Page images
PDF
EPUB

and not without success, against the mystery of the Incarnation itself.

When we bave seen the Redeemer of men, subjecting himself to humiliations, of which we could have formed no idea, and much less have entertained a belief, unless the fact were established on grounds of the most undoubted description, it is not for us to judge of the extent of indignity, to which he can be willing to submit. We have seen him descend from the throne of his glory, to dwell amongst men;-we have seen him introduced into the world, in the midst of every circumstance of humiliation, and of misery; have seen him leading a life of obscurity and of poverty: we have seen him tempted by the Father of lies; we have seen him closing his earthly career in ignominy and in shame; and can we, after all this, feel any degree of surprise, if, for the love of wicked and blasphemous men, he still condescend to submit to many indignities, and to many irreverences, in a mystery, which is designed to display the utmost extent of his love for man kind?

[ocr errors]

- we

If God, in the infinite dispensations of his infinite wisdom, can establish nothing, which is not to be made subject to the petty and the flimsy reasonings of men, then must both Mr. * * and myself, resign many important points of our respective religions. To

**

satisfy this Gentleman, however, let him understand, that the Catholic believes, that the moment the consecrated species are consumed, the presence of Christ's Body no longer is conceived to exist. If every food, which is taken by a human body, must, of necessity, undergo all the operations of digestion, will Mr. ******* have the goodness to explain to you the fate of that food, which was taken by our divine Redeemer, after the period of his resurrection from the grave? I am fully aware of the difference which exists between a human body, in a glorified state, and one, which is yet in a state of mortality. But if this Gentleman's argument can prove any thing. against the real presence of Christ's Body, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, will not the circumstance, in question, be equally conclusive against the event of his resurrection from the dead?

With respect to his observation, on the dangerous consequences, to which it may be exposed, from the attempts, such as he imagines, of vermin of any description, it may appear, perhaps, to possess some degree of ingenuity, in the judgment of its author. But surely it is not by the prospect of such imaginary and uncertain contingencies, that any man of impartiality, and of wisdom, will decide on the merits of this important question: nor can I conceive, that any man will be bold enough to contend, that such events, were

they even to occur, can go to overthrow a doctrine, which is so strongly supported by the authorities of Scripture, and by the almost universal belief of every denomination of Christians in the world.

In the consideration of the various proofs, on which the Catholic is led to ground his belief of the real presence of Christ's sacred body, in the Eucharist, I will not refer Mr. ***

to the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John, as it is possible, that, like many other advocates of protestant faith, he may not be disposed to admit its reference to this particular subject. But the language of the three other Evangelists is so very strong, in its favor, and so uniformly the same, and the language of St. Paul, is so very similar to their's, that to me it appears, as it ever has done to Christians, in general, to establish the doctrine of the Catholic Church, on a ground, which no man, I think, can either safely or wisely reject.*

The difference of opinion which exists between Mr. * and the Catholic Church, on the subject of the real presence of Christ's Body, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, arises

Math, xxvi. 26, 28.

Mark xiv. 22, 24. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 1 Corinth. xi. 24.

from the different and opposite senses, in which the words of Christ, employed in its institution, are received by the advocates of those respective opinions. That Gentleman, supported by the authority of a small number of modern individuals, maintains, that those words are to be understood in a figurative sense; and he endeavours to establish his opinion, by a variety of passages from Scripture, which it is allowed universally, can admit only of that figurative sense. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, with all the great and virtuous characters of Christian antiquity, contends, that those words are to be received, in a literal sense, and that they must have been thus understood by the Apostles, who were present, on the occasion of their utterance, and who cannot be supposed to have been ignorant of their true and real meaning.

By every man, I presume, who feels any interest, in the cause of religion, it will be admitted, that the subject in question, is one of the very highest importance: and in proportion to that importance, it must be of consequence, that the minds of men, concerning it, should be carefully guarded against even the remotest danger of error. If ever, indeed, it was necessary that Christ should speak in terms, which are clear and distinct, or if every obscurity ought to have been cautiously avoided, certainly it was on a solemn occasion,

like that, on which he established one of the most sublime of his mysteries.

If the Apostles had understood the words in question, in any but a literal sense, can it be supposed, that with so much uniformity they would have recorded the circumstance, without one syllable of comment, or one word of observation? It is a fact, which is worthy of notice, that a variety of not unimportant circumstances, relating to the person of our Saviour, or to other subjects of religion, are recorded by some of the Evangelists, and that those circumstances are entirely passed over, in silence, by each one of the others. The event of the Annunciation:-the appearance of angels, at the hour of our Saviour's birth; the ceremony of his circumcision;-the prophecy of Simeon and of Anne in the Temple: are circumstances, of which we find no mention, but in the Gospel of St. Luke. Matthew, on the other hand, is the only one, amongst the sacred historians, who records the apparition of an Angel to Joseph;-the adoration of the wise men;-the flight of the infant Jesus, into the kingdom of Egypt;-the event of his return into the city of Nazareth;-the despair of Judas;-The imprecation of the Jewish people on themselves;-the sealing of the sepulchre;and the form of the Sacrament of Baptism.

[ocr errors]

St.

With this consideration, in view, we can hardly

« PreviousContinue »