IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 l.i 1.25 2.5 2.0 us 110 ^li^ llll V .v .•^ /A Photographic Sciences Corporation •".^> W.^ « 33 WIST MAIN STRHT WMSTIR.N.Y MSaO (71*) •73-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHJVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches., Canadian In^tUuia for Historisal Microreproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions hittoriquas Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtaih the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Instltut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. ["71 Coloured covers/ I "^l Couverture de couleur D D n n Covers damaged,' Couverture endommagie Covers restored andA r laminated/ Couverture rostaurde et/ou paiiicuSSs Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows cr distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long d3 la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanchos ajouties lors d'une restauration apparp'ssent dans ie tsxte. mais, lorsque cela 6iait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 4t4 film^es. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur n Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pag^s restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pellicul6es I t/ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ L^ Pages ddcolor^es, tachet^es ou piqu-' os □ Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes [Zl D D Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppiimentaire Only edition ava'^abSe/ Seule Edition disponibSe Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement oLscurcies par un feuillet d 'errata, une pelure, etc., ont M film^s A nouveeu de fa^on A obtenir la meilleuie image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentairea.- This item is filmed at the reduction ratio chocked below/ Cft document est filmx d'illustration, soit pa: !e second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont tiimds en commen^ant par ia premidra page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — •» signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., |;euvent Stre filmAs A des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmi A partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche & drcite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrarnmes suiv&nts illustrent la mithode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 iS ^ f^ lS. dissertation ON THE EUCHARIST, % WHEREIN ARE PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. THE REA^L PRESENCE, AND THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. BY B,E^V". Pt- I-CEIuEtlEn, :p3R OF R. C. C. Feimissu Sut>enoritm. 1872. ADVERTISER 3TEAM PRESSES, RICHMOND STREET, LONDON. jiluMii. «* fW Ei i nni MW ■■■ift *■""*" ^*i' w l^'»J/i i Itl PREFACE. It is scarce necessary I should inform my readers, the proofs of the Real Presence and of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which are adduced in the following brief summary, will be found orthodox, and entirely in accordance with the teachmg of the Church. It will appear they are founded on Scripture and tradition not only, but are even the result of perusing extracts on the same subject, taken from the writings of the most approved, of the most distinguished Theologians, whom God has raised up in a special manner, to defend his doctrine. The compiler has ventured no opinion of his own ; he has merely condensed the arguments, ot the most eminent Doctors "aforesaid — schokrs, who by their vast erudition by their profound research have placed the Real Presence, the Mass, every dogma of faith, above all cavil exception and contradiction ; from these shining lights who have so illumed the Catholic Church by their teaching, who have shed so much lustre on the Christian world by their doctrine, has he lit his faint lamp, from them has he derived his glimmer of know- it also observed he has the satisfaction of inform- readers, this, his unpretending little work, is printed with the permission of three learned dignitaries of the Church. May it prove acceptable to a charitable public ; true, it is a feeble essay in the way of literature. "It is a grain in the balance." "It is a jot, an iota," to the treasure of science. But we are to call to mind, notwithstanding the rich in the abundance of their wealth sacrificed to the Lord of the Temple, whole heca- tombs of bulls and goats, the same good Lord would vouchsafe to ac- cept from the poor man the slight offering of a kid ! Let us imitate the condescension, the benignity and mercy of our Creator, like most dear children, as the Apostle writes : Estote ergo imiiatoms Dei^ sictit filii charissimi. — Ep. Ephcs.^ 5 c.^ tv. burning ledge. Be fng his i> I I • ■. 1^ V, ' •} , : I '' ' ,..,' ■ t . ■ f t .; ,i t - * > LucAN, Province of Ontario, i ' J ." March 20, 1872. laus Deo. Chapt. I. An intel'igible and concise dissertation on the Sacrament and Sacri- fice of the P2ucharist in which are proved, ist. The truth of the Real Presence ; 2nd. The truth and reality of the Sacrifice of the Mass, by arguments derived frorr* Scripture tradition and prescription. It is not necessary to use a long preface, no nee J of spinning out a proposition to much length in order to comprehend the impor- tance of the subject which is to be discussed, and treated on ; the Sac- rament and Sacrifice in which J. Christ effuses and reveals the treasures of his love, power and mercy, will be our theme ; the Sacrament and Sac- rifice which may be deemed the sum and completion of all his wonder- ful works for our salvation. isr PART. . ^ THE VARIOUS NAMES OF THE EUCHARIST. The many names of the P^ucharist are derived from the various things . and circumstances which are connected with it and are wont to be ob- served in it ; ist, from the act by which it is consecrated. It is denominat- ed "Eulogia," or benediction from the scope of that act; it is often called the •' Eucharist," or thanksgiving; because at its institution, Christ, our Lord, " gave thanks," Matt. 26, and because by its obla- tion not any act of religion,better adapted adequately to thank God and to obtain liis fiivors; 2nd, from the matter of which it is made, we call it the bread of the Lord, the bread of Heaven, the bread of Angels ; 3rd, from what is contained in the Eucharist, it is called the body of Christ, the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, the most august Sacrament ; 4th, from the time and place of its institution, it is oflen denominated the Supper and Table of the Lord; by analogy some call it *Agapa,' or love, because it was distributed at the Love Feasts of the Primitive Christians; 5th,trom those who receive it,it is termed 'Synaxis,' a word which signifies uniting and collecting together, because the faithful when assembled received it, because by receiving it, they become united with Christ; and among themselves as members of his body, they become united in the strictest bonds of charity. This is what we are taught by the following wor<4s of St.. Paul : " Because one bread, one body, we many are, for wc all j)artake of the one bread" \i Cor. 10, 17). From its eftects it is said to be the Sacrament of Grace, the support of life, in the strength of which wc journey to a happy eternity ; 6th, from its figure it is called the Pasch, Pascha. '^:m. V I HK VARIOUS nOURKS OF THE EUCHARIST. v,.,<*^i r; j^ In the old law there were illustrious figures of the Eucharist ; ist, the matter of the bread and wine was prefigured by the oblation of Melchizcdec (Gen. 14). The loaves of proposition to be eaten solely ' i\ %r-_ <^-> -B. •*«',*- - ( * ■ • 'I t bv the undefiled, were a figure of the Eucharist (i Kings, c 21). The bread of the first fruits, the hearth cake, which Ehas ate, and in the strength of which he journeyed forty days till he reached Mount Horeb (3 Kings, 19), where also figures the Eucharist. By reason of the flesh and blood of Christ contained therein, all Sacrifices of the old law prefigured the Eucharist. This is to be understood especially of the Sacrifice of Expiation, the most solemn of them all, with regcrd to effect • it was foreshadowed by the Tree of Life planted by the Lord in the midst of Paradise, as the medicine of immortality. It was prefigured by the manna which served the Hebrews for food forty years in the desert. We have an illustrious figure of the Eucharist in the Paschal Lamb. ist. In the lamb itself slain and eaten. 2nd. In its blood with 7vhkh the door-posts were sprinkled, for protection against the exterminating angel. 3rd. In the unleavened bread used on the occasion of eating the Paschal Lamb. By these three tilings it was signified Christ was not only to be spiritual food in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but also, that he was a victim appyling to us his merits ; finally thai the matter of which it is to be made would be unleavened bread and the juice of the grape (Exod. 19). The Holy Fathers treating of the Eucharist, often allude to these figures. A tion.— The true sense of the 6th chapter of' John cannot be truly' •y^ ' estimated unless its various, parts are carefuly distinguished ; they are ^ the ;ssly him in- ifter :iple dis- stor 3. The I St part extends to verse 25 and has reference to the material food with which the Redeemer fed about 5,000 men ; the second extends from verse 25 to verse 51, and has reference to spiritual food, or to a belief in the word Incarnate, for thus Christ speaks of himself (v. 35): " I am the bread of life ; he who comes to me will never hunger ; he who believes in me will never thirst." The third part commences with verse 51, and continues to the end. The Sacramentarians would have this 3rd part, a continuation of the spiritual sense of eating Christ by faith in the word Incarnate ; while on the other hand, almost all Catholics believe, it means the real eating of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament. I sair almost all Catholics, because there were found a few, who, to escape the solution of the arguments which are made against Communion in one kind, and which they deemed too difficult of solution, would fain admit Jesus Christ, in chapter 6th of John, did not speak of or at all allude to the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist. With well merited severity Maldonat " rebukes such temporizers" for thus speaking. He says : " Against the sense of Scripture, against the interpretation of the Holy Fathers, .against the tacit, yea, rather the expressed consent of the Church;" his censure is not deemed severe by most competent authority, and justly as scarce any opinion could be more opposed to the divine word. The section of the 6th chapter of St. John, on which is founded an indubitable proof of the Real Presence begins thus {^-^^ " The bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." "TEeJews therefore strove among themselves, saying, how can he give us his flesh to eat ? Then Jesus said to them, •* unless you will eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you wiU not have life in you ; my flesh is meat indeed, my blood is drink indeed ; he who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him." Therefore many of his disciples hearing, said, " this is a hard speech, and who can hear it ?" but Jesus knowing within himself his disciples murmured about this, said to them, " doth this scandalize you ? If then you will see the Son of Man ascending where he was before." These words quoted from the 6th chapter of John are most clearly to be referred to the Eucharist, in which case they prove the Real Pres- ence to a demonstration ; from the tenor of the words themselves, they are to be referred to the P^ucharist, as likewise from the consent of tradition, and from the inconvenience which would result, if Christ did not there speak of the blessed Eucharist, he speaks of a new kind of food, of a gift to be conferred at a future time ; " the bread which I will give is my flesh." He would not thus speak of heiftg eaten by faith ^ or of beliving in his incarnation, which bread, not he, but his father, hath already given, as may be learned from verse 32, and which the Apostles did already eat, and all who believed in him. That this new bread is the Eucharist, is evident from the words flesh and blood, eating and drinking^ so often repeated. Words more appropriate, more clear, could not be used to demonstrate the Eucharist, which consists in eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus Christ. If the Divine Redeemer i/,ri'i-^ M ;11 ^^ \ 8 1 1 ' at a time subsequent, did not institute a Sacrament, under the species of bread and wine, we would endeavor, somehow, applymg it to his death, to ea" his flesh and drink his blood, by faith ; but when after the lapse of some time he instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist in which we so manifestly, so truly eat and drink, it would not seem wise forsak- ing the intepretation which is clear, intelligible and easy, to adopt that which is obscure,metaphorical and difficult to be -onceived in the mind. Maldonat. ^ ■ . . .. »>,u'^i.j The constant tradition of the Church has explained these words of the Evangelist, as referring to the Eucharist. Maldonat quotes over 30 I^tin Fathers who so interpret them ; he moreover adds, the whole catalogue of Greek Fathers are of the same opinion, even as often as this chapter is mentioned by the Councils of the Church, they refer it to the Eucharist. . '" ' " fiil i:. I St. The Council of Alexandria proves the truth of the Eucha- ristic Sacrifice from these words: " Unless you will eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you ;" from the same words, the 2nd Gen. Council of Nice proves the unbloody sacrifice of the altar, to be the true and rea) body of Christ. Finally the Fathers of the Council of Trent refer to the Eucharist the words " unless you will eat the flesh of the Son m f Hi ' m f 't distorted explanations of this discourse to make it apply to the Incar- nation ? That the words of promise (John vi.) designate (mean) a real oral presence in an obvious and natural sense is proved from the scandal ot the Caphernaites, and from Christ's answer, as long as he said of him- self only "I am the bread of life;" oi this the Caphernaites did no^ complain, until he added, "who has come down from heaven," then they munnur and say, " Is he not the son of Joseph? '- •' '"^ How then doth he say I have come down from heaven ?" (v. 42). But as soon as he informs them " the bread which he will give is his flesh, ' then the Jews contend fierce among themselves, some affirming it, some denying it and saying with contempt, " how can he give us his flesh to eat ?" (v. 53). Now the questicn changes, a doubt of a new kind arises, viz., concerning the eating of his flesh which Christ proposes, and which they deem impossible, wherefore they no longer understand a mere spiritual eating of his flesh and blood, which a/ore they heard without a murmur ; but they understood a real oral eating of him in the Sacra- ment, and what is the rep"./ of J. Christ's ? So far from removing this new kind of doubt, which would be very easy to do if he meant a figura- tive presence, he confirms it the more by repeating four or five times, " his flesh was to he cat and his blood was to be drank" y. 54, 55, when his saying seemed hard to many of his disciples, who, in consequence • of there believing in him, had already eaten him by faith ^ and, notwith- standing, murmured at this, he by no means proclaims to them ; his style of speech (his manner of speaking) was but a more ample, a more full explanation of that eating by faith which they had already acknowledged ; on the contrary, he thus addressed them : " Doth this offend you, what then it you will see the Son of Man ascending where he was before ?" as if he would say, according to the interpretation of the ablest commentators, " this scandalizes you,while yet I am with you, that I, personally present, assume to give you my flesh to eat and my blood to drink ! How much more incredible will it seem to you when you will see me ascending into heaven, and when I will be absent from this earth." These two explanations of the words of Christ, well suited to the subject on which he treated, evidently confirm the meaning of the Real Presence. When his Disciples hesitated to admit the truth of his promise, he confirmed them by the future miracle of his ascension. Now, would it be necessary to have recourse to so great a miracle to confirm them in the belief of eating him spiritually by faith, es- pecially when we consider the great many miracles he had already performed, and particularly the miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes? , It is evident, then, both from the scandal of the Caphernaites, and from the Redeemer's answer to them, his words of promise in reference to the Eucharist, signify a real oral eatinsr and drinVinii ^f his f!<»«8H pnd blood. " Objections many are made against this proof : we are told what is read in chapter vi. of S. John, even from v. 52 to the end, may be easily Wrnw^ II ■^y-\ understood of a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. In Scripture the metaphor often occuis which signifies faith in God or in Christ, when the words *' food, and drink, bread and wine " refer to them, thus in Proverbs, chapter ix., it is written, " come ye, eat my bread, drink my wine which I have mixed for you." J. Christ, in his discourse with; the Samaritan woman indicates the grace he will give by the words, " water and springing fountain," nay, in the very chapt. of John, he uses the metaphor of receiving him by faith, e. g., "this is the bread descending from heaven, if any person 7m// <:af of it^ he will not die," v. 50, 51, in the same sense. Revel, xxii, 17, it is written, "let him who thirsts come, let him who will, receive the waters of life freely." 2nd. The argument derived from Christ's speaking in the future is of no avail, " to wit," " the bread which I will give you." In verse 27 he spoke of a food which the Son of God was to give ; this food signi- fies good 7vorks, of this he informs us himself, saying, " labour not for the food which perishes, but for that which remains to life eternal, which the Son of Man will give you." P'inally Christ declares, v. 57, "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him," and this mutual abiding of Christ in him " who eats him, and of the person eating him in Christ, is entirely spiritual, so is also the eating. That these and similar objections may be solved, it is to be noticed the force of our proof or argument does not depend on the explanation of one or more words, but rests on the continued interpretation ot the 3rd part of the 6th chapt. of S. John, which is the more notable part ; now every verse of this third part, taken collectively or separately, lend each other mutual assistance to indicate the manner of Christ spoken of in the 3rd part, is entirely different from that eating which is mentioned in the preceding part, wherefore although faith in God, or in the word Incarnate, may be sometimes designated or expressed by the terms "eating and drinking," "wine and water." It does not follow these meta- phors would be multiplied and accumulated in the continuation of the 3rd part of 6th John, to signify merely a spiritual eating ot Christ, or faith in him. Answer to 2nd objection. — There evidently Christ speaks in a meta- phorical sense, when he bids his hearers " labour for the bread which perisheth not ;" they who stood present understood him to speak of good works, which sens« he himself confirmed afterwards, if he adds, " he will give this food ;" by this he would have it merely to be under- stood, all good wo.ks derive their value or fruit from the anticipated merits of his own future passion. Answer to 3rd objection. — When Christ informs us " he who eats his flesh and drinks his blooc', abides in him and he in the perpr^n " who receives, here he speaks of the effects of the FAicharist, whici. are spiritual indeed, whilst at the same time the eating of him is net spiri- tual, thus in Baptism and in the other Sacraments, grace is not derived from an external and material rite. Many of the Floly Fathers from these words of Christ inferred, not only a xpiritual abiding of him in us, but a real indwelling of him in ths person who receives him in the i'l* 19 1] ill Eucharist, for in this Sacrament the eating of him is real ; it is thus Cyril, of Alexandria, explains the words of Christ. .,^^^. It is objected the Caphernaites could not understand Christ to speak' of a veal oral eating of him in the Eucharist, without understanding he meant they were to eat and drink his flesh and blood, as if he were a slaughtered victim ; yet this erroneous meaning of his words Christ did not correct. 2nd. Without justice, it is said, Christ did not correct this sense of the real eating of him, which the Caphernaites ascribed to his words. He expressly excludes that sense in the following text : " It is the spirit (|uickeneth, the flesh availeth nothings the words which I have spoken are spirit and life," 63. ' " • 's ^; ?' 't : 'fl»*;» *i>"* x jf!;:;' 3rd. The Caphernaites, understanding how sublime the mysteries were which he propounded to them, should prudently wait for an explanation ere arriving at any conclusion, and, therefore, though the sense they attached to his words was false, Christ was not obliged to correct it nor to explain himself more fully. » , . vf ^•;|(^jv- f,-;:' To these objections, answer is thus made* ist. The Caphernaites could not understand Christ to speak of a real eating of his flesh, with- ■ out inferring the eating of him was to be bloody, because they rashly ■ interpreted and pronounced on the manner of eating him, of which Christ did not say a word. JIo7c>, or in 7c>Aaf manner he was to be eaten they should not examine into. The fearful error of these people regarding the bloody manner of eating Christ's flesh, as is eaten the flesh sold at the shambles, arose from their proceeding beyond the. meaning of Christ's words; in the clearest, plainest words, he informed • them " his flesh was to be eaten ar.d his blood was to be dtank,'' really, truly and substantially ; as to the manner in which he was to be eaten, he observed entire silence ; the kind of eating which first occurred to their mind, vi^., that he was to be eaten like common food, was absurd, and should at once be rejected, considering the person of him who spoke, who declared his mission to be divine, and proved it such by innumerable miracles. The error, then, is to be imputed to them- selves and not to the Divine Redeemer — nor was he obliged to correct their error by explaining to them the mode in which he was to be eaten. • '■ • .v , f • .;;-*'.;.. Answer to 2nd objection : The words which Christ speaketh (v. 64), •' It is the spirit gives life ; the flesh availeth nothing," are to be under- ! stood as a general sentence by which he breaks off" his di=->urse, and • bids his hearers remember " the mysteries of God are not to L/ judged according to human reason, but are to be believed on his authority . revealing them." In this chapter, whenever Christ speaks of his flesh he mvariably uses the pronoun " my "—my flesh, my blood, the flesh of the Son of Man, his blood~\>\\\. in this passage without the pronoun " my;" he merely afiirms " the flesh availeth nothing;' therefore he does not speak of his flesh, but of carnal aff"ections. In the same sense the Apostle Paul writes (i Cor. u, r4): ''Animalis homo non penipit ea qua • sunt sptntus Dei;'' 1. e., the natural man receives not the things which are of the Spirit of God. Even if these words were to be understood / 13 VI to as referring to the flesh of Christ, the only inference deducible from it is, the real eating of his venerable flesh in the Sacrament will avail us nothing, unless we receive Christ in spirit and in faith, and this no person will deny. • Answer to 3rd objection: It is false to say Christ was not obliged to correct the sense of a real and oral manducation of his flesh and blood, which the Caphernaites ascribed to his words, although it were erron- eous ; because on account of the sublimity of his doctrine, they should prudently wait for some explanation, of the sense in which he spoke before making any assertion, before arriving at any conclusion regarding it. From such a principle it would follow the Apostles were not to believe Christ concerning his divinity, his death, his resurrection, his ascension, concerning regeneration, &c., until he explained to them how these mysteries were to be fulfilled. Nothing more preposterous could well be imagined. ,;;;;■;/"'"' ; .; '\ It is urged still J. Christ may not deem it expedient to correct the sense of a real oral eating of him, which the Caphernaites attributed to his words, although it were false, for on a similar occasion, after expelling from the Temple "those who sold oxen and dove, and sheep," being questioned by the Pharasees "what sign showest ihou to us, seeing thou doest these things?" Jesus answered and >aid, " destroy this Temple, and in three days I will build it." (Jn. ii, 18, 19.) These words of Christ the Pharasees indubitably understood of the material Temple ol Jerusalem, and that there may not n main a shadow of doubt of the sense in which they understood them, they answered " 46 years was this Temple in building, and thou sayest in three days I will build it again." Yet this erroneous sense of his words Chris-, did not correct. So in like manner he was not obliged to correct the false sense which the people of Caphernaam ascribed to liis words. Answer. There is a disparity, the cause of whicit is threefold, ist. The person which Christ represented on both these ot casions was entirely different. 2nd. His manner of acting was- different. 3rd. 'i'he event was manifestly different. In his discourse to the people of C^aphernaam (Jn. vi.), he spoke in the person of a divine teacher, whose duty was openly to announce his doctrine, on whom it was incumbent to pro- pound it clearly, distinctly and in words easily understood by his hearers ; whereas in the Temple, being insolently (|uestioned by the Pharasees in what power he drove out the bu\ers and sellers, he enigmatically answers them by referring to the .sign of his future resur- rection, which he was wont to give as the most Nplendid argument (proof) of his divine mission ; but always in phrase shrouded in obscurity, lest the mystery should be divulged bclore the due time ; accordingly in Math. xii. he proclaims it under the figure " of Jonas the Prophet who was in the whale's belly thrte days and three nights." 2nd. Far different did Christ act on those occasions, which are com- pared. In the Temple, when the Jews understood him to speak of the material Temple ot Jerusalem, he did not add one word to confirm this ?Ml u ^ ;.i ! . h k %i i \ V-i § 14 sense or meaning, whereas the real oral sense which the Caphernaites attributed to his words, he confirmed time and again, and in terms so clear, so patent, that many of his Disciples who had thus far believed in his teaching, now " went back and walked with him no more." 3rd. Very different the event, great the disparity in what followed : the tr .0 sense of Christ's answer in the Temple was ascertained after his resurrection, ''for when he arose from the dead his Disciples remembered he spoke this of the temple of his body, and they believed the word which Jesus hath said." (Jn. ii., 22.) But in the four Gospels we read nothing before or after his resuri-ection which would explain his words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, in a figur- ative sense, or that they signify " to eat and drink him by faith." Indeed, this real oral eating of him is confirmed by the Apostle Paul as (i Cor. xi., 24) will be proved ; no comparison then can be instituted between the answer of Christ in me Temple to the Pharasees, and his discourse to the people of Caphernaam, concerning " eating his flesh and drinking his blood." John 6. Some objections are proposed from the writings of the Holy Fathers,but a few principles will solve them. ist. They of the Fathers who fi-om the words of Christ would seem to exclude the Real Presence, or eating his flesh and drinking his blood, verily and indeed, exclude it only in the sense of tlie Caphernaites, who believed the eating to be bloody, or that his body was to be eaten, as persons eat the flesh which is bought and sold at the market, that his flesh was to be masticated with the teeth ; 2nd. Admitting the literal sense of the words of Christ, understanding them to mean a real eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, nevertheless the F athers could interpret them in a mystical sense, which would refer to a spiritual eating through faith when a dogma is safe; the Fathers often indulge their fancy in elucidating a mystical meaning from it, when seemingly necessary for the advancement of Christian morals, so vS. Augustine in particular is to be understood. — De I^ Houge. 3rd. The Holy Fathers, it is to be admitted, did not argue much to prove the Keal Presence from the 6th Chapt. of S. John, but from this it must not be inferred they did not understand the words of Christ in their obvious and literal sense, or that they did not believe in the Real Presence, takinjjf into account the persons whom they instructed, they belie', ed a more ready, a more convincing proof could be derived from the words of Jnstitution,which are so plain as to need no comment or explanation. Wittaseand Collet, Theolog. , . 'f-^<»\:SA:-.-,r *■■»•,? •. ■ , 2ND PROOF. ,r: -m. 'Mt.< Ih ,<;»'t»Sf THE RKAL I'RK.SKNc 1. PROVED FROM THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. -^r The institution of the Blessed Sacrament is thus related by S. Matthew, chap, xxvi, 26, " As they were supping, Jesus took bread and broke and gave to his Disciples, and saith this is my body, and taking the chalice he gave thanks and presented it to them saying, for this is my blood of the New Testament which will be shed for many, unto the remission of '^W 15 sins." Almost the same form of words occurring in Marc. c. xiv., in Luc. c. xxii., in ist Ep. of Paul to Cor. c. xi. : The words, " this is my body^ this is my bloody* incontrovertibly prove the Real Presence in the sense of Catholics ; this is so true that if J. Christ were resolved to reveal this dogma, if he intended proclaiming it to mankind, he could not use clearer or more expressive words. Let us suppose Christ, when at the marriage of Cana in Galilee, he changed water into wine, pointing to the waterpots with his hand hath said, " this is wine !" who of those present on the occasion would any longer suppose there was water in them? Would not all believe they contained wine ? Now the words of Institution have the same force, the same significancy to prove instead of bread and wine, we have present the body and blood of Christ; they so proclaim, so express a reality of presence that he indeed must do violence to his judgment who under- takes to change this sense. All Christians down to the 9th Cent, understood these words in the sense of the Real Presence — John Scotus, and he alone, explained them otherwise, after the lapse of 200 years — Berengare followed in the devious course of John, whose error, abjured by himself, Carlostad, Ecolompad, Zuingle, renewed in the i6th century. The latter informs us he subjected his understanding to the rack (to torture), that he may discover how to change these words from their plain literal sense of a real presence to an obscure and equivocal figure, or " trope'' Luther would seem to believe in the Real Presence. "This I will not deny,"he says, •' if Carlostad or any other man these 5 years passed could persuade me in the P^ucharist there is nothing but bread and wine, I would feel indebted to him for a great favour, in this affair labouring much, with all my nerves on the stretch to extricate myself (from the sense of the Real Presence), as I wfcll knew this would greatly incommode the Papacy; but I see myself caught and no way of escape left, the text of the Gospel being too plain, too manifest, and not to be changed, much less can it be wrested into a figurative sense by words and glosses." — Author of Perpetuity of Faith, 'J'om ist. Finally the Sacramentarians themselves bear testimony to the fact, the wordr, of Institution not only savour of a Real Presence in the Eucharist, but are fraught with it, for having denied the Real Presence they have laboured hard to find some reality, some meaning in the words, which howsoever they explain (besides the true way), have nothing in them real or solid. Whence come their many and vain attempts to explain these words, unless from the fact that they obtrude on them even against their will, the sense (meaning) of a Real Presence ? — Bossuet. Christ intended and wished the words which he spoke when insti- tuting tiic 1 Oucharist, would be understood in their obvious and natural sense. ^ '■>,•<;;■-"••('..■■ r '/ To undertake to prove this, as if there could arise any rational doubt concerning it, would indeed be an affront to divine wisdom, as in a matter of such importance it could not be supposed or believed, God \n'-\ ■■■■ ■i: I .■. i6 so spoke, that as a consequence he would necessarily lead men into error ; nevertheless, our adversaries impose it as a duty on us Catholics, to show that Christ intended, his words were to be understood in their obvious and literal sense, ist. This he must intend by reason of the office he fulfilled at the last supper ; he then propounded a dogma of faith, he enacted a law to be always observed, he bequeathed the rich legacy of his charity to mankind, whom he was soon to redeem with his blood. Of the dogma he proposed he was not to say aught in i future in the way of explanation ; then, as a divine teacher, he should ■ so announce his doctrine as from his words, to preclude all erroneous sense ; as a divine legislator he should propose his law without equivo- cations or obscurity ; as the best of fathers he should so make his will that no cause of quarrelling or contention would afterwards arise among his children, wherefore what he had in mind he should express in the plainest words, in words the sense of which could not be mistaken or controverted. 2nd. On account of his Apostles, Christ should use words the meaning of which could not he misunderstood or doubted ; \ he now called them "friends (Jn. I5) to whom he must no more speak in parables ;" as now it belonged " to them to know the mysteries of God," c. 16. At the time of instituting the Eucharist, he ordained them priests and ministers, wherefore he should inform them of its most inward substance. ' 3rd. For the sake ot all Christians to the end of time, to whom he propounded this dogma, to whom he proposed this law, this testament of his love, he should use words, the sense of which could not be ques- tioned. How many of them were " little ones " to whom his mysteries were to be revealed, in preference " to the wise and prudent," Math, xi., 25. They wl, c then to be instructed by Christ, in words plain and simple, which would announce the dogma, the law, the last will of him without equivocation or obscurity ; the Redeemer, in knowledge far surpassing all teachers, all legislators who do not foresee but by conjec- ture, was well aware in advance what the disposition of his Disciples would be ; he knew in what sense, after the lapse of ages, the words of Institution would be received, he foresaw they were to be understood by all Christians for 15 centuries in the sense of the Real Presence, which having elapsed, a few men with little authority, dividing and distracting the Church, despising her law and discipline, rise up in opposition to the constant faith of Councils, Popes and Bishops, who could believe the Redeemer Christ foreseeing all this, would so speak, that only these few men would alone comprehend the meaning of his words, who will believe he would use words which must necessarily lead all others into error, pastors and people alike, whose constant prayer was and always hath been, they may " know his will and do it."-— Auctor pcpetuit fidei, Tom. ist. ..v^4„ 7'.- ;. ist. All figure is excluded from the eating of his flesh, which Christ promised in John vi., for there is promised a manducation which in the Eucharist should take place, and actually did take place, and the Sacra- mentarians allow a real oral manducation in the Eucharist, wherefore a 17 real oral eating of Christ's flesh was promised in John vi., not a spiritual eating of it. 2nd. On the other hand, the thing eaten in the Eucharist is that which Christ promised to be eaten (John vi.), and he promised his true and real flesh was to be eat, i. e., himselt whole, the word incarnate as Protestants themselves avow ; therefore what is eaten in the Eucharist is the true and real flesh of the word incarnate, nor be it affirmed there is in this mode of arguing a vicious circle, for a vicious circle consists in proving the same by the same. This cannot be alleged in our case ; the manner of eating is entirely diffierent from the substance of the thing to be eat. In our proof, the way Christ is to be eaten, /*.ined ; partake of the immaculate flesh of the Lord, likewise of His blood, with the most entire faith, cer- tain you truly eat the Lamb himself. The mysteries Of God are inscru- table, they are a fire, beware you do not rashly approach them, or examine them lest you be consumed in their blaze." -i Could any catechism or manual of prayer m the Rom. Cath. Churchy even at this present day, be found, in which the doctrine of the Real Presence is taught with more clearness, neatness and precision. When the Holy Fathers spoke concerning the Eurharist, they had no oppor- tunity of indulging in hyperboles, for they either applied themselves to instil into the mind of the Church's children a knowledge of the pure and simple truths of faith, or they had for object to confirm in the faith, the learned and the illitera<^e, both alike. Sts. Cyril and Ambrose especially informed and enlightened Neophites concerning the Eucharist, with the view they may worthily approach it. Then was not the firne to give them " a stone for bread, a scorpion for a fish ; " they were not to be initiated in a knowledge of the sacred mysteries by mendacious instruction, which would render them idolators, and doom them forever to superstitious worship. The doubts they propose, their mode of solving them, prove to a certainty they believed the flesh and blood of Christ were present in the Eucharist. — Card. Perron. ? 3RD PROOF. A Demonstration— All the Holy Fathers admit consequences which could only apply to the Real Presence ; this is certain from what they deliberately aver • ist. Concerning the effects of the Eucharist ; con- cerning the dispositions necessary to receive it , regarding the heinous- ness of the sin they commit who receive it unworthily. As to the effects, the Holy Fathers tell us, by receiving the Eucharist, an intimale union with Christ is formed, not only, but they add, we become of the same body with him, of the same blood ; so much so, that of us it may be truly affirmed, we carry Christ in tis. Thus, Cyril of Jerusalem speaks : " This would be a vain parade of words, a hyperbole truly, if the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist was but figurative, but most applic- 25 able if he believed in the Real Pi-esence." Either in consecrating the Eucharist or in receiving it, the Fathers require the most excellent dis- positions. Sts. Chrysost, T^rome, Augustin, extol che dignity of the priesthood, from the fact, * I'hat they consecrate the body of Christ," that in their hands as in the womb of the Virgin, He becomes incarnate. From the simple faithful, they require not only a soul purified from every dross of sin, as all Christians should be, but they require in addition, when they approach the table of the Lord, " nothing must happen, even tortuitously, which is not suitable to the dignity of so great a sacrament, ' for the least particle of the Eucharist ' saith Cyril, ' is more precious than all gold, than all precious stones." Now this could not be so if what the Sacramentarians allege be true. If the Presence of Christ were figurative only, a particle of the Eucha- rist'c bread, a drop of the Eucharistic wine, could not be deemed more precious, of a greater 'alue, than the water of baptism, whivili drops from the head of the infant, and flows into the sink. — De La Houge. ^ The Ho.y Fathers write, the body of Christ could be received by the just anu wicked alike ; the unworthy receiving of it they compare to the treason of Judas, to the crime of the Jews who crucified Christ ; hence S. Cyprian, in his treatise, ** de lapsis" i e., " the fallen," thus inveighs againsi those who burned incense to idols, and not performing in full their course of public penance, feared not to sit at the sacred table, " almost vomiting the food of idols, they seize on the body of the Lord, violence is offered to the body and blood of the Lord, and with their hands and mouths they sin as much against God as when they denied God." Now, in the doctrine of a mere figurative presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, according to which Christ is eaten only through faith, how could the " lapsi " (fallen off) be deemed sacriligious invaders inferior to apostates. The " lapsi," who, truly penitent and sorry for their sin, prematurely indeed, but out of a pious desire, approached the Eucharistic table, that with pure and simple faith they may receive Christ whom they owned for Redeemer. It is to be observed that in this pubUc case of " the lapsi," Cyprian could aver nothing but what was in accordance with the belief of the whole Christian world. ^t,mu. ^y^^^' -r^ti'^w^ 4th. A Lemma. To the Eucharist, inasmuch as it contains the body and blood of Christ, could apply the following words (language) which the Fathers use in reference to it : ist. That Christ, holding the Eucharistic bread in his hands, carried himself . S. August, Ps. 35, "That whilst Christ in heaven sitteth at the right hand of the Father, at the same time he is held in the h;inds of all who receive him," 8. J. Chrysost. (lib de ijaceidot.) "This one body, distributed among so many thousands of the faithful, is wholly received by each one, and remains entire and indivisible in itself." S. Greg of Nysa, Oratio ad Catechum, 33. Finally; all the Holy Fathers afTirm " the Eucharist is to be adored." — • Witasse Tourneley BcUarmine, auct. perpet Ad. OBJECTIONS SOLVED. Objections are adduced agamst the Real Presence from the nieta- ill! i P i 1 1 1 1 ■' j'f . )■ ' 3 J ■ '■' . ( i; i i •JiHr t !>i Answer. — Many of these uses confirm and not invalidate a belief in the Real Presence, something preternatural and extraordinary, with a firm faith they all must believe to lie hid in the blessed l^acrament, when, on most solenin occasions and rare, the consecrated elements were used either to heal bodies when alive, or protect them in the graves when dead, or in sanction of the condemnation of Heroesiarchs, as if Christ himself weie present in person. We do not read the water of baptism, sanctified as it is by prayer, to be ever so used on such solemn occasions. The fact of Cyril recommending to the faithful to touch their eyes, lips and forehead with the consecrated host, as also of the Bishops in Gen. Coun. of Constant, signing the condemnation of Photius, the schysmitic ; the fact of Theodore P. signing the condem- nation of Pyrhus Monothelit with ink mixed with the consecrated species of wine, arose from their belief in the Real Presence. To it is to be ascribed the strange use of the consecrated bread and wine, which is objected, and confirms this article of Catholic doctrine, although from piety on their part, no doubt, in such acts, something deordinate (irrev- erent; may certainly seem to us to have transpired who live at so great a distance of time. by these other e. g., " burning What is said ■fhe belief in the Real Presence is not invalidated uses connected with the Eucharist, and are objected, the remnants thereof, " not receiving it on fast days relating to the remnants of the Eucharist being burned may be under- stood of those already decayed or beginning to decay ; but if it so happened that remnants of the Eucharist not yet decayed were cast into the fire, this, though outre (less opportune), according to modern discipline, arose from reverence towards the blessed Sacrament. In the Rubrics of the Rom. Missal we read the following prescription : " If any priest, immediately after receiving, should vomit the communion, and if it is not dissolved be it cast into the fire." As rogai Js not receiv- ing the Sacrament of the Eucharist on fast days, this custom is still observed in the Greek Church, " though its members believe and pro- fess the Real Presence, they abstain from the Eucharist on fast days, •"•SR^jg'WJ ■y: H:. 1 i 1 Is .1 I ' i ; 1 5 ' }■ ■ i' i ikjl 'J -ji •■- 4 ■ I ; h ' 1 1 Ii ! ! i i a m^ that they may be deprived of the nourishment which even the species afford."— De La Houge and Milner. The objections deduced from the silence of the Pagans is solved. The Protestant Minister, Claud, thus proposes this objection : " If the Christians of the first ages believed in the dogma of the Real Presence, the Pagans would hear of it no doubt, and ridicule it, for the nature of the Eucharistic mystery is different from other mysteries; it is practical ; the Christians were to celebrate it each day ; its substance, then, could not be concealed from the Pagans." 2nd. A knowledge of this mys- tery, they could have from incautious Christians, from apostates, or even from those apologies which Doctors of the Church wrote to some Emperors. Undoubtedly it cannot be denied, Julian the Apostate, who was educated in the Church from his early youth, who was ordained " Reader," could completely know whatever belonged to the substance of this mystery. It is certain, then, according to Claud, the dogma of the Real Presence could not be in vogue among the primitive Chris- tians, and the Pagans not to know it and deride it. Answer. — All the principles of the objection are false, ist. It is certain, few, if any. of the Pagans were acquainted with the Eucharistic dogma ; no person could become so infatuated as to undertake conceal- ing what he believed all knew. Now, it is certain from historic records worthy of a.11 belief, the Doctors and Pastors of the Church down to 4th cent., and beyond it, left nothing untried, used every diligence, that Pagans may not hear or knov/ aught of the Eucharistic mystery. Ter- tulian, of the 3rd cent., advises his wife, if she happened to become a widow, to abstain from a new marriage, especially with a heathen, " for fear," he says, " your husband may discover what you taste before all ioodi^' i. c.,tlie EiicharLt. Sts. Cyril, Ambrose, J. Crysost, Theoderet say many things enigmatical in their sermons on the Eucharist ; the reason they assign is " for fear some uninitiated persons may intrude themselves into the congregation of the faithful." 2nd. Thisknowledge they could not have from spies sent stealthily into the meetings of Christians. The rigid discipline of s''ence, which then prevailed, would prevent it, and which was enforced so much that even the Cate- chumens (unbaptized) were not suffered to hear the sermons of the Fathers preached on the Eucharist, the initiated (the baptized) alone were privileged to hear them. -y.tf ■•,,.. , ,,■, " The Catechumens themselves," saith S. August, " do not know what the baptized heir. What heathen, with no other motive to impel him, except a desire to learn what Christians believed concerning the Eucharist, would subject himself to the severe discipline of the Catcehu- menate; to its long laborious probation, which was two, three, yea, sometimes four years in duration. Who, among Pagans, would subject himself to the severe questioning, to the close enquiry which pastors made regarding their morals. Who of them would incur the danger of incarceration, of exile, nay of death, to all which Catechumens were no less liable than the Baptized, when persecution raged fierce. Heathens could not have a knowledge ot this dogma from apostates, for the force m of torments, and not hatred of the Christian religion, or of its professors, urged them to abjure by word the faith which they believed at heart, and were resolved to return to it as soon as the persecution relented. This information we derive from the writings of Cyprian (" delapsis "). Of such persons it may be safely affirmed, they would not be capable of betraying the secret of the church. 3rd. The apologies of Christians, which may be deemed of public note, were few. The apology written in the 2nd Cent., by S. Justin, and inscribed by him to Antoninus, Emperor, was not perhaps read by this potentate, or by few others, so much did they slight and despise the Christian religion. 2nd. Even had they known concerning the Real Presence, their silence could be account- ed for; thus they observed silence respecting the mysteries of the Trinity, incarnation, and original sin, which they might easily know ; and from the apparent repugnance of which they could retort much on the objec- tions advanced by Christians against their pluraUty of gods, and their various generations. Of this oversight (neglect) on the part of the Heathens, more than one reason can be assigned. I St. They entertained so great contempt for Christians, that they spurned enquiring into their doctrine. 2nd. To refute this doctrine, they deemed piDiishment much more convincing than argument. 3rd. Here we are to admire the ways of providence ; God, who reigns over the minds of men, will not sometimes permit them to do and to say what, under the circumstances, may be expected from them to do, and to say ; even Julian the Apostate, who was well acquainted with the mysteries of the Christian religion, makes no objection against them, he only attempts turning them into ridicule. — De La Houge, De Sorb." It is not certain the ]>agans who could really know aught of the Christian religion (Eucharistic mystery), did actually observe silence regarding it, thus Celsus, philosopher, wrote 3 books against the Chris- tian faith, and otie book of his we only know : The One Origin Refuted. In like manner of the 3 books composed by Julian, only one remains, and it not entire ; it was refuted by Cyril of Alexandria. Now in the books of Ceisus and Julian, which are lost, perhaps some mention of the Euchari t may have been made, to it might refer the following false allegation of the Gentiles against the Christians, viz. : " l^hat they licked up the blood and eagerly devoured the Jfesh of an infant 7vhom they slew, sprinkling Him with flour. This calumny was spoken against them by Cecilius the philosopher ; as Minutius Felix writes, here " the true " and " false " are mixed up. As is the case in what is known from a confused report, now we catholics thus proceed to found an argument on this false charge alleged by the Gentiles, to show the primitive Chris- tians believed in the Real Presence, e. g. For if in the Eucharist they believed there was but a figure or sign of the body of Christ, why, by a simple declarationf of their faith did they not disprove the horrid calumny ? The crime of killing an infant and eating his flesh, as they were accused of doing, and for this suffer the most excruciating torment, they indeed may be well adjudged insane, and not to come forward with a declaration of the figurative presence, if they were of the protestant i i^j m '■■M 'J' 'i. i% U.i,f^i .'4K-.. iCjurfV persuasion, but if as catholics they believed in the Real Presence, they were worthy of all praise, for suffering even death rather than betray the secret of the church.— Auctor per petuit fidei. 3RD ARGUMENT. J^y THE DOGMA OF THE REAL PRESENCE PROVED FROM PROSCRIPTION. Proscription is derived from jurisprudence, and signifies the right arising from the possession of anything, which possession has certain conditions annexed, and is continued the whole time ; prescribed by law, which alone suffices to invalidate every claim, to baffle every hope of the litigant, who would claim a thing as his own. The argument of prescription is twofold, intrinsic and extrinsic : "' I possess whatever I hold in possession, you have no right to contend with me for it." Lo, a specimen of extrinsic prescription ! " I possess a thing, and it is impossible I would hold possession of it had I not a right thereto, therefore I hold lawful possession. Lo, a specimen of intrinsic prescrip- tion. The cause of proposing the argument of prescription was this ; Aubertin Calvinist compiled a work from the Fathers, which he affirmed expressed a figurative sense of Christ's presence. Our Rom. (j|ath. con- trovertists thought they could subvert all he said by way of proof, with prescription ; for according to thpm, there existed a time in which for certain the whole Christian world believed and held the doctrine of the Real Presence, "to wh," the time of Berengare, in the nth Cent. Heretics and Sysmatics professed it at the same epoch, and this consent could not exist unless it were the belief of all past ages, up to the time of the Apostles ; so then, setting all examination aside into the texts of the Fathers quoted. Catholics justly conclude they are not opposed to the Real Presence. — Nicolius, Dr. I St. There was an epoch in v/hich the whole world held the doctrine of the Real Presence. 2nd. It is impossible that in any age preceding this epoch a change of Doctrine would takeplace; both these assertions will be proved beyond a doubt. The first is thus proved, viz.: In the time of Beiengarius, in the nth Cent., the whole Christian world believed in the Real Presence ; this, no person will deny, when we remember the universal reclamation against Berengare, who taught the contrary, the arguments advanced against him, and Berengare's own . i-ply. Scarce did he disseminate his doctrine, when in a very short space of time, 15 Councils were convened, all which condemned his doctrine ; one of these, held in Rome, at which assisted 103 Bishops, denounced him as an innovator, he was opposed by eminent men of every order, whilst he had scarce a single patron of any note. Beren- gare was proscribed, on account of the novelty of his doctrine, " by which," it was alleged, " he departed from Catholic unity, and scandal- ized the whole Church." So Adelman, his contemporary, reproached him ; so Heugh, of Lingon, and Lanfranc Abp, of Canterbury, who rebukes him in the following style : " If what you believe and write be true (concerning the body of Christ), what has been written and believed by the church of every nation, must needs be false ; ask all n^v-iug >:;.>• ^ .:-'t;'A;j5- :>i\ who speak ifhe Latin tongue, ask the Greeks and Armenians, question the Christians of every country, and with one accord they will bear testimony, this (tha Real Presence), to be their belief." What is Beren- gares reply to this great array of testimony ; to it he opposes the obscure book of Scotus, he quotes some mutilated texts of the Fathers. Finally, after the manner of all innovators, he presumes to say the whole Church hath erred, thus betraying the newness of his doctrine. Cer- tain, then is it, all the churches of the world, schysmatical and heretical, believed in the Real Presence, and professed it. — Nicoiius. 3 2nd. It will now be shown, that at no epoch from Berengarius' time back to the time of the Apostles, a change could take place in this article of faith, for this change would have occurred, either by a sudden departure of all churches from the ancient faith, or gradually, and by slow steps it would have crept in, first into one church then into another ; but to suppose a sudden falling away of the church from the ancient belief, is too absurd to require refutation, for who of a sane mind would say, the Church on this day slept firmly believing in a figurative presence of Christ, and awoke on the following day believing and pro- fessing His Real Presence in the sacrament The change of doctrine which would gradually creep in, is not less repugnant ; for this is to be observed regarding the Eucharist, " to wit," that it is not a speculative mystery, as are the Trinity and Incarnation ; with it is connected some- thing practical, inasmuch as it is every day consecrated by priests, and received by the fciithful, who were necessarily to be informed, of the dis- positions required for worthily receiving it, wherefore, the pastors, by their incessant preaching, must needs explain to the faithful the sul - stance of thisdoctrine, viz. : the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament. If at this time the pastors inculcated a belief of the figurative presence only, it is repugnant to think Christians would after- wards believe such an image would be the real body of Christ, without being sensible of any change in their faith. Whenever any new doctrine was attempted to be intoduced into the v-htirch, immediately there ensued controversies and contentions, great trouble spread among the laity, and this concerning dogmas, which by "tlieir metaphysical sublimity surpassed their comprehension. This is recorded to have been the case in questions concerning the consub- . sta'-*dality of the word, the divinity and procession of the Holy Ghost ; ,? id, in a case having more affinity with the one we are discussing, Ji*amely, the question of images, which in the 8th Century agitated the ,: church ; who can imagine an epoch in which all bishops, priests and vinity were conscious of this change the sacramentarians allege to have '-.> taken place in the E.'chanst, and all to observe a profound silence, ''respecting it. When Berengare — in place of the doctrine of the Real presence, which in his time was the doctrine of the whole church — attemp- ted to foist, in the doctrine of a figurative presence, the whole Christian world Avas put in commotion, whence it is «asy to understand, if in times past any innovation was attempted in the dogma of the Eucharist, if for ihe^fi^roUive presmce, which Protestants aver to be the belief of the J I A III ^' ''w^*i*;i^i»r!^'S5i?fsa"^"/i;- 1^' ■> d i| 34 » church in the beginning, it were attempted to substitute a Real Presence, and which th°y deem repugnant to reasion, in such a, hypothesis ; what a reclamation would ensue ; yes, and authentic monuments of this reclamation would reach us, as do those reach us which re^er to other heterodox doctrme attempted to 'oe disseminated. So then, by the argument of prescription it is proved, the belief in the Real Presence, which was general in the time of Berengare, was the belief of all passed ages back to the time of the Apostles. In the proof it is admitted as an indubitable fact, the Greeks believe in the Real Presence no less than the Latins, no doubt must be allowed to exist as to the Greeks believing in the Real Presence. It is absolutely certain, no differeice seems ever to exist among them and the Roman Catholics respect" ig this article.— Author of Perpetuit of faith. _:.f, :,;,{.,,,, ^^i+i.^ •*;. ^iHlHit? Protestant controvertists make objections against the argument of prescription in proof of the Real Presence ; they allege, many things at various times in the Church have been received, charged iind abolished ; nor was there a reclamation, e. g., public penance in all its grades, the use of unleavened bread among the Lp.tins, communion under one form, the manner of conferring baptism, by infusion and not by immersion. So also they insist a like change might take place in the Eucharist, and people not advert to it, or not to reclaim. Answer.— Many things at various times have been received, changed and abolished, but they all relate to discipline, and not to dogma, or articles of faith. It has never been controverted, whether without reclamation may be introduced some pious usages indifferent in them- selves, which, when proposed by the pastors of the Church (whose authority in determining such things the faithful deem supreme), are received without contradiction ; the same is to be said of ji^es pertaining to the administration of the sacraments, and affect not their substance. From this it follows only, by the argument of prescription it cannot be proved this or that discipline existed, unless it be essentially connected with some dogma, as ^Aey are which relate to the H'erarchy ; but the force of the argument derived from prescription is not weakened thereby, i.e., the one in proof of the Real Presence, because it depends for strength on this evident principle : it is not to be supposed possible a certain false doctrine could be proposed in the church, which when once rdmitted true faith and the true meaning of scripture would entirely perish, and this (false doctrine) to be re .ived without a reclamation throvghout the Chrisiian world, all pat tor j, all the faithful, conniveing . and concurring thereat. If this principle ^ould seem doubtiful, all moral ; certitude would cease to exist, would vanish. — Nicolius. ' An obj ection is urged against prescription in proof of the Real Presence ' from the fact of Paschasius Rhadbertus, who flourished in the 9th Cent. Paschasius, Abbot of Corbey in Saxony, wrote a book A.D. 830, on the truth of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and it is • beyond all doubt, writes Claud, Protestant minister, his doctrine was « impugned, not privately by some obscure authors, but publicly, and by ' authors of distinguished and great name, by Rhabanus, Maurus, Bp. of 35 Moguntum, by Bertrammus, Abbot of Corbey, and next successor of Radbert, and by other eminent men, whose authentic works are still to be found. We h-^ve on record then an instance f)f reclamation against the Real Presence, and therefore the argument derived from prescrip- tion in its favour proves void, of no eftect. ;&ft4 ?' Answer. — From this fact, whatever it be the argument of prescription is not invalidated, no syn^ptoms of a reclamation is defected against the work of Paschase, such as it should be if he promulgated a new doctrine regarding the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, such as substituting a Real for a Figurative Presence, which down to his time was believed, as from historic monuments may be proved. It is well known no innovation was ever attempted with respect to any dogma, that the whole Church would not be in commotion, decrees would be issued by Popes, definitions passed by Bishops, both assembled and dispersed, publishing anathemas 'gainst the new doctrine, and denouncing its author. Instances of such reclamation we discover long after Radbert, against Beiengare, denouncing his new-fangled doctrine of a figurative presence of Christ's body and blood. A reclamation no less solemn would take place against Radbcit, if, in his book, he departed (deviated) f'-om the ancient and hither o existing faith of a figurative presence, by teaching it was true and real ; no symptoms of such a reclamation can be traced on record. Some obscure works of Theologians are quoted, in which the book of Paschasius is a .jacked, his name not being men- tioned. It may be inferred, then, the controversy 'twixt Radbert and his adversaries was not concerning the substance ot the dogma, but about some accessory questions thereof — Bossuet, Book 4, variations. It can be shown by many arguments, the doctrine was not new which represents the body of Christ to be really and truly present in the Eucharist, and which Paschase propounded in his work and taught, for he expressly affirms the Real Presence was the belief of all, "fides totius mundi" In his letter to Fredigard Abbot he wiites : " Let him who will contradict this (the Real Presence) see, let him consider what he does against the Lofd himself and the whole world, and what all unanimously asseit to be true ;" so to speak in reference to a new doctrine, would be bold, indiscreet and reckless, should not the Church profess the same, and at all times profess it. Of all who, in their letters, attacked Paschasius, not one accused him of making any innovation iii doctrine, because of his teaching the Real Presence, not any threatens to cite him oefore his ecclesiastical judges, as if he aimed at sub/erting the old faith, and when in that supposition, they should denounce him to all the faithful *• to beware of the false teacher ;" they do not, in their writings against him, even mention his name. ;^»The controversy, then, turned on some other point; atthisjtime many questions were discussed regarding the Eucharist, which did not belong to its substance, but were mere acoessories. ist. It was enquired, if^ in the Eucharist, we precisely have the same body which was born of the virgin Mary, which was affixed to the cross; this, in his work, Paschasius affirmed, but the whole controversy proved to be a • 4 li m ■-:S- ':-,:rt:: -A,.::: 36 . , logomachy, t. e.^ a contention about words, for the adversaries of Paschase did not deny what he asserted, except that the body of Christ in the Eucharist was not the same as it was in the womb of the virgin and on the cross, in appearance, form, manner of existing, size, quantity, circumscription. No wonder if in an age in which these consequences of the Real Presence were not yet elucidated, such questions would arise, although all may be unanimous in their belief of the Real Presence. — Tourneley, in Major Prelect. 3rd. It was enquired whether the body of Christ lay hid under some figure in the Eucharist, or some veil, whether that which is seen, touched, broken and masticated, is the very body of the Lord ; indeed, it can scarce be believed, there were some who thought there was neither sign, figure or veil in the Eucharist, and that all which falls , under ovir senses is the body of Christ himself, which is touched, broken and masticated. It cannot be dissembled ; but this was argued with much warmth in the 9th, 10th and nth cents., without the dis- putants understanding each other, as is often the case in the heat of discussion, when the subject of debate is beyond the reach of human comprehension (understanding). Radbert, for certain, admitted the real body of Christ lay hid under a veil or sign ; his adversaries, by saying there existed a figure in the Eucharist, acknowledged it was no empty figure, but one full of reaUty. The reason they insisted so much on the term " figure," was that the rga/i/y of th^ body of Christ in the Sacra- ment, w.is not manifest conspicuous visible to the human eye, to this the whole question resolved itself — Tourneley, in Prelect. CHAPTER 2nd. ON THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST. •.^... Sacrifice, in it« most general sense, is defined to be anything which is intended for the honour and glory of God, be it internal and spiri- tual, external or corporal. In this sense, all acts of faith, prayers, voluntary afHictions of body, fa?ts, &c., in a wArd, any act of mind or body referred to the honour and glory of God, may assume ihe name of "Sacrifice." This information we derive from the following pas- sages of Scripture : " Immolate to God an host of praise," Ps. 40 ; " An alHictcd spirit is a sacrifice to God," Ps 50 ; " whoever doth mercy, offers sacrifice," Eccles. 35, " I beseech you, brethren, you exhibit your bodies a living, pleasing host to God," Rom. 1 2. Sacrifice, 111 the proper sense of the word, is defined " an external oblation of a visible thing made to God alone, by a lawful minister, to acknowledge his supreme dominion over us, and cur dependance on him." Ever since the beginning of the world to olfer sacrifice is deemed a necessary duty of man, and an essential part of religion ; hence we read in Gene. IS 4, "Cain offered to God of the first fruits of the earth;" ' Abel also offered of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat ;" of Noc it is Y'tten, Cien. 28, "he built an altar to the Lord, and taking of ill the clean beasts and birds, he offered holocau.sts on this altar." Soon after t.ie floo'.i vvc read of the cacriftccs of Abrahp»T- and posterity ; Abraham mmmm " built altars (for sacrificeymSichem, and near the valley of Mambre," (Gen. 12); "Isaac in Bershabe," Jacob near the Town of Salem, (26), and in Bethel (33) ; no victim more truly prefigured the Saviour in the flesh than Isaac, or more perfectly represented the sacrifice oftered by him, as we behold Aim, " the heir of the promises carry on his back the burthen of wood on which he was to be laid, to be offered for a holocaust," if God did not prevent the act, (Gen. 22). Among the Patri- archs who offered sacrifice is to be remembered Melchisadech, " Priest of the most high God," (Gen. 14), who offered bread and wine for a true sacrifice, Christ, our Redeemer, by one offering on the cross accomplished them all, to apply its fruit to our soul he instituted the sacrifice of the Mass. Christ, on the altar of the cross, ofTered a true sacrifice on this article as on a hinge, turns the whole economy of the Christian religion, for be this sacrifice abolished, and we abolish all need of the incarnation ; no way of truly worshipping God is left, no means of repairing fallen nature^ even the authority of Scripture becomes of no avail. Scripture, which teaches Christ to be a true priest, " and delivered himself for us to God, an oblation and victim for an odor of sweetness," (F_^phes. 5). This sacrifice is essentially one all Christians acknowledge, *' by one oblation he perfected for ever those to be sanctified ;" but C^itholics profess this same sacrifice is renewed in the Eucharist, so that it hath the nature of a true and perfect sacrifice, as is affirmed by the Fathers of the Council of Trent. — De La Houge, Dr. >,, r. ., THE EUCHARIST IS A TRUE AND PERFECT SACRIFICE. THE EUCHARIST IS PROVED TO BE A SACRIFICE FROM SCRIPTURE TRADITION AND THEOLOGIC REASONING. THV ARGUMENT FOUNDED ON SCRIPTURE. Demonstration. — The oracles of the prophets announce, the sacrifices of the old law were to be abrogated, and that a new sacrifice, far sur- passing them in value,* was to oe substituted ; thus Isaias represents God to us addressing the following words to the Jews, chapt. i : " Your Sabbath and your festivities I will not endure ;" he expressly declares, c. 19, ** at a future time there will be an altar of the Lord in the I nd of Egypt, whose people will worship him in victims and offer- ings." Jeremias, c. 38, foretells, " Priests and Levites will not die, who p»'e to offer sacrifice, who are to burn incense and, kill victims all days," so that they were to be as lasting, as perpetual " as the son of David, who was to reign on his throne." All interpreters explain the last woids to relate to Christ ; but in terms more clear than any of the Prophets, Malachias prophesies concerning the Eucharist, in the following words: " I hrve no pleasure in you, eaiih the Lord of Hosts, and a gift 1 wi" not rece've from your handj, for from the rising of the sun to the setting of the same, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place a clean oblation is sacrificed and offered to my name, for my name is great among the Gentiles," Mai. c. i. ■HjW^^WW» ^^f ^iHill|i*iJ V'lvj^i jivij4»*K'^,y' ^* 4 From this oracle, which was pronounced when now the second temple was built, we are left to infer three things : ist. That all the sacrifices of the old law were to be abo'ished. 2nd. That a new sacri- fice far more excellent, was to be susbtituted, for the words sacrificatur d offerer spoken in the present tense, are evidently Uoed for the fixture tense, '' sacrificabittir et offeretur^' as is usual with prophets to do, vvho often seem to contemplate the things they foretell, as if they were trans- piring before them ; that sacrifice was to be offered in everyplace " from the rising to the setting sun." Now, what is predicated of this sacrifice could not apply to the sacrifice of the cross, for the sacrifice of the cross was offered but in one place in " Jerusalem ;" nor could it be understood of the sacrifice of good works, good works could not be called a new sacrifice ; such a sacrifice existed from the beginning of the world amongst the Patriarchs, and was continued among the Jews, "of whom many were tried by the testimony of faith," Heb. 11. Malachy, then, foretold the sacrifice of the Eucharist It r^ thus Ss. Justin, Irencsus, J. Crysost, Jerome, August, understood the text and expounded it. — BeiJarmine. THE SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST PROVED FROM THE PRIESTHOOD OF ,il V '; ;_ ^:j:, .; MELCHISADECH. ~)emonstration. — In Ps. 109. entirely prophetic of the Messiah, these words occur, which must refer to him : " The Lord swore and it will not rej^ent him, thou art a priest forever according to the order of Mel- chisadecUr Here God speaks of a new priesthood, in which the Messiah himself was to be inaugurated, that he may be substituted for all the Aaronic priests, that he may remain high priest for ever, to offer him sacrifice ; therefore Melchisauech, " Priest the most high" as he is called in Genes. 14, and in Ileb. 7, was a figure of Christ as pries' who must needs offer the .sacrifice, which 1500 years after the time of Melchisadech, Malachy announced ; the figure then, which, with the solemnity of an oath, God applies to the Messiah, should be obvi- ous, conspicuous, and characteristic. This figure cannot exist, is not to be found, unless in the person of Melchisadech, or in some act of his. The figure does not apply to his person, for Aaron, as a person whose pries'hood lasted for many ages among his sons, is a figure more obvi- ous, more conspicnous, more characteristic of Christ as priest, than is the person of Melchi^dech, whose priesthood was transitory, and not transmitted to his posterity ; as also because the order according to which a {)riest sacrifices is not derived from his person, but from the rite (i)eculiar mode) of offering. Not, then, in the person of Melchisa- dech, but in some act of his, is this obvious, conspicuous and charac- teristic figure to be sought ; two acts r;e mentioned in Scriptu;e wh'ch relate to Melchisadech, (Gen. I4): ist. "That he produced bread and wine ;" 2nd. That " he blessed Abraham ;" but " to bless " is not peculiar to, is not characteristic of a priest ; •• to bless " was an act performed by kings and fathers of families, not, then, " in blessing " is found the excellent and distinctive figure of Christ's priesthood ; it is wmmm^Km r^f^KfflWBBBHBHSWBHBBSJBMHHHIB -* '""■''■Vjt'jiv^i^!^-' ''¥ necessarihr to be sought for in the act ot producing, i, e., offering bread and wine. Now, there is no act of Christ's in which this figure could be fulfilled, CAcept in the Act of offering the Eucharist under the ele- ments of bread and wine, the matter Melchisadech used in offering his own sacrifice, and thcefore, in that act, the figure was fulfilled, as in the following words the fathers of the Council of Trent informs us : " Declaring his priesthood according to the order of Melchisadech, he offered his body and blood under the species of bread and wine to his Heavenly Father, and under the symbols of the same things gave it to his Apostles to take, whom he constituted priests of the New Testament, ,. and ordered them and their successors, in these words to offer it : " This do in commemoration of me" This is an abbreviation of the argu- ment, which most of the Ho]- Fathers derive from the sacrifice of Melchisadech, to prove the Eucnarist to be a true and perfect sacrifice. — Estius in Epist. ad. Heb. /. y« -jr^ijii/.. ,.',•* The holy Eucharist proved to be a sacrifice from the words of Christ and from ihe words of the Apostle Paul, concerning its use. Demon- stration. — ist. To the words of Christ " this is my body" as they occur in Matthew and Mark, Luke adds, '^ which is given for you" c. xxii. ; and the Apostle Paul, i Cor. c. xi., " which will be delivered fot you ; " so too these words of Christ, respecting the chalice : " this is my blood" Matthew subjoins, c. xxvi., '* which is shed for you to the remission of sins." In St. Luke the text reads thus : " this chalice (is) the New Testa- ment in my blood which will be shed for you" which is shed for you according to the Greek word, " Ekchunomenon. On these words this argument is founded ; at the last supper " the body of Christ," according to St. Luke, "' was gii'cn ; " according to the Apostle, "was broken;" likewise, ^^ His blood" or the chalice of Hi: blood wus shed to the remission of sins.*^ Christ therefore offered a tme and perfect sacrifice, and whereas he comma nded the same to be ofijred by the Apostles, and by their successors ; he conseciuently institued the sacrifice of the Eucharist. This explanation, in a wonderful manner, the Apostle confirms (i Cor. .; , where he uses the following words in relation to the Eucharist :f i'' chalice of benediction which we bless is it not the communication o * ? blood of Christ, and tlie bread which we break, is it not the par- ticipation of the body of Christ ; " here the Apostle wishes to interdict the Corinthians eating of the food consecrated to idols ; the whole scope of his argimient presupposes a true sacrifice is offered in the Eucharist, in which the faithful share by receiving it. This is manifest from the similitrde he uses, v. xviii. : " See Israel according 10 the flesh, are not they who p-^rtake of the sacrifice partakers of tke altar." In the same chapter (20,21), he adds, " what the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to (lemons, and not to God. You cannot drink of the chalice of the l^ord and of the chalice of demons, you mnot be partakers of the Uble of, the Lord and the table of demons." '"- Here, manifestly the Apostle speaks of food offered in sacrifice, and immediately assimilates the chalice of the Lord and the participation of II \\ mmmms^ '^''^!gBH!HB???'HSHT mr lit ^ ilHt 40 His table to the chalice of demons, and to the participation of thei'r table; now the chalice of Daemons contained liquor offered in sacrifice, their table was furnished with food immolated to idols, tliey who sat at this table partook of the sacrifice ; so also in the mind of the Aposfle the chalice of the Lord, which the faithful drink, contains the blood of Christ truly offered on the altar, to be partakers of the Eucharistic table (altar) is partaking of the flesh of Christ, truly immolated thereon. 3rd. This the Apostle announces in terms, as these words show : " We have an altar, of which they have not the right to eat, who serve the tabernacle," where there is an altar there must needs be a victim. Christians have no altar but the Eucharistic altar, and therefore the victim immolated on it cannot be any other, unless the flesh and blood of Christ truly present. -«;;-;-- ^-'^ ;--:.- ,.-..•. ■/i ' \v •S-^. f1 2ND ARGUMENT. THE EUCHARIST IS A SACRIFICE PROVED FROM TRADITION. *.:' Demonstration.— The Holy Fathers everywhere designate the Eucha- rist by the appellations, He t, Victim, Sacrifice, Immolation. It is thus Sts. Justin, Irenoeus, Ami>rose, Cyril, August., term it ; St. August, makes use of Ihe following words in reference to his deceased mother : " Inspire O Lord thy seivants, that as many as read these words at Thy altar may remember Thy servaiit Monica, together with her husband Patricius ;" here, as well as prayers for the dead is manifestly announced, the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice. This is inferred from t^e word altar there mentioned, and from the word victim which is said to be dispensed thereon : his words cannot refer to the Eucharistic sacra- ment, as it availeth not for the dead ; the Holy Fathers require altprs for celebrating the Eucharist, but altars refer direct to the offering i * sacrifice. " What is more sacriligious for you Donatists," quoth Optatu " than to break the altars of God, on which you once offered." The Holy Fathers denominate the ministers who celebrate the Eucharis' , mccrdotes (sacrificing priests), and not presbyteros (elders). They tell us they sacrifice for the Emperor, for the Bishops, for the Church, for the whole world. Such words occur in the writings of Tertulian, Cyril, ]. Chrysostum. The constant belief of Christians in the Eucharistic sacrifice, from the earliest time, all the liturgies both of the Greek and Latin rites, attest. Of these liturgies, some are so ancient as to be ascribed to the Apostles, some to Sts. Basil, Cyril, Ambrose. What is published in them as being offered by the minister, is designated by the terms, oblation, victim ; a sacrifice like to that which Melchisadech offered, like to that which Abraham prepared himself to offer. By the argument derived from the liturgies, Protestants are much pressed ; they never compiled such liturgies themselves, these ancient liturgies thry would not repudiate. If they could be reconciled with their doctrine, which is this, "that in the Eucharist is no oblation, that it is merely in com- memoration of the sacrifice offered on the cross." — De La Houce, Dr., Prof. S. Th. ; 41 3RD. ARGUMENT FROM THEOLOGICAL REASONING. From the consent of all Christians, down to the Reformation of Luther, the Eucharistic sacrifice is proved. Demonstration. — The dogma of the Eucharistic sacrifice is not speculative, but practical, inasmuch as it was celebrated every day by priests on the altar, and with prayers, every word of which betokened the immolatiou kh a victim ; the signifi- cancy of these prayers the simple faithful could easily understand. Certainly it could not be unknown to those who performed the Eucha- rist; whence it is easy to see, no change could creep in that a reclam? tion quite observable would not ensue ; yet no trace of a reclamation against the Eucharistic sacrifice has been discovered, from the time of the Aposlles to the Reformers of the i6th Cent. ,. . „ .- ^ We are to admit the Eucharistic sacrifice, or ve are to believe no sacrifice is offered in the new law, which can not be reconciled with the state^of true religion, for from the time of Adam the rite of sacrificing existed ; Abel, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, offered sacrifice, as did Job and Melchisadech among the Gentiles, several kinds of sacrifice were prescribed by the law of Moses. The heathens off'ered sacrifice, if not from a natural impulse, at least from some faint glimmering light of primeval tractition. Now the same necessity which existed in the old law exists in the new law, of admitting this external bond of religioxi, to acknowledge God's supreme dominion, to thank him for his favours, or to obtain daily succour ; there must then be some sacrifice in Chris- tianity, which cannot be any other except the Eucharist. , The objections are solved which are adduced against the proof derived from the priesthood of Melchisadech. It is argued, there is no reason for believing Melchisadech offered a tare sacrifice, in the bread and wine which he produced in the pre..e .ce of Abraham. This bread and wine could be aptly understood of pro- visions, with which he might supply Abraham and his companions returning from the fight ; nor is this comment far fetched, nor anyway affected by the clause affixed : " for he was priest of the Most High," since in the Hebrew is not read the causa/ " for," but the copulative " and." Granting Melchisadech offered some sacrifice, in this act there is no figure of Christ as priest; for St. Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews, explaining at large what was in Melchisadech figurative of the Messiah, m order to apply it to Christ, nevertheless, speaks not one word of the oblation in bread and wine offered by him, with a view of applying it as a figure to Chnst, instituting the Eucharist ; in both acts; then there ■«• no relation 'twixt type and archetype, i.e. 'twixt the figure and reality which perfects it. Answer. — When Melchisadech produced bread and wine, it was not vr.th the intention to supply with provisions Abraham and his compan- ioas, being well aware they returned from battle, loaded with those spoils which the vaumiished kings «:ei.?ed from the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, to wit : " All the substance of the country, and everything which pertain<;d to food" (Gen. xix., ii); they could not then stand in neei of any provisions. The argument derived from the Hebrew read- \ 'i' ! ""^^!fKfaf!*"i'e!'^tKr:^-K .5i5TyL" 1:3 f-^£L-_^^=s^^:s 1 Js'' r I ^i IMI! If i _. TA. i4» .f 'J: S: i.a f ing of the text, which uses " and" for which the vulgate translates " for," is of no weight or importance, ist, for in many texts of scripture it is well ascertained, the conjunction '• and," which is generally copulative, has often the signification of the causal ">r." Howsoever the text is read, whether we say, *' and he was," or '\for he was priest of the most high," this p»-oposition is not to be deemed incidental or accessary in the mind \ of the inspired Apostle ; but is to be regarded the chief, the leading [ clause of the whole narration, for why make mention of the priesthood of Melchisadech, unless tha. 900 years after his act of sacrificing, David , was to announce the Messiah, constituted by God, priest according to ' his order. ' -^' -^'^^^r^^r,:T^''' : -';':/S.::h:-:::.: V^:, 2nd. As to the silence of the Apost. Par , when writing to the: Hebrews, he explains the figure which lay hid in the person of Melchis- ■ adech. His silence with regard to the offering of bread and wine, made ^ by him, can be accounted for from the fact, that it did not come within his scope (object), to speak regarding it; his object was to prove the priesthood of Christ far surpassed the Aaronic priesthood, to accom- pl'sh which it sufficed to show, Melchisadech, in whose order Christ was inaugurated priest by his heavenly father, was more eminent, far excelled all Aaronic ninisters, both as to dignity and perenity of priest- hood, this he shows : ist. As to dignity, because Melchisadech blessed Abraham and received tithes from him, whence he says, " and Levi payed tithes through Abraham." 2nd. In perennity or duration he shows the order of Melchisadech to be superior to the order of Aaron, because, " Melchisadech, without father, mother, geneology, having neither beginning of life nor end, but assimilated to the Son of God, remains priest for ever," (Ibidem, v. 3). Now neither the dignity nor the perennity of Christ's priesthood, could be commended from the sub- stance of the sacrifice which Melchisadech offered in bread and wine, not the perpetuity, as that sacrifice was offered in an instant ; nor was it ever repeated, nor the dignity. For the tfiatier of the sacrifices of the old la'v, consisting of animals, first fruits, and loaves of proposition, which wf-e renewed every Sabbath, was not of less value in itself, than the oare elements of bread and wine. Note. — As to the person of Melchisadech. It is ascertained he was a man, king of Salem, which was a city of the land of Canaan, and the opinion is to be ignored which makes him the eldest of the sons of Noah, when he is represented to be without father, mother or geneology, having neither beginning or end of life, the Apostle by these words implies just, in scripture there is no mention of his parentage, birth or death, that by reason of some,^ mystery they were overlooked, thereby to afford the Apostle an occasioi of proving the perennity of Christ's priesthood, by a mystic expositicn revealed to himself Estius in cap. vii., Epist. ad Hebr.) f **3rd. It is urged, as an objection against the sacrifice of the Euchariit f- the Apost. Paul (Heb. x.), proves the sacrifices of the old law " tobe^ weak and beggarly elements," because of the necessity of renewing thtm.J In like manner the sacrifice of the cross should be deemed insufTiaenf if it were daily to be renewed in the Eucharist ; this objection is eisily fi solved by Cr ' olics ; the sacrifice of the cross is renewed every day, not to increase .- treasure of Christ's merits, but to apply them. The sacrifice of the cross is renewed, not as if it were incomplete in its nature, as if it were ot limited value, as were the sacrifices of the old law. It is rather continued every day, ps a thing most perfect and necessary, not to enhance the price of our redemption, but that to our souls it may app'y. — Bossuet, B, Maux. Some questions relating to the sacrifice are solved. Does the conse- cration of both species belong to the sacrifice, asfo essence ? ist. All are of opinion the consecration of either species could not be omitted without a great sin, under any pretext whatsoever. 2nd. With the ex- ception of a few theologians, all maintain " the consecration of both species is enjoined, not only by ecclesiastical precept, but ^ 'so by divine precept," which doctrine is to be likewise inferred from the following words of the Fathers of Trent (Sess. ii., c. i) : " Christ offered his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, and under the same symbols commanded the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood to offer them." 3rd. Theologians are divided in opinion, with regard to the second question, viz., whether the sacrifice could be offered in one species, if not licitly, at least validly ; the negative opinion is far more common ; S. Thomas Aquinas holds it, and also Benedict xiv., p., in his work '* On the Sacrifice." Benedict, in maintaining his opinion, depends chiefly on this principle — *' that without both species, the im- molation of Christ on the cross could not be tnily represented." How a person could arrive at any other conclusion, is ^ndeed difficult to com- prehend, when we remember Christ, our Lord, instituted this august sacrifice in both species, and commanded his Apostles, " this do in commemoration of me," i.e, offer the same sacrifice. It is truly tl^e doctrine of the Redeemer, written in his book of the gospel, and S. Paul avers (Galat. i., 8), "though we, or an angel from heaven, would preach a gospel different from that we have preached, let him be anathema." . " " ' '. ," * Collet, with a few, would seem to be of a contrary opinion, as he gives clear'y to understand, " in his greater praelections ," there he intimates a dispensation from the precept of consecrating in both kinds may be granted by either the Pope, or a General Council. The way he main- tains his opinion is ludicrous, truly, is absurd ; rather reminding one of the vain imaginings of a dotard, delirious with age, than of the solid reasoning of a learned divine, ist. He admits the precent of conser- vating in both kinds, has God for author, notwithstc^nding " that a dis- pensation may be granted by the Pope ! 2nd. He does not think such a dispensation was ever granted by the Pope or Church ! ! 3rd. He is ''n a doubt if the Church has such a power ! ! ! (this he actually under- took to pro\%.) 4th. If she has, she will never exercise it, because of the possession of such power she should be as sure as one would be of a geometric problem. 5th. The arguments in favor of it do not exceed the limits of a mere probability — nay, are ncc approved by the greater number of theologians (not by one in a hundred). In the melodies ot MHMmyi it I, 4^ Moore, often moxe delicate and elegant than chaste or pious, we read the following verses : ,, ,.^ " Come, send round the wine, Kf^'^rt? Leave points of belief to simpleton sages and reasoiiiing fools." O Collet, well dost thou ment for thyself the rank and title of such personages as this voluptuo'.s lyrist contemns and ridicules ! Among them you must surely graduate, and to reason so preposterous ; yea, or to thee well apply the words of the unenlightened proud Festus to Paul (Acts XX vi., 26): "I/isanis, O Pau/e, etmulta littetcs^ tead insaniam con- vertunt:' Thou ravest, O Collet, and the exuberance of thy learning has driven thee to utter nonsense, to speak drivelling silliness. — De La Houge, Jn. Sorb., Prof. S. Th. Does the Sacrifice of the Eucharist differ from the Sacrifice of the Cross and Last Supper? ist. Not essentially, when in both cases the Victim is the same and the principal Offerer is the same, but it differeth accidentally Irom both ; for at the Last Supper Christ offered himself as mortal, and the oblation was meritorious. In the Eucharist he offereth himself through vicarial priests, and as immortal, who therefore can no onger merit, but apply to us the merits already acquired. It also differs in significance, for the Sacrifice of the Last Supper represented the death of Christ as yet to come; but the Eucharistic Sacrifice commemo- rates it as a thing already passed. The Sacrifice of the Eucharist differs from the Sacrifice of the Cross (ist), by reason of the manner of offering it, which is unbloody; (2nd) because in it is applied to us the price f ^ our redemption, paid for us in full on the Altar of the Cross. How do the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Eucharist differ? — Though they are both produced by the same act, they differ in these two respects : ist. The Sacrifice consi; is in a passing act, by which is produced and offered, the body of Chrut as a victim ; whereas the Sacra- ment of the Eucharist conoista in a thing permanent, inasmuch as the body of Christ remains under the species until they decay. 2nd. The Sacrifice of the Eucharist is principally intended for the worship of God, but the Sacrament of the Eucharist is ordained for sanctifying the soul. The Sacrament and Sacrifice, Christ whole and entire, being alike present in both, are produced by consecration. — Bossuet, in Exposition in Miss. It is asked why the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is called " the Mass." For the Sacrifice of the Eucharist there are different appellations among ecclesiastical writers, ist. It is called Liturgy, from a Greek word, "Litourgia," which signifies public service, because it is performed by a public minister and in behalf of the whole flock. 2nd. It is often called Oblation. 3rd. It is often called Synaxis, which signifies a union of the people with Christ. 4th. It is denominated Collect, even by S. Paul, from the fact that people congregate thereat to join in the service of God. 5th. It is termed " Dominicum," or the work of the Lord, as then a divme act is placed. 6th. Finally, it is called the Mass (missa), from the Latm word, mitto, to send, for the Catechumens were sent out before the^ oblation, and the faithful at the conclusion of divine service. This two-fold sending out is of the most important significancy— the j^^iSCBJ^SJ.T' read ■■\i7 f ! j 45 first, from sending out the Catechumens, as if unworthy to assist after the oblation commenced ; the second, from the fact that the assisting deacons, in the name of the Church, announced to the people that they may now depart, as divine service was finished, the sacrifice oflfered. — Bossuet, ibid. , ■ ^ .... ' .: •/ 'f ! ON THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EUCHARIST. In the Temple of Jerusalem were offered sacrifices of three kinds : the holocaust, the pacific offering, the victim for sin ; the object of these sacrifices was that supreme worship may be rendered to the Deity, that thanks may be returned for favours received ; finally, that we may be restored to favour with God, our sins being forgiven us. Now, Catho- lics believe all those objects to be realized (those advantages), to be gained in the Eucharist as a sacrifice ; they believe it is most calculated to do homage to God, most apt to enable them to return thanks for his favours To prove this it is not necessary, as both Lutherans and Calvinists allow those qualities to the supper which they celebrate ; but they deny it to be propitiatory or impetratory, for so to believe would be injurious to the sacrifice of the cross they allege, by which the whole price of our redemption was paid, from which, as from a fountain, flow all the graces which man needs, and which is possible for him to obtain. It remains to be proved the Eucharistic sacrifice is pro- pitiatory. J ' I St. From Scripture, /'. e., from the words of Institution, there, of necessity, is a propitiatory sacrifice, where there is a victim offered to God, and blood shed for the remission of sins, and the words of Christ, spoken at the last supper, announce these blessed attributes to be found in the Eucharist, " this is my body which is given for you, this chalice (is) the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you," (Luke 19). S. Matthew adds, " for the remission of sins ;" it has been already proved these words refer to the Eucharist. S. Paul writes, " every high priest is ordained for men, in those which belong to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins," (Heb. 5), and consequently when Christ insti- tuted his vicars here on earth, he intended they would offer /or sins, by celebrating the same sacrifice he offered and celebrated. . ,;f.{>| >',f THE EUCHARIST IS A PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, - i • PROVED FROM TRADITION. .. . Origin. — In Homily 13 on Leviticus, says of the Eucharist: "It is the only commemoration which makes God propitious to men." Cyril, of Jerusalem, in the last number of his Catechism writes : " The sac- rifice which Christ offers we offer for our sins, believing the clement God thus becomes merciful and propitious to us." S. Ambrose writes : «;" In the Eucharist Christ offers himself as priest, that he may forgive us sins." b. Jerome writes: "What is to be thought of prelates who every day offc spotle-s victims to God, both for their own sins and those of the people." With these testimonies, the following words of S. J. Crysostum accord : " How holy must he be, who, for the city, yea, ml ,. Mil !»BiBBJB^a-IHU-JL. I m!MmMmimLkS^^^miMI^:^!^^^xrst^^i^^;i^^ W^fl' ■T9. m' if r^ ■hi: i ' t il for the whole Church, acts the intercessor, supplicating God he may be propitious to all on account of their sins." S. Augustine (in lib deceret Dei) writes : " To the sacrifices of the ancient law, this one sacrifice is preferred, for in it a true remission of sins takes place " That the sacrifice of the Eucharist is propitiatory is learned from the consent of all churches, this consent is ascertained from the Liturgies of both Greeks and Latins, not excepting Schysmatics, in all which it is affirmed the sacrifice (ot the Eucharist) is offered, " that God may forgive us our sins ;" this is the doctrine of the Fathers of the Council of Trent, who defined the sacrifice of the Eucharist to be truly propi- tiatory, " reconciled to him by this oblation, the Lord, conferring grace and the gifts of repentance, remits also crimes and great sins ;" they moreover add, •' this victim is she same, and /le, who, by the ministry of priests, offers himself, is the same as he who offered himself on the cross, the manner of offering being different." However, it is to be observed, according to the definition of the Fathers of Trent, the sacrifice of the mass doth not immediately and directly forgive sins, as baptism and penance, but indirectly, by obtaining for us the helps of grace and the gi^t of repentance. The sacrifice of the Eucharist is impetratory, /. e., through it we obtain favours both spiritual and temporal ; that spiritual gifts may be obtained through the Eucharist, and are obtained through it, is manifest from what has been said in the preceding proposition. The same may be afiirmed in vegard to temporal blessings, for if the sacrifices of the old law availed for obtaining them, and this is undeni- able, e. g., from the victims which King David offered to drive pestilence away (2 b. K., c. 4) from the sacrifice which MaHchias offered, that the life of the impious Hebodorus may be spared (11 Mach., c. 5); to obtain the like temporal blessings, why would not the excellent sacrifice be deemed efficacious ? " of which the ancient sacrifices were but thejigure" as the Apostle Paul (i Tim., c, 2) teaches. -1 »« vniii ;.>?:>. " It is good and acceptable before our Saviour prayers and supplica- tions be made for all men, for Kings, for all high in authority (in subli- mitate postis), that they may lead a quiet, peaceful life in all piety and chastity." Here, verily, prayers are said to be acceptable to God to obtain temporal blessings, and not any prayer should be deemed more acceptable to him than that, in which Christ intercedes for us in the Eucharij-t, to which we join ours ; through it, then, (the Eucharist), we can ask for temporal blessings with a well-founded hope of obtaining them, if they contribute to our salvation. ' From the earliest times prayers were offered in the celebration of the Eucharist for draining temporal olessings ; this knowledge we have acquired from Tertulian, who died at the advanced age of 81, A. D. 218, and therefore spent by far the greater part of a long life in the age preceding that of the Apostles, in his 2nd book, *' de Scapula,'* he writes : " Sacrifice is offered in behalf of the Emperor." Eusebius wriies : " For Constantine and his sons, for the peace of the whole worid, sacrifice is offered." (Book 4, Life of Const,), " for the general peace of the Church sacrifice is offered." Writes Cyril, of Jerusalem, "■•s. m •Tjl|l' i li ij l| i > - \ 47 mi m- of the have A. D. in the ," he sebius whole eneral ialem, " I would have the initialed know ;" writes S. J. Chrysostum, Horn. 6, I Tim., "how, every day, morning and evening we make entreaties for the peaceful government of the whole world, for our soldiers and allies, for those who labour under infirmities, for those who are oppressed with diseases, for all in fine who need- help ;" that in all preceding ages prayers were made during ihe celebration of the Eucharist for obtaining spiritual and temporal blessings alike, is demonstrated from the fact that the Lord's Prayer, which includes all spiritual and temporal neces- sities, was always recited. It may be asked how the sacrifice of the Eucharist operates? ist. It doth not directly remit sins, as to guilt and punishment, as they are remitted by the Sacraments ; but indirectly, inasmuch as it obtains the grace of God for persons to be moved to a conversion of heart, and to receive the Sacraments with profit. 2nd. The sacrifice of the Mass operates exoperc operato^ i.c.^ it produces its salutary effects through a virtue inherent in the divine act itself, independent of the disposition of the officiating priest; "that pure oblation cannot in any way be tar- nished by the unworthiness or malice of those who offer it." — Con. Trid, Sess. xxii., c. 2. The efficacy of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is not derived from the devotion of him for whom it is offered, otherwise it would possess no more inherent virtue than any other good work, which would not be true to say; besides, it is advantageously offered for the dead, who are incapable of any merit of their own. Note — On the part of the celebrating minister some greater efficacy might accrue to the Sacrifice, ex opere operantis, on account of his more fervent prayer. In this respect alone, the Mass offered by a pious priest may be said to avail more than the Mass offered by an impious priest. — Tournely. ,^,j' , It is asked if the fruit (value) of the Mass is infinite. Its fruit is in- finite, as to sufficiency, on account of the dignity of the Victim, but finite as to efficacy, or way of applying its fruit to us. TLis is mani- festly true from the practice of the Church, which permits the sacrifice of the Mass to be repeatedly offered, that the same favors may be ob- tained ; also from the decrees of Popes, which forbid a priest receiving many stipends for Masses, to discharge all by the offering of one, they denounce to the priest who in his cupidity would so act, "he would sin against justice and was bound to restitution." If it be asked why it is so, when the dignity of the Victim and the principal Offerer are in- finite in value — Answer: ist. The supreme will of God has so ordained it. 2nd. Tnat the Sacrifice, without which religion could not be main- tained, would be more frecjuented. 3rd. Because the order of Divine Providence requires it, the order by which it happens, Christ does not cease to intercede for us in heaven. Another reason, that the infinite price which he paid for us on the cross, and thro gh which the world is saved, may not be applied to us but at certain seasons, according to a certain measure, and through diverse instruments of grace. 5 th. Thus God wishes to promote (to stimulate) our zeal, our diligence, our efforts, so that in proportion to the measure of our piety and devotion, 11 11 .,f s. 9) (Ji: i •■^}mi. m m 'i ■■'■' we would derive greater or less fruit from the Sacrifice.— Idem in Major, Prolect. Whence is derived the application, viz., the amount of fruit coming from the Sacrifice of the Mass? ist. From the merciful will of God. and. From the general intention of the Church, for whose good this ^ Sacrifice was instituted ; from the special intention of the sacrificing or officiating minister ; from the particular devotion of Him for whom it is ofiered. The will of God is inscrutable. The general intention of the Church is ascertained firom her Liturgies (public service) ; from these we learn the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered " for all the faithful, living and dead, for the salvation of the whole world, for all who are in power" The intention of the minister should include all, for whom by virtue of office, or on account of stipend, he is obliged to oflfer the sacrifice. Finally, although the Mass operates ex opere operato, generally speaking, its effect is greater or less, according to the disposition of those for whom it is offered. I said " generally speaking," because the Eucharistic Sacrifice celebrated for a sinner who thinks not of his soul nor of doing pen- ance, often by the grace of God produces the desired efi"ect — is often attended with the conversion of the poor erring child of the Church. Assisting devoutly at Mass procures for us blessings without number, both temporal and spiritual. It is written in Scripture, the Lord blessed Obededum and all his substance, because he lodged the ark in his house — '^ Benedixit Dominus Obededum, et omnia ejus propter earn'* (2 Kings, vi., 12). What then may we not expect he will do in favour of "^ devout soul, affected wi'^h lively feelings of religion, towards the sac? mysteries of which the ark was but a figure ? Sinners will receive th the spirit of penance and compunction ; the just, new fervour in the service of God. " The Eucharist was the source of zeal to the Apostles, of strength to martyrs, of light to doctors, of sanctity to confessors, and of purity to virgins. It is the sanctification cf Christian souls, the hap- piness and glory of the Church, the treasures of God's goodness, benig- nitatis Dei thesaurus, in which the oppressed find a resource in their ad- versity, the feeble, the sick, support and consolation in their infirmities ; it is the treasure whence God effuses on us the riches of his mercy." — S. J. Chrysostum, Hom. 3. Let us then assist at this holy sacrifice every day — or at least as often as it is conveniently possible for us — but let us assist at it devoutly ; let us attend with as much modesty, piety and faith, as may render us worthy at the awful hour of death to reap and gather in the last fruit of this sacrifice, which ia to possess that glory and felicity which Jesus Christ, who is there offered for our salvation, has merited for us by his sacred death and passion. Amen. P.S. — Christ, the celebrating minister, the society of the faithful, com- bine in offering the Sacrifice of the Mass, but in a different manner, for Christ offers as the principal and primary priest, the celebrating minister, as real priest; but secondary, and asj, Christ's vicar, the faithful offer in will, desire, and in spiritual union with the celebrating minister. I St. That Christ is principal and primary priest, follows frojn the pre ■B?»5»5^3'^55^5Prararaa5!«r! n Major, t coming of God. rood this ificing or hom it is )n of the these we living and 1 power." virtue of ;. Finally, ;, its effect vhom it is c Sacrifice ioing pen- ; — is often Church. It number, )rd blessed ark in his r earn " (2 favour of " the sac7 ceive th our in the e Apostles, essors, and Is, the hap- ness, benig- n their ad- infirmities ; s mercy." — ?ast as often jvoutly ; let er us worthy ruit of this esus Christ, ^ his sacred aithful, com- mannsr,, for ing minifjter, htul offer in ter. rojn the prf- 49 . ^ .ave he enjoys, " of being alone priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisadech," who therefore alone, as primary priest, must to the consummation of the world offer this sacrifice. " It was becoming we should have a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, made higher than the heavens, v/ho hath not necessity every day as the priests of the old law to offer vicirns, first for his sins, then for the people " (Ep. Heb., c. 7) ; this refers no less to the Eucharist than to the sacrifice of the cross, with which it is the same in substance, and, there- fore, in offering the Eucharist, Christ is the principal (primary) priest ; so all the Holy Fa; hers understand it, as they acknowledge him to be both priest and victim. 2d. Priests alone who are validly ordained,can offer this sacrifice to them. J. Christ spoke the following words: " This do in commemoration of me;" to them he gave power and issued a command to consecrate the Eucharist. Now these words were solely addressed to the Aposdes and to their suc- cessors in the priesthood, to wit, Bishops and Presbyters ; they alone then have the power of oftering the sacrifice of the Eucharist. This we likewise learn from tradition ; Si. Justin (/// prhn. ApoL pro Christ), writes : " To him who presides over the brethren, is offered bread and a cup of wine mixed with water, which, he receiving, performs the Eucharist." Tertulian ^writes: " The Eucharist is not to be received but from the hands of those who preside, much less is it to be consecrated by any " (but by them). They who presided were Bishops and P res- byters. St. Jerome proves the Luciferans -lot to belong to the true Church, from the fact of their not haviuL priests to consecrate the Eucharist, "neque Episcopos, neque Presbyteros, habent epistlol." This sacrament, no person can offer unless a priest (sacerdos), duly ordained, we are taught by the Council IV. of Later, A.D. 12 15. To confirm this doctrine, the Council of Trent {sess. 22, de sacrif. miss.) has hurled the thunderbolts of heaven against all gainsayers fulminating the following scathing anathema : " If any person will say, Christ when he spoke these words, 'hoc facite in meant commemoratiotiem,' (sec. 22), did not ordain his Apostles priests, or did not intend they and other priests would offer his body and blood, let him be anathema." The faithful may be said in a threefold sense to offer. 1st. In a general way, inasmuch as they are members of the Church in the name of which the priest offers. 2nd. In a special manner, so far as they co-operate with the celebrat- ing minister, e. g., by asking for, by procuring the sacrifice to be applied to themselves, by donating " the celebrant " an honorary, by minister- ing unto him. 3rd. Because by internal affection, they unite themselves " to the action of the priest," and seek to be partakers of its fruit ; hence, the priest before beginning the canon in which is comprised " the action of the sacrifice," turning to the people, says in a loud voice, " Orate fratres'^ &c., /.