistency are the most flagrant, and 
 notorious. Your Churches, as your Lordship knows, were, all 
 of them, originally founded upon the ruins of authority, and 
 upon the rejection of all spiritual dominion. Their authors, 
 — your apostles of the Reformation, — indignantly rising up 
 against these, and asserting the alleged rights of Christian 
 liberty, proclaimed loudly, and every where, to the public, that 
 any assumption of authority in matters of faith,— any control 
 of opinion in the doctrines of religion, — are acts of usurpation, 
 and injustice; the infringements, both of the privileges of the 
 Gospel, and of the prerogatives of human reason ; — in short, acts 
 of downright tyranny. Such as these were the principles, and 
 such the language, of the first founders of your Churches. And 
 it was, accordingly, upon the ground of these principles, that 
 they succeeded, early, in attracting followers ; and in forming, 
 ere long, those institutions, which, unhappily for the cause of 
 Christian unity, and truth, now divide, and disgrace, the pure 
 religion of Jesus Christ.* 
 
 * There is no Reformed Church, in which the inconsistency of conduct 
 with principle is more glaring, than it is in the Church of England. This 
 
 L 
 
But, mark now, my Lord, the conduct of these same enemies 
 of authority, and of these heroes of Christian liberty. No 
 sooner had they contrived, by the exertions of their violence, 
 and the artifices of their cunning, to obtain power, and to secure 
 to themselves a commanding influence over the minds of their 
 deluded followers, than straight they began to organise them 
 into Churches; composed for them creeds; imposed upon them 
 tests, and confessions of faith ; issued out canons, the most 
 restrictive, and laws, the most arbitrary and repulsive. They, 
 in short, arrogated to themselves all those same rights, and pre- 
 rogatives, which, until now, they had reprobated so severely, in 
 the Church, which they had just abandoned. Such was the 
 conduct of all the first founders of the Protestant Churches; 
 insomuch, that many of the most ardent, but more consistent, 
 defenders of the Reformation, — deploring the contradictions, 
 and incoherency, of those men, — declared loudly, that they 
 exercised a degree of authority more arbitrary, and tyrannical, 
 than any thing which had been endured under the dominion of 
 the Church of Rome. 
 
 Men may reason as they will : they may reject authority, 
 
 Church, — as all the various Protestant Churches are reduced to do, — 
 admits, and its writers even loudly extol, the rights of private judgment, 
 and the privilege of every Christian to form his own religious opinions. 
 And yet, what, — notwithstanding these fine professions, — is the conduct of 
 this Church? Why, — mark the contradiction: — It not only condemns, 
 but cruelly excommunicates, all those who do so, — that is, all those, who, 
 judging for themselves, form their own religious opinions, — unless their 
 opinions accord exactly with its own. Thus, in its leading canons, it 
 solemnly proclaims, that “ All dissenters ; all deniers of the King’s 
 supremacy ; all impugners of the Church of England, and of episcopal 
 ordinations ; all separatists from its communion : all authors of sects,” — 
 it solemnly proclaims, and declares all these, “ Ipso facto excommu- 
 nicated:” which, in fact, is thus equally declaring them, — according to its 
 principles of excommunication, — in a state of reprobation ! In short, the 
 Church of England claims to itself a measure, and share of authority, 
 which are at least equal to any thing that is assumed by the Church of 
 Pome. It thunders out anathemas ; pronounces censures ; imposes tests ; 
 exacts oaths, &c. Surely, if all this is not a mockery of the boasted 
 liberty of Protestantism, and of its “glorious” Charter, — if it is not 
 a derision of all consistency, — I then leave it to wisdom, superior to mine, 
 to say what is so. 
 
when it suits their purposes ; and, like the first reformers, treat 
 it as an act of tyranny, and usurpation. But, let their purposes 
 be once attained, — let these enemies of authority have once, them- 
 selves, acquired authority, — behold, soon forgetting their former 
 conduct, and declarations, — and spite of all the inconsistency of 
 the thing, — they now arrogate to themselves those very pre- 
 rogatives, and exert all that same control, which, lately, they 
 had condemned with so much violence. Such, precisely, was the 
 conduct of the apostles of the Reformation. They first pulled 
 down authority ; and then, upon its ruins, they built up their 
 own. In fact, this is the history of all successful rebellions. 
 Men rebel, in order to obtain power; and having done this, they 
 then recall those very ties, and re-establish those very fetters, 
 against which they had, themselves, revolted. And as, too, it 
 is in the order of religion, above all, that the control of 
 authority is peculiarly requisite, — since, without it, all soon 
 becomes confusion, and disorder, — so the Reformers, aware of 
 this, — but anxious chiefly to preserve their newly acquired power, 
 — boldly took away that liberty, which they had extolled so 
 ardently; and called back those restraints, which, lately, they 
 had spurned with so much indignation. Such are the grounds 
 of the authority of your Reformed Churches. 
 
 It is your wish to know the truth, and to be secure. Well, 
 then, the question which I now propose to your Lordship to con- 
 sider, is this : — you have seen that men cannot attain any positive 
 assurance of the truth of their religious opinions, — nor, therefore, 
 any real security, — by following the dictates of their own private 
 judgment. You have seen this ; and that your reformers, and 
 your reformed Churches, — violating this great principle of 
 genuine Protestantism, — appeal from it to the principle of 
 authority, — regulating by its mandates, and by the assumed 
 sanctions of its name, — the belief, and professions, of their 
 respective subjects. Wherefore, — having seen this, — the points, 
 which I here invite you to examine, are these : in the first 
 place, to ascertain the fact, whether your Churches,— or any 
 of your Churches, — do really possess that authority , which 
 they thus assume, and exercise : in the next place, to endeavour 
 seriously lo find out, what Church it is, that presents the best, 
 and clearest, claims to this divine prerogative. Such are the 
 
84 
 
 points, which, in your prudence, you should study to ascertain; 
 and which, once ascertained, will prepare for you that security , 
 which you are seeking to attain. “ For, in whatsoever Churchy 
 — in the hands of whatsoever pastors , — that authority is 
 now vested, which Christ once confided to his Apostles , — that 
 Church ALON E is the true Christian sanctuary ; those pastors 
 only are the true shepherds of the faithful” 
 
 It was, accordingly, by this very argument, in preference to 
 any other, that, in the early ages of the Church, its enlightened 
 ministers, and the holy fathers, were wont to repel, and refute, 
 the alleged claims of the pretended reformers, who, in those 
 days, rose up, sometimes, to corrupt the faith, and to disturb the 
 union, of the faithful. “ Who,” they called out to the daring 
 innovators, “ who are you? Who sent you? From what 
 cloud have you fallen 1 From what sea have you emerged ? 
 Who gave you the authority to administer the sacraments, or 
 to preach the Word ? Show your credentials. Produce your 
 title-deeds.” Such as these were the questions, which those 
 wise, and holy men, used invariably to put to the reformers of 
 their times. Do you, therefore, my Lord, employ, and put, the 
 same to your reformers, and to the founders, and pastors, of 
 your Churches. The same, or the like questions, applied to 
 these men, will instruct, and enlighten you, respecting the 
 nature of their claims ; and will serve you, as a clue, that will 
 conduct you to the vestibule of that temple, which is “ the 
 pillar and the ground of truth.” In fact, the above questions, 
 seriously asked, and candidly answered, are, of themselves, 
 amply sufficient to decide the whole controversy, which sepa- 
 rates your Protestant Churches from their parent institute : — 
 since nothing, I repeat it, — is, in religion, more certain, than 
 that whatsoever Church, and pastors, possess that commission, 
 given once to the Apostles, — and which is the sole source 
 of all legitimate spiritual power, — that Church alone is the 
 true “Fold” of Christ; those pastors only are its true 
 ministers. 
 
 Your Lordship is, of course, aware, — for, it is the doctrine of 
 your own establishment, — that the commission, or diploma, of 
 the Apostles, authorising them to govern the Church, was 
 designed to be perpetual , and in a direct line of inheritance 
 
85 
 
 to descend to their lawful successors, till the end of time ; still 
 authorising' these to perform the same sacred functions. “ For , 
 if,” says your powerful reasoner, Law, — “if there he not a 
 succession of men, authorised hy Christ , to send others to act in 
 His name , then both Episcopal, and Presbyterian teachers, are 
 equally usurpers; and as mere lay men as any at all. For, 
 there cannot be any other difference between clergy, and laity, 
 but as one has authority from Christ , to perform offices, which 
 the other has not. But , that authority can be no otherwise 
 had than by an uninterrupted succession of men from Christ, 
 empowered to qualify others. For, if the succession be once 
 broken, people must either go into the ministry , of their own 
 account , or be sent by such as have no more power to send others, 
 than to go themselves. And can these be called the ministers of 
 Chr ist , or be received as his ambassadors ? ” These sentiments 
 of Law are both the dictate of good sense, and of sound theology. 
 For, as St. Paul says, — speaking of the pastoral functions, — 
 “ No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called 
 of God, as Aaron was.” Not even does the Apostle permit 
 any individual so much as to preach,— which is the least awful 
 duty of the sacred ministry, — without a divine commission. 
 “ How,” he adds, “ shall men preach, unless they are sent ?” 
 
 Wherefore, since it is thus manifest, that the authority of 
 Churches, — or of the pastoral ministry, — is essentially founded 
 upon the commission, given originally to the Apostles, and still 
 preserved in the hands of their successors ; so, what alone your 
 Lordship here needs to do, — and the task is an easy one, — is 
 simply to examine, and verify the fact , where, — in what Church, 
 or in the hands of what pastors, — this divine credential is now 
 vested ; whether in any Protestant Church, or in ours ; whether 
 in the hands of your pastors, or of ours. Your prudence will 
 judge, and your candour decide, to which of these the sacred 
 diploma appears the most clearly to belong. 
 
 In the first place, then, with regard to your Protestant 
 Churches, and their pastors, the following is a fact, which your 
 Lordship will not contest : — that so lately as at the opening 
 of the sixteenth century, there existed nowhere, — in no king- 
 dom, nor corner of the universe, — any Protestant Church at all, 
 nor, consequently, any Protestant pastors. Every thing here, 
 
86 
 
 and in all the enlightened parts of the Christian world, was, at 
 that time, Catholic . So that thus, this point at least is certain, 
 — that the origin of your Churches is a recent occurrence, — a 
 circumstance this, which, in religion, is an awkward, and awful 
 thing. “ For” says your learned Bishop Pearson, “ whatever 
 in religion is NEW, is NONE.” The first author of the inno- 
 vation, I need not say it, was Luther. He stood, as himself 
 informs us, for some time, “ all alone ” — u pri?no, solus erarn .” 
 As, however, the spirit of novelty, and innovation, is contagious, 
 and there are, every where, restless, and disordered minds, — so, 
 ere long, he was joined by a set of discontented priests, and 
 licentious friars. Wherefore, assisted by these, and urged on 
 by the impetuosity of his own passions, he soon (for “a down- 
 hill Reformation rolls apace ”) he soon united to himself a very 
 formidable body of adherents; and thus supported, and embol- 
 dened, — spurning now the authority, which he had hitherto 
 obeyed, — he abandoned his parent Church, and set up a new 
 order of religion. His example (such was the character of his 
 principles, and such the effect of rebellion) was early followed by 
 a host of other reformers, who, also, attracting admirers, and 
 having different views of religion from the arch-apostle, as well 
 as various motives, organised new creeds, and established 
 Churches of their own. Speaking of all these men, and of 
 himself, Calvin says of them : — “ We separated ourselves from 
 the communion of the whole world.” Such were the causes; 
 such the date, and origin, of your Protestant Churches, and of 
 their pastoral ministries. 
 
 Wherefore, my Lord, put now to your Reformers, and to 
 their successors, — put to your clergy, any where, — those same 
 questions, which I have just been citing from the fathers, and 
 from the early pastors of the Church. Ask these men : — “ Who 
 are you? Who sent YOU ? Who gave YOU the authority to 
 administer the sacraments , and to preach the Word ? Show 
 your credentials. Produce your title-deeds.” Ask but these, 
 and such like questions. The effect will be, that, confused, and 
 perplexed, you will find no answer that will satisfy you; no 
 argument, that will convince your reason. Thus, when you ask 
 them : — “ Who sent you ? You are lost at once, for want of 
 a reply. You look round you in vain for any thing that resem- 
 
87 
 
 hies, or approaches, to a regular delegation, inherited, in the 
 order of succession, from the Apostles. How then, or whence, 
 can they have derived their presumed authority l Not from any 
 new diploma, or fresh revelation. They do not even allege such 
 privilege. Not from the pastors of any sects, that were similar 
 to their own. There were none such : neither do they lay claim 
 to such line of ancestry. Not from the Catholic Church. The 
 Catholic Church, so far from granting them any authority, on 
 the contrary, took away from them all the authority, which they 
 had hitherto possessed ; and declaring them rebels, pronounced 
 upon them the sentence of excommunication. The pretext, 
 indeed, of deriving any authority from the Catholic Church, 
 (although it has been, and is still, frequently made use of by the 
 writers of the Established Church) is so utterly groundless, and 
 inconsistent, that it was treated by your first Reformers, — by 
 Cranmer, Barlow, and their fellow bishops, — as an absurdity. 
 And those men, accordingly, professed to hold their authority, 
 like so many magistrates, from the Prince. In fact, what can 
 well be more absurd than for any body of men to pretend 
 to derive their mission, or to hold their authority, from a 
 Church, which had cut them off from her communion, and 
 declared them rebels ? Or what more inconsistent, than for 
 such men to affect to claim any mission from a Church, v&hich 
 themselves had pronounced to be the very Church of Anti- 
 Christ, and the sink of idolatry, superstition, &c.? Such 
 Church could possess no mission ; nor, therefore, impart any. 
 So that thus, putting to the founders of your Churches, and to 
 their successors, the questions, which I have recommended, — 
 asking them, whence they have derived their assumed authority, 
 — your Lordship will at once be reduced to feel, how very 
 slender are their claims to any pastoral power, that can pru- 
 dently be deemed divine. In fact, analysing candidly the 
 grounds of their alleged commission, you will find, that these 
 were little else than violence, artifice, insult, and injustice. 
 These, — and the best evidences of history attest the fact, — are 
 the real title-deeds of your Reformers, and their Churches. # 
 
 * The King of Prussia (Frederic) in one of his letters, describing the 
 causes of the Reformation, says : — “ If you reduce the causes of the Refor- 
 mation to their real , and simple, principles, you will find, that in Germany , it 
 
88 
 
 After you have thus considered the claims of your Reformed 
 Churches to that sacred commission, which is the foundation of 
 all pastoral authority, — proceed now to examine those of the 
 Catholic Church. Examine seriously, whether the important 
 diploma does not still remain invested in the hands of our 
 Catholic ministry. If such be the fact, the great question is 
 then decided between your Churches, and ours ; since, what- 
 soever Church possesses the sacred instrument, that alone is the 
 true Church of Christ, and the sole seat of wise security. 
 “ Either this commission ,” says Dr. Daubeny, “ thus regularly 
 handed down to us, is still in force , or not. If it be, then 
 all authority in the Church must continue to he derived f rom it. 
 
 was the work of interest ; in England , the effect of lust ; in France , the 
 fruit of the love of novelty.” “ These assertions ,” says the learned Starke, 
 although a Protestant minister, “ are exactly conformable to the testimony 
 of history.” 
 
 The following description of the formation, and establishment, of the 
 Church of England, is given in one of the late numbers of the Edinburgh 
 Review. It is founded upon the clearest historical evidence ; and is a 
 fair specimen of the men, means, motives, and plans, to which nearly all 
 the Reformed Churches owe their origin, and their triumphs. “ The 
 founders of the Church of England were, a king, whose character may be best 
 described, by saying, that he was despotism itself personified ; unprincipled 
 ministers ; a rapacious aristocracy ; a servile parliament. The work, which 
 had been begun by Henry, the murderer of his wives, was continued by 
 Somerset, the murderer of his brother ; and completed by Elizabeth, the mur- 
 derer of her guest. Sprung from brutal passion, the Reformation here was 
 nurtured by selfish policy. Its principal founders were mere politicians. In 
 regard of Cranmer , when an attempt is made to set him up as a saint, it is 
 scarcely possible for any man of sense, who knows the history of the times well, 
 to preserve his gravity. He was a supple, timid, interested courtier ; and the 
 ready tool of any, who could frighten him. It is not difficult to see, from what 
 motives, and on what plan, such persons would be inclined to re-model the 
 Church. The plan was, merely to rob the Babylonian enchantress of her 
 ornaments, in order to transfer the full cup of her sorceries to other hands, 
 — spilling as little as possible in the way.” Such, as described by a body of 
 learned, and candid Protestants, is the history of the establishment of the 
 Church of England ; such the persons who reared the imposing fabric ; 
 such the plans, the means, and motives, to which it owes its construction. 
 With some shades of difference, they are similar to the instruments, the 
 causes, and the schemes, to which all the first Churches of the Refor- 
 mation owe their erection likewise. Order, piety, and moderation, had 
 no where any part in their formation. 
 
89 
 
 If it be determined, then the Church, and its minis- 
 try, ARE DETERMINED WITH IT.” This is real theology. 
 Accordingly, my Lord, endeavour carefully to ascertain the 
 vitally important fact. Now, happily for the cause of truth, 
 and for the facilities of salvation, it is a point, which it is 
 neither difficult to investigate, nor perplexing to determine. 
 The records of profane history are, alone, sufficient to clear it 
 up. These every where attest, that, at the era of the Refor- 
 mation, the divine Charter did then certainly remain invested in 
 the hands of the Catholic ministry, — as, indeed, if it had not 
 remained there, it must, contrary to the positive assurances of 
 its Divine author, have perished. But, the reality of its con- 
 tinuance there, at the above epoch, is a fact, which is admitted 
 by your own Established Church; and not only, indeed, ad- 
 mitted, but, still farther, strenuously defended : because it is 
 only thus, that its clergy affect, or can pretend, to link them- 
 selves to the apostolic and golden chain of ages. u When the 
 Reformation took place in England,” says Bishop Tomline, 
 “ the bishops , and clergy , were not consecrated , and ordained 
 again. They had received consecration , and ordination , from 
 men, who had public authority given them in the congregation 
 for that purpose ; and to whom the power of consecrating , and 
 ordaining , had been transmitted from the Apostles: and 
 THAT POWER WAS NOT vitiated.” Such as this is the 
 almost universal language of your divines. Wherefore, my 
 Lord, I here again appeal to your candour. It is thus conceded, 
 that, at the epoch of the Reformation, the Divine authority, 
 confided by our Saviour to his Apostles, remained still pre- 
 served in the hands of the Catholic ministry, and remained there 
 even “ not vitiated .” Now, such being the case, can you help 
 feeling, that, therefore, it ought to remain,— and must remain, — 
 there still? For, certain it is, that neither the Catholic ministry, 
 nor the Catholic Church, have, either of them, since the above 
 period, done any thing, that can even seem to have annulled, 
 or forfeited, or yet weakened, the sacred trust. They have 
 continued regularly to be, and are now, what they were at the 
 era of the Reformation, and what they had always been before. 
 So that, if, at that time, the authority of our pastoral ministry 
 was, — as it is conceded, — apostolical, and divine, I then, in 
 
 M 
 
1)0 
 
 this, case, defy any ingenuity to prove, that it is not equally so, 
 at present. And hence therefore again, if it be upon the 
 grounds of authority, that men should build their faith ; or 
 if vour Lordship consider authority, as the surest, and best, 
 guide to the truth, you cannot well, in this case, entertain the 
 slenderest doubt, where, — in what Church, — the sacred attri- 
 bute exists. It exists clearly, — no evidence can be more 
 palpable, — in the hands of the Catholic ministry. It was, 
 accordingly, for this very reason, that the first Reformers, aware 
 of the awkward circumstance, laid it down as the first principle 
 of Protestantism to reject all authority in matters of faith , and 
 to reprobate its assumption, as a violation of the rights and 
 privileges of the Gospel. There is, indeed, nothing so com- 
 pletely ?/rc-protestant, as authority. Whosoever admits it in 
 religion, should be, — and if he were consistent — would be, a 
 Catholic.* But, so it is : consistency is not a Protestant virtue. 
 
 * Reasoning upon this subject, Rousseau has, with much consistency, 
 said : — “ Let any man prove to me, that I ought to obey the dictates of 
 authority , — and to-morrow , I make myself a Catholic. And every con- 
 sistent, and candid , man will do as I do. Quon me prouve , aujourd* hui, 
 quen mature de foi,je suis oblige de me soumettre aux decisions de quelqu’un , — 
 des dernain,je me fais Catholique. Et tout homme consequent, et vrai, fera 
 comme moi * ’ 
 
 The following very sensible, and Protestant, reflections were made, but 
 the other day, by the writer of one of the best periodicals : — “ The essence 
 of Protestantism is, that it appeals from public authority to private conscience. 
 It cannot, therefore, erect tribunals to prescribe a particular creed to that 
 conscience. Is whole justification for its secession from the elder establishment, 
 is the appeal to individual conscience against human authority . It is a 
 SUICIDAL absurdity to attempt to appeal back to human authority from 
 individual conscience. To set up one religion as true , and brand another as 
 false, by law , is to set up a human jurisdiction above the Protestant Court of 
 Conscience. No Christian sect can do this with consistency but the Roman 
 Catholics. If Protestants persist, then, in doing it, they pave the way jor 
 what they profess most to dread, — the return of popery. Let us not 
 halt between two opinions. If we are Protestants, we renounce human 
 authority in matters of conscience. If we are to bow the knee to authority, let 
 us bow it to that, which can claim the best title by prescription. L> t us return 
 to the infallible Church. There is no medium.” 
 
 “ If there must be an external rule of faith,” says Blanco White, — lately 
 one of the champions of the Church of England, — “ if there must be an 
 external rule of faith besides the words of the Bible ; if the mass of Christians 
 
91 
 
 XVI. It is difficult to engage men to renounce errors, which, 
 from education, and habit, they have always cherished ; or to 
 embrace truths, however manifest, which from prejudice, and ig- 
 norance, they have constantly rejected. In these cases, the beams 
 of light fall darkened upon the eye; and the accents of wisdom 
 come weak, and unwelcome, to the ear. As then, notwith- 
 standing your Lordship’s candour, it may so chance, that, owing 
 to some still lingering partialities, or early prejudices, the 
 argument, which I have just employed, may not suffice to 
 remove all your doubts respecting the divine character of our 
 Church, — permit me, hence, to suggest to you, still farther, the 
 few following considerations. I will merely suggest them, 
 because my letter is too long already ; and they are, moreover, 
 considerations, which you may find detailed in some of my other 
 writings. 
 
 There are, then, as your Lordship knows, certain marks of 
 truth, peculiar to the Church of Christ, by which it may be 
 known, and is distinguished, from all the conventicles of error. 
 They are those, which are described in the Nicene Creed, — an 
 instrument, which your Church declares “ is j) roved by the most 
 certain warrants of Scripture ,” and which also it ordains, 
 shall be always recited to you, on all the solemn occasions of 
 your approaching to ‘‘The Communion.” In this instructive 
 document, you are taught to believe, that the true Church 
 of Christ is “ One , Holy, Catholic , and Apostolical .” Such 
 are its essential qualities, and characteristic features. There- 
 fore, my Lord, adopt these as the criterions of your judgment ; 
 and consider seriously, whether they are indeed the distin- 
 guishing attributes of your Churches, or not. They must, of 
 course, be such, if your Churches, — or if any one of them, — be 
 really the true Christian sanctuary. So proceed, for example, 
 thus : — 
 
 “ The true Church is one.” See, therefore, and consider, 
 whether your Churches present any where this blessed one- 
 ness ? Looking at the general state of Protestantism, you 
 behold a scene of the most Babel-like confusion, — religions in 
 
 must submit to the. decisions of another authority , by whatever name it may 
 be called , — Pope, Council , Church , Reformers , — the Church of Rome 
 
 CAN FEAR NO RIVAL. ” 
 
92 
 
 every shape of error ; and so numberless, that no industry could 
 so much as count them up. You seek for unity amongst them, 
 in vain. In fact, the leading principle of them all is the very 
 principle of disunity , and confusion, — the right of private 
 judgment. 
 
 “ The True Church is holy.” And is holiness , then, — 
 again consider, — a very prominent feature in your Churches? 
 Referring to the history of your Reformation, you find, that 
 their first founders were by no means saints ; (Erasmus, who 
 knew them well, says of them : — “ Give them hut wine, and 
 women, — their gospel supplies the rest ,”) and that their foun- 
 dation was the work of violence, and worldly policy. The 
 PECULIAR doctrines of your Reformers, you will find, so far 
 from being holy, were, for the most part, absolutely unholy: 
 whilst in regard to the discipline of your Churches, you will 
 own, that this, — very different from that of the saints, — is every 
 where softened down to an order of practices, and duties, so 
 very easy, and relaxed, that hardly can indolence, or sensuality 
 itself, pretend, or presume, to murmur at their observance. 
 
 “ The True Church is Catholic .” That is, it is the Church 
 of ages , and of nations; and of ages, reaching down from the 
 age of the Apostles; and of nations, diffused through all the 
 regions of the globe. Such is the import of the attribute, 
 “ Catholic .” Therefore, consider what claim your Churches 
 can, any of them, allege to this grand prerogative. Examining 
 the chain of ages, you seek in vain for any Protestant Church, 
 during the long length of fifteen hundred years. Examining 
 the map of nations, you find, that each one of your numberless 
 Churches is confined to a trifling boundary, — to the limits at 
 most of a kingdom, or to the circle of a province. Aware of 
 these defects, there is not so much as any one amongst them, 
 that has ever presumed to arrogate to itself the honourable 
 name of Catholic. 
 
 “ The True Church is Apostolical.” You have already con- 
 sidered the claims of your Churches to this important pre- 
 rogative : and you have remarked, how very slender, and 
 defective, they appear. In fact, the recentness alone of their 
 establishment is, itself, a sufficient proof, that they cannot well, 
 nor consistently, be looked upon, as Apostolical. 
 
93 
 
 When your Lordship has thus considered the nature of the 
 aforesaid attributes, and observed how far they are applicable, 
 or realised in your Protestant Churches, — changing now the 
 scene, cast your eyes upon our Catholic Church ; and examine, 
 precisely in the same manner, how far they appear to you to be 
 applicable, or verified, in it. If the divinity of the Church is 
 really to be traced by the light of those evidences, you will feel 
 little or no difficulty in coming to the determination, to what 
 Church the sacred characteristics, the most obviously, belong. 
 Thus, considering the subject of the true Church’s unity , — you 
 find in our religion the most perfect concord, and agreement, — 
 its members, every where, believing the same doctrines, adoring 
 the same mysteries, and obeying the same authority ; fulfilling 
 exactly that sentence of Tertullian : — “ Hoc sumus omnes , quod 
 et singuli” Consulting the point of holiness , — you discover, at 
 once, that ours is incontestably the Church of the saints ; 
 and that it was by the cultivation of its worship, and 
 observances, that those happy beings were trained to the 
 heroism of virtue, and perfection. Examining the attribute of 
 Catholicity , — you clearly ascertain, even from the mere records 
 of profane history, that ours is indeed the Church of ages, and 
 of nations. Its empire you see flourishing, at every period 
 since the days of the Apostles: its dominion you behold ex- 
 tended through every region of the globe, wherever civilisation 
 reigned. Discussing the prerogative of Apostolicity , — you 
 have already seen, that your own best theologians do not deny 
 to our Church the honour of this grand essential. 
 
 Thus, then, my Lord, if, — as I have supposed, may be the 
 case, — if the arguments, which I have employed to establish the 
 divinity of our Church, from the fact of its possessing that 
 divine diploma, which was once granted to the Apostles, — if 
 those arguments have not sufficed to convince your reason, or to 
 remove your doubts, — behold, in the adoption of the aforesaid 
 criterions, a very simple, and easy, method of attaining the 
 knowledge, which you are wishing to acquire. I do, indeed, 
 think, that adopting those criterions, and applying them candidly 
 to your Churches, and to ours, — you can, in this case, have 
 little or no hesitation,— as I have just now said, in deciding, to 
 which of these the sacred attributes best belong. In your 
 
94 
 
 Churches, you cannot but observe, that the divine features are, 
 either absolutely wanting, or else, miserably defective : whilst, 
 in ours, you find them strikingly conspicuous, and complete. 
 Therefore , my Lord, conviction for conviction, and security 
 for security, can you help owning that the conviction and 
 security of the Catholic are far more solid, and satisfactory, 
 than the flattering, and ill-grounded, assurances of the Pro- 
 testant ? Surrounded by the best evidences of the truth, sup- 
 ported by the strongest attestations of authority, and reposing 
 upon the Rock of Ages, — the Catholic, if well instructed, can 
 experience neither perplexities, nor doubts. Possessing none of 
 these consoling benefits, — having, if he he consistent , no better 
 proof, that his belief is true, and his Church divine, than the 
 dictates of his own private — and therefore feeble — judgment, — 
 the Protestant, under these circumstances, itiust, — if piously 
 thoughtful, — be perplexed ; — must, like your Lordship at present, 
 feel uneasy, and distressed. It is, in reality, upon these 
 accounts, — that is, on account of the slender grounds, and 
 unsatisfactory principles of Protestantism, which neither give 
 any real certitude to belief, nor any wise assurance to the heart, 
 that we have recently seen so many Protestants, — and amongst 
 these, some of the most distinguished scholars in Europe, — the 
 Schlegels, the Hallers, the Schellings, the Mullers, the Stol- 
 bergs, &c., abandoning the errors of Protestantism, and 
 becoming Catholics, — the happy members now, and the orna- 
 ments, of that Church, of which they had been once the severest 
 enemies. 
 
 It is an injury to the cause of charity and truth, that, cheated 
 by the misrepresentations of a bigoted pulpit, and deceived by 
 the lies, and insults, of an interested press, the public, in this 
 country , — with very rare exceptions, — neither know, nor seek 
 to know, aught, concerning the real religion of their Catholic 
 forefathers. Hence, their prejudices, and hostility, against it. 
 Their ignorance, and prejudices, are so much the more criminal 
 and blameable, as every thing in their own principles should compel 
 them ; every thing in our religion should engage them, to study 
 the great subject well. Even the very monuments, which every 
 where surround them, and invite the eye, — their Churches, 
 colleges, &e. — the ivied arches, and mutilated tombs, and 
 
mausoleums of the dead, — all these (they are Catholic) call 
 eloquently upon them, — for they have voices, — to undertake 
 the important task. But, alas! in vain. Imposed upon, as 
 I have just said, by every form of falsehood, and abuse, they 
 are too deeply prejudiced to hear, or heed, the persuasive invi- 
 tation. They shut their ears to the truth, and contemn a 
 religion, in which alone there can exist faith without insta- 
 bility ; conviction without perplexity; peace without uneasiness, 
 and doubt. 
 
 I have said, however, that the above reproaches do not apply 
 to your Lordship. You, more prudent, and enlightened, — eman- 
 cipating yourself from the prejudices of an illiberal education, — 
 have wisely, and with much consistency, undertaken to study 
 our doctrines, and to ascertain the true character of our Church. 
 The consequence has been such already, as might be expected 
 from a mind so open, and sincere, as yours. Already you condemn, 
 with me, the injustice of your own writers; and you even admit 
 the truth of some of our doctrines. These are favourable omens, 
 — the fair dawnings. of brighter days. Only, my Lord, per- 
 severe. Continue the task, which you have thus so happily 
 begun ; careful, meanwhile,— for faith is the gift of God , — to 
 call down by the fervour of your prayers, and the piety of your 
 conduct, the light, and grace, of the Holy Ghost. Do this; 
 and ere long, being thus assisted, you will find, that your few 
 lingering perplexities will vanish ; and from amidst the clouds 
 of error, which have so long hung over you, you will be ushered 
 into “ the brightness of God’s admirable light,” into the delight- 
 ful regions of security and peace. 
 
 In regard of that great mystery, which forms still the chief 
 subject of your doubts, and hesitations, — let your piety begin to 
 view this, not as you have done hitherto, — with the eyes of a 
 philosopher, and through the dark mists of human reason, — but 
 as a Christian, by the light of faith ; and through the beams of 
 revelation, — careful always to remember, that the very essence 
 of the mysterious doctrines of Christianity is their incompre- 
 hensibility. They are even called in the Scripture, “ apparent 
 folly ; the scandal of earthly ivisdom ; the rock, against which 
 the pride of man is split The case is : — we are here, in this 
 life, in a state of trial, and probation; and therefore, in a state 
 
96 
 
 also of darkness, and humiliation. Humility, and obedience, 
 are the chief duties, and the principal characteristics, of the 
 real Christian : and it is in order to inculcate, and enforce these 
 virtues, that the mysteries of religion are imposed upon us. 
 Hence, then, my Lord, instead of proudly endeavouring ta pry 
 into the awful secrets, consult only, as I have suggested, the 
 testimony , or the fact , of their revelation. This is all, that, as a 
 Christian, you should do ; and all even, that, as an imperfect 
 human being, you can do, in order to ascertain the truth of any 
 mysterious doctrine whatsoever. Therefore , in all your succeed- 
 ing inquiries into the doctrines of our religion, adopt, and apply, 
 this said Christian rule : and above all , adopt, and apply it in 
 your inquiry, concerning the great mystery of our altars. Do 
 this : and the result, I have little or no doubt, will be, — such is 
 my reliance on your candour, and the power of grace, — that, 
 soon, you will, with me, believe, and adore, the sacred insti- 
 tution ; and moreover, — as the saints all did, — cherish it, as the 
 dearest object of your piety ; as the strongest support of your 
 virtue ; and as the best pledge of your future happiness. 
 
 Thus, then, my Lord, I have endeavoured, as well as my 
 slender abilities, and feeble health, would allow me, to comply 
 with your too flattering solicitations. I have replied to your 
 objections respecting our doctrines of the Eucharist; and I have 
 pointed out to you the path, which conducts to the sanctuary of 
 the true Church. Happy shall I be, if, by my weak but 
 earnest efforts, I have contributed to relieve your uneasiness ; — 
 too happy, if I have succeeded in reconciling you to the belief of 
 that religion, which was once the comfort, and the glory, of 
 your illustrious ancestors. With this ardent hope, 
 
 I have the honour to remain 
 Your Lordship’s Humble, and Obedient, Servant, 
 JOHN FLETCHER. 
 
 PRINTFD BY A. J. VAI.PY, RFD LION COURT, FI.FFT STRFKT. 
 

 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
BOSTON COLLEGE 
 
 3 9031 
 
 16 : 
 
 967 1 
 
 i Vo gg 
 
 BX FLETCHER. 
 
 2220 
 
 • F55 
 
 Bapst Library 
 
 Boston College 
 Chestnut Hill, Mass. 02167 
 

 
 
 
 * IHl 
 
 i|e«MynHHK % 
 
 w0Wf& = is t 
 
 I ? 
 
 iMSs 
 
 «