IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 / 
 
 O 
 
 
 y,. ^ f /k /#o^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 UilM 115 
 
 Ul li 
 
 Ki 
 
 i'lHi 
 
 12.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.4 11.6 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 ,\ 
 
 ;V 
 
 ^<b 
 
 .V 
 
 ^ 
 
 '^^<S 
 
 V 
 
 
 6^ 
 
 
 <^ 
 
 °>?^ 
 
 ^^v. 
 
CIHM/SCMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICiVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The 
 tot 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographicaliy unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 0C 
 C 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur6e et/ou pelliculde 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le 
 
 titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I 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) 
 
 I 1 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches tit/ou iiiusir^tions s^n ccuieur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relii avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6x6 fiim6es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliograpl.ique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduitd, ou qui peuvent exiger ure 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages andommagies 
 
 I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes 
 
 Pages discoloiired, stained or foxei 
 Pages ddcolories, tacheties ou piqu6es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtach^es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Qualit^ indgale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materit 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 I I Pages discoloiired, stained or foxed/ 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 r~~] Showthrough/ 
 
 nn Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 I I Only edition available/ 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partlellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont dt6 film^es 6 nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 The 
 pos 
 oft 
 filnr 
 
 Orli 
 beg 
 the 
 sloi 
 oth 
 firs 
 sioi 
 ori 
 
 Th« 
 sha 
 TIN 
 whi 
 
 Ma 
 diff 
 ent 
 beg 
 rigt 
 req 
 me' 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 14X 
 
 18X 
 
 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 3CX 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
01 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thi«nks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Bibiiothdoue nationals du Ciu6bec 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grflce A la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Quebec 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping wlitx the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec ie 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de ia condition et 
 de la netteti de rexemplaire film^, et en 
 coraformitA avec les ccnditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first paee with a printed or illustiatod impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprim6e sont fiim^Q en commengsnt 
 par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second 
 plat, salon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmis en commen9ant pt'r la 
 piomidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —»> (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur !a 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie 
 cas: Ie symbols »► signifie "A SUIVRE ', Ie 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 fiim^s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque la document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul cliche, il est fiimd A partir 
 de i'angle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 iilustrent ia methods. 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
iP24 
 Ok' 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 TRANSUBSTANTIATION 
 
 SUSTAINED: 
 
 AN ANSWER TO THE REVEilEND DR. BURNS' 
 
 STRlCrURES ON DR. CAHILL's LECTURE 
 
 ON TR YNSUBSTANTIATION- 
 
 BY ARCHDEACON O'KEEFFE, 
 
 ST, Michael's cathedral, Toronto. 
 
 %\ 
 
 TOIiOJSrTO = 
 
 PRINTED AT THE "CANADIAN FREEMAN" OFFICE, 74 CHUfiCH STREET. 
 
 isea. 
 
' i.J; 
 
 T 
 
 AN 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 TRANSUBSTANTIATION 
 
 SUSTAINED: 
 
 AN ANSWER TO THE REVEREND DR. BURNS* 
 STRICTURES ON DR. CAHILL'S LECTURE 
 ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 
 BY archdeacon; O'KEEFFE 
 
 . • . ST; rirft-JaAELV WrttEDR^L, 'TORONTO. 
 
 T0I103MT0 : 
 
 PRINTED AT THR -CANADIAN FREEMAN' OFFICE, 74 CHURCH STREET. 
 
 1863. 
 
^*r 
 
 » . • • 
 
 
 
 > # '.J (1 f i 
 
 1 • . « • • 
 
 I ♦«.. * J «>«' 
 
 I , I • • • 
 
 VST ? 
 
 » -1 f w . 
 
 .TSM:. 
 
^^ 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 TRANSUBSTANTIATION SUSTAINED. 
 
 
 Last Thursday a pamphlet was handed me, entitled, '^ Reply to 
 the Rev. Dr. Cahill, on the Eucharist." It was written by Rev. 
 Robert Burns, D. D., Professor of Church History, Knox College, 
 Toronto, C. W. In style, the pamphlet is good ; in tone, more 
 courteous than the generality of Protestant publications on Catholic 
 subjects J from misrepresentations, some of a grave character, it is 
 far from bemg free ; whilst in sheor logic, the author, if judged by 
 his recent production, is entitled but to little praise. The Rev. 
 Professor's design is to disprove the real presence of the Redeemer 
 in the Blessed Sacrament ; and to nhow how far he has not 
 succeeded is the object of this brief rejoinder — We do not complain, 
 indeed we expect, that ignorance of Catholic doctrine should 
 prevail among uneducated Protestants ; but we do not antecedently 
 expect, and consequently we complain, and have a right to com- 
 plain, that a writer who is a fellow-citizen of ours, who holds 
 a responsible position, ami is looked upon as a "doctor in Israel,'* 
 we have a right to complain that such a writer, having every 
 opportunity to know Catholic principles, should, from ignorance^ 
 vincible or invincible, labor with some ability, and more zeal, to 
 travesty Catholic doctrine, and then fold his arms in triumphant 
 self-complacency, confident that to state is to refute. Indeed, to 
 state is sometimes to refute, but ascribe to Catholicity the teachings 
 of the Koran, and then refute them, do you, by thus acting, refute 
 Catholicity 1 Now, misrepresentation is not disproof. This pro- 
 position seems clear, and yet the Catholic Church ever had to 
 complain, from the days of the Capharnaites to John Knox, and 
 from John Knox to the Rev. Dr. Burns, that her adversaries wrote 
 and acted as if convinced that to calumniate and to refute are one 
 and the same thing. In dealing with the pamphlet before us, we 
 shall pursue the following order :— F\rst, we shall dispose of some 
 of its misrepresentations ; secondly, we shall answer its objectione 
 
 60458 
 
* THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 against the real presence; lastly, we shall state the Catholic doc- 
 trine on the subject of the Blessed Eucharist, and then give the 
 motives of credibility which bow down the intelligences of more 
 than two hundred millions of persons in single-minded adoration 
 of that revealed mystery.-Let us commence with tho mi^reprB- 
 sentations. In page 6, Dr. Burns say« :-" If, on tlxe other hand, 
 there be a real and literal transformation of the elements into the 
 'body and soul,» together with the divinity." The Catholic 
 Church teaches there is no transformation wliatever of the ele- 
 ments, and in this teaching tho testimony of the senses fully 
 concurs. Would it not be well not to contemn the essential 
 difference between two terms so very important, especially iii tho 
 Eucharistic connection, as are the terms transformation and tran- 
 substantiation ? Confound terms and you confuse ideas. Still 
 iesD does the Catholic Church teach that there is " a transformation 
 of the elements into the soul together with the divinity." The 
 Catholic Church teaches that neither into the soul nor into the 
 divinhy is there transformation or transubstantiation of any kind 
 effected. Such a transformation or transubstantiation may have 
 advocates among heterodox opinionists, but could never receive a 
 place in a Catholic symbol. It is passing strange that the gentle- 
 man did not give himself the trouble of studying the Catholic 
 Catechism before he labored so zealously to explode Catholic 
 doctrine : but perhaps his actual course was more prudent, as it 
 would seem that he intended to use misrepresentation as the chief 
 means by which to effect his object. It is, indee- , a graceless task 
 to undertake tc refute any doctrine, true or false, so long as we 
 do not precisely know in what that doctrine consists. 
 
 In page 13, Dr. Burns says :-« The notion of Dr. Cahill (works 
 p. 8, 10) that the bread and wine brought forth by Melchisedech 
 on occasion of Abraham's return from the toils of war, was the typa 
 or symbol of which the bread and wine used by the Redeemer at 
 the first Sacramental Supper was the reality, is at variance ^itk- 
 the ordinary ideas held by his chun^h, that the elements in 
 Melohibedeoh's case were sacrificial, and that thi. venerable 
 priest of the Most High God presented the first Mass." Thia 
 
 Zrr, T'nl'u''' ^'"'* *^^ "^^^'^ P«'P^*>^« misstatements.. 
 Pm, did Dr. CahUl ever harbor th'. silly thought that one bread 
 and wme can be type or symbol, whilst another mere bread and 
 
 I 
 
 f 
 
 
Iiolic doc- 
 give the 
 s of more 
 adoration 
 tii^repre- 
 ler hand, 
 8 into the 
 Catholic 
 ■the ele- 
 ses fuIJy 
 efesentiai 
 ly ill tho 
 nd tran- 
 is. Still 
 brmation 
 ." The 
 into the 
 my kind 
 lay have 
 eceive a 
 ) gentle- 
 Catholic 
 Catholic 
 nt, as it 
 he chief 
 ej?s task 
 J OS we 
 
 (works 
 isedech 
 ihetypa 
 3mer at 
 ce ^ithi 
 snts ia 
 nerable 
 ' Tliia 
 iments.. 
 i bread 
 ad and 
 
 TRANSUBSTANTiATION SUSTAINED. O 
 
 wino can bo the typified or symbolized reality ? Isaac carrying 
 wood for the saciifioe was strikingly and beautifully typical of the 
 Redeemer bearing the cross ; but that bread could be the type or 
 symbol of mere bread, and wine the type or symbol of mere wine, 
 is a thing which never entered ntJither into the writings nor into 
 the mind of the illustrious Dr. Cahill In the portion of his works 
 to which reference is made, that World-renowned scholar says : — 
 " If bread and wine then were the typ6, surely bread and wine 
 cannot be the fulfilnient ; if so, the typical thing and the thing 
 typified would be the same." How diffeient from what he is 
 made to say when read through Presbyterian spectacles'! Did Dr. 
 Bums ever read that portion of Dr. Cahill*s works JFrom which he 
 afF(&cted to quote t If not, why did he attempt to quote ? If he did 
 read that portion of Jr. Cahill's wbrks, why did he so uncon- 
 scionably misquote and corrupt into a meaning quite opposite to that 
 intended by their author?— The next misstatement, more whole- 
 sale, seems to violate, at least materially, that amiable command- 
 ment which says :— « Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy 
 neighbor," and consists in advancing that an ordinary idea held 
 by the Catholic Church, is that Melchisedech, Priest of the Most 
 High €k)d, presented « the first Mass." This, instead of being an: 
 ordinary idea of the Catholic Church, is so extraordinary, and 
 withal so heterodt^x, that we never met it expressed in any other 
 work than in the pamphlet lying before us* As rw dtie could 
 ascehd itjto heaven until He who had come down should astiend, 
 so no on© could ofTer the first Mftos before Him who, " by oni^ 
 oblation perfected forever them that aife sftrtctified." 
 
 In page 14 of his pamphlet. Dr. Bwns says :— « It was not until 
 the ninth century of the Christian era that the doctrifte of the * real 
 presence * was promulgated." The doctCMP has Ihe unwitting 
 kmdness to refute this assertion in page 22, where he tells us J^^ 
 «^ Indeed, the very olaim to such a charter, advanced as it faai^ 
 been by the adherents of Popery and kindred institutions, has in 
 all ages jwoved the m<»t tremendous instrument of priestly domi- 
 nation." Now transubstantiation, according to our rev. friend of 
 Knox College, must have been rather curiously circumstanced 
 during the first nine centuries of the Christian era. On the one 
 hand, never until the ninth century had that doctrine been promul- 
 gated, and on the other, « the very claim to such a charter" (the 
 
1 
 
 W THE DOCTHINE OF 
 
 chaiter empowering to transubstantiate, of courae) « has in all 
 ages" (and consequently in the first nine ages) " proved the most 
 tremendous instrument of priestly dominaUon.** Who can recon- 
 cile all this? Whether is it above or below reason, a revealed 
 mystery or a sublime absurdity? How far the assertion that 
 transubstantiation was first promnlgated in the ninth century 
 IS consonant with "church history" will be shown by the patristic 
 proofs of the real presence of our Saviour in his ever blessed and 
 adorable sacrament of the altar. In page 21 the reverend doctor 
 says :^'* We do not say, as Roman Catholics aver, that the priest 
 create. God." Ah ! sir, you should have known, before you penned 
 that charge, that no Roman Catholic ever averred that '< the priest 
 creates God." The Roman Catholics aver no such thing, and for 
 two reasons-first, because God cannot be created; and next, 
 because the power to create has not been communicated to crea- 
 tures any more than the power to be omnipotent, omniscient, 
 eternal or divine.-Hav-Ing thus glanced at some of the misrepre- 
 sentations contained in the pamphlet, it may naturally be asked, 
 why are there so many creed-makers for the Catholic Church 
 without her pale, and with whom she could, on account of their 
 pecuhar opinions, hold no communion whatever? She is not 
 satisfied with their success in manufacturing a creed for them- 
 selves-do they imagine she would be better pleased with their 
 success in elaborating a system for her ? As to the moral honesty 
 of misrepresentation, it might be observed that when poijury is 
 estabUshed against a witness in a court of justice, his testimony is 
 justly considered nuU and void ; so, in the arena of discussioii, 
 when misrepresentation is prwed against a polemical opponent, 
 who will hardly plead ignorance in his defence, it must be inferred 
 that he has but little confidence in his cause, indeed, that he 
 Iwks upon it aa, in the circumstances, absciutely indefensible. 
 Would a Catholic clergyman be considered a man of honor, who, 
 from maUce or ignorance, should frequently misrepresent, in the 
 course of a few short pages, the creed of his Protestant brethren ? 
 If we have confidence in our cause let us refrain from misre- 
 presentation, whether of peiaons or of things, and remember *< truth 
 IS great and will prevail." Magna est teritat tt prttvalebit. 
 
 Dismissing for the present the subject of the doctor's misrepre- 
 sentations of Catholic doctrine, we pass to his objections against 
 
TRANSUBiTANTIATION SU8TAINKD. 
 
 % 
 
 las in all 
 i 'he most 
 ;an recon- 
 I revealed 
 rtion that 
 1 ceutury 
 e patristic 
 esbed and 
 md doctor 
 the priest 
 m penned 
 the prieut 
 gt and for 
 md next, 
 1 to crea- 
 miscient, 
 nisrepre- 
 >e asked, 
 : Church 
 t of their 
 e is not 
 n them, 
 ith their 
 I honesty 
 >«ijury is 
 imony is 
 
 JCUSSiOB, 
 
 pponent, 
 ) inferred 
 
 that he 
 fensibie. 
 or, who, 
 t, in the 
 rethren? 
 I misre- 
 ■ " truth 
 ML 
 isrepre- 
 
 against 
 
 the real presence, as held in the Catholic Church A fugitive ob- 
 JHctior. pamphleted by Dr. Burns consists in this : « The Scripturres 
 speak of one sacrifice, and of one only." " Therefore, the Mass 
 cannot bo a sacrifice.*' The Scriptures speak of only one blocdy 
 sacrifice ; but they speak of another unbloody »acrifice~of a clean 
 oblation, which was to be offered « from the rising of the sun to 
 the gomg down of the same."- Malach. i. Distinctions must be 
 recognized, even in Scripture, by Fresbyterianisra as well as by 
 Catholicity, else how reply to the Arian who objects, "the Father 
 is greater than I," and levels his objection against the divinity 
 of the Son of God ? Now, it is just as easy to distinguish between 
 a bloody and an unbloody sacrifice, or between the same sacrifice 
 offered up ouce in a bloody manner and offeied up from the rising 
 «.f the sun to the going down of the same in an unbloody manner, 
 as it is to distinguish between orr Saviour as God and our Saviour 
 as man. As Christians lecurred to the distinction between our 
 Saviour as Gwi and our Saviour as man, in order to reply to the 
 Arian heresy, S'. also Catholics recur to the distinction between 
 the bloody and unbloody manner of offering the sacrifice of the 
 cross, in order to reply to the Presbyterian objection. 
 
 Again in page 6, he says: "Now, it is surely unnecessary to 
 infq m Pro'estants of ordinary education, that lo hold the doctrine of 
 the Mass,;ind, at the same time, that of the one spotless and all- 
 sufficient sacrifice of the Kedcemer on the cross, is absolutely 
 impossible. The one is incompatible with the other." Thi. 
 objection is welland ingeniously put; and though worn out by fre- 
 quent usage and unable to breast a solid reply, } et has m it great 
 weight, according to the Protest-nt view of the subject. But m 
 reality is the doctrine of the Mass incompatible with that of Jhe cross? 
 If so, we hold to the doctrine of the cross, and reject that of the 
 Mass. But cannot the two doctrines be reconciled? Let us see. The 
 Catholic Church sharply distinguishes between an absolute and a 
 relative sacrifice, and teaches that the Mass is not an absolute, but 
 a relative sacrifice, a sacrifice dependent on, and denvmg all its 
 efficacy from, another sacrifice. The sacrifice on which tne Mass 
 is depend«nt and from which it derives all its efficacy, the sacrifice 
 without which the Mass is no sacrifice, is no other than Calvary s 
 victim-" the Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the 
 world." The Catholic Church holds that not only the Mass, but 
 
 ^Z-. 
 
8 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 I?? 
 
 
 tjvery Christian ordinance, such as Baptism— every supernatural 
 privilege since the fall of Adam, the Immaculate Conception of 
 the Blessed Virgin not excepted— in a word, that every grace 
 given to redeemed nature, is the happy fruit of that one all-con- 
 summating sacrifice. Without this sacrifice, not one of Adam's 
 descendants according to the flesh ever couM have a single good 
 thought ; and, furthermore, the Catholic Church holds, that not 
 on'y is every grace already received and to be received on earth 
 subsequently to the primal transgression, but also that every ray of 
 glory crowning or to crown human nature in Heaven— is ascribable 
 to thesacrifice cf the cross, and to .he sacrifice of the cross alone, 
 m ihe sense that there is uo merit independent of, and which does not 
 flow trom, that infinite fountain of merit. Though the sacrifice of 
 the Mass derives all its eflicacy from the sacrifice of the cross, 
 yet the two sacrifices are substantially the same— the High Priest 
 is the same, the adorable Victim is the same, the eternal Being to 
 whom the offering is made is the same. The mode of offering the 
 sacrifice is not the same in the Mass as in the sacrifice of the 
 cross. On the cross God offered Himself in a bloody manner, 
 concealing Hifl divinity; in the Mass he offers Himself in an 
 unbloody manner, veiling both His divinity and His humanity. 
 Such, then, being tue doctrine of the Catholic Church on the 
 subject of the Mas8> how can the Mass, more than any o*her ordi- 
 nance admitted by Protestants -such as Baptism, or what is called 
 the Lord's Supper, &c.— derogate from the immaculate sacrifice of 
 Calvary, since the Mass, as well as these, derives all efficacy ft»m 
 that same sacrifice of calvary? Another adversury might object 
 —though thii objection is n^t in the pamphlet to which we reply 
 —that redemption might be ascribed to the sacrifico of the Mass 
 as well as to tfte sacrifzce of the cross, since the two are substan- 
 tially identical. The Mass, indeed, might have accomplished thd 
 vyork of redemption, had God so willed it, just as the first breath 
 He drew in the world might, ii He had so willed it, have redeemed 
 a thousand worids, for the simph reason that His breath, being the 
 breath of a God, was of infinite value. But not by His breath, nor 
 Hjs woid, nor His miracles— though each of these would have 
 more than sufficed— did He redeem fallen mau, but by the 
 bloody oblation of Himself. Hence, to this oblation, and not 
 to H.8 breath, word, miracles, or the Mass, must the redemp- 
 
ipernalural 
 nception of 
 very grace 
 le all-coii- 
 of Adam's 
 ingle good 
 R, that not 
 d on earth 
 very ray of 
 ascribable 
 ross alone, 
 Bh does not 
 sacrifice of 
 the cross, 
 ligh Priest 
 il Being to 
 iFering the 
 fice of the 
 y manner, 
 self in an 
 humanity, 
 ih on the 
 3*her ordi- 
 X is called 
 acrifice of 
 icacy from 
 ght ohject 
 I we reply 
 the Mass 
 i substan- 
 lished the 
 rst breath 
 redeemed 
 being the 
 reath, nor 
 mid have 
 t by the 
 and not 
 lederap- 
 
 TRANSUBSTANTIATION SUSTAINED- » 
 
 tion of the human family 'be ascribed. The Catholic Church 
 ever loudly proclaimed, as she proclaims to-day, the infinite 
 merits of the sacrifice of the cross, and always held, as she 
 holds to-day, that to these merits exclusively is to be ascribed 
 every grace subsequent to Adam's prevarication, and every ray of 
 fflory to be enjoyed by his descendants in Heaven. Nor can her 
 adversaries, except by misrepresenting her doctrine in reference 
 to the cross, ever show the slightest incompatibiluj, between it and 
 tb ^ doctrine of tlie holy sacrifice of the Mass, Is not the Redeemer 
 as free to communicate the merits of Calvary through the Mass as 
 through Baptism, or any other Christian ordinance? And if the 
 sacraments and other Christian remedies do not derogate, as 
 confessedly they do not derogate, from the precious Blood, how, 
 again it may be asked, can the Mass derogate from it, since the 
 Mass derives its virtue, as well as these derive their virtue, from 
 that precious Blocd. The objection, therefore, that the doctrine of 
 the Mass is incompatible with the doctrine of the cross, falls by 
 its own weight, and cannot btand before the simple statement of 
 the unmisrepresented Catholic doctrine.— It must be observed that 
 no attempt is here made to establish the Catholic doctrine on the 
 subject of the Mass. This doctrine will be established when the 
 real presence is proved— for, the leal presence once admitted, all 
 the difficultiefs of the Mass vanish. This the Rev. Dr. Burns 
 himself at once acknowledges. All that was intended so far, was 
 to demonstrate that the incompatibility said to exist between the 
 doctrine of the Catholic Church on the Mass and on the sacrifice 
 of the cross, is simply a creature of an illogical imagination, as 
 whatever might be urged against the M-^ss in this respect, might, 
 with crushing force, be urged against every Christian ordinance 
 recognized by the Christian family throughout the world. 
 
 The rest of the rev. doctor'c objections are intended to militate 
 against the real presence. Though he has very successfully 
 labored to exclude all order from his plan, as well as all logic 
 from his arguments, if arguments they can be called, yet we shall 
 venture to classify his objections under the following heads:— 
 Scripture, the Senses, Human Reason, and "tlie direct and 
 necessary consequences" of Trans ubstantiation. From those four 
 sources, he endeavors to derive arguments to subvert the real 
 presence. We shall follow him in his course, and commence 
 
.™"i"< 
 
 10 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 with Scripture. The Rev. Dr. Bumg s.iys, page 9: "They (the 
 inspired relations; tell ns that the blessed Saviour, whilst seated 
 at the Paschal table, and conversing wiih His disciples, nook 
 bread'— just such bread hs was before him~<and brake it, and 
 gave it to His brethren, and they did eat.' " One would be 
 naturally very curious to know, where did the doctor find the "it" 
 twice repeated, once after "brake"' and once after « gave." Is it 
 to be found in the vulgate or in any ancient Latin or Greek version? 
 But perhaps it is contained in the Syriac, where are to be met 
 "honaw pagre" and "honaw deme " If "it," as above used, 
 be not authorized by any received version, would it not be well to 
 reflect on St. John's Apoc. ch. 22, v. 18: « If any m in shall add 
 to these things, God shall add upon him the plagues written in 
 this book." Not the Apostle holds the doctrine that the end 
 justifies the means, and that it is lawful, even for the holy purpose 
 of propping up a tottering cause, to corrupt the inspired record.— 
 The pith of the other objections which the doctor intends to be 
 scriptural is in the two following arguments ; « The Saviour, at the 
 last supper, said, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the 
 vine." "Therefore," concludes the doctor, very logically, no 
 doubt; "the words of the Saviour, Uhis id my blood,' mean, nhis 
 is not ray blood.' " The next argument would, if thrown into 
 form— a thing which the doctor had too much sense to attempt- 
 run thus : " The auxiliary is is sometimes used in the Bible for 
 represents." "Therefore," again very logically concludes the 
 doctor, " the words of the Redeemer, ' this is my body,' mean, 
 nhis is not ray body."' Indeed, the doctor's arguraentation 
 seems hardly formal-Aristotle's rules seem not very highly 
 respected in it.— But let us deal with the objections such as we 
 find them, and first with, " I will not drink of this fruit of the 
 vine." In what chapter and verse of holy writ can the deniera of 
 Transubstantiation find that those words are applied not to conse- 
 crated but to unconsecratetl wine, since of the latter there might 
 have been some at the last supper, even after the act of consecra- 
 tion was performed ? The identity of the consecrated chal ice with 
 "the fruit of the vine" spoken of by the Saviour is by no means 
 inferable from holy writ. And even were it otherwise, were this 
 identity inferable, what would follow against Transubstantiation ? 
 Was not Aaron's roii, even after it was changed into a serpent, 
 
 
"They (the 
 'hilst seated 
 iples, Uook 
 >rake it, and 
 le would be 
 ind the "it" 
 ave." Is it 
 3ek version? 
 J to be met 
 above used, 
 )t be well to 
 n shall add 
 IS written in 
 lat the end 
 oly purpose 
 id record. — 
 tends to be 
 dour, at the 
 3 fruit of the 
 igically, no 
 mean, ^this 
 hrown into 
 > attempt — 
 le Bible for 
 icludes the 
 dy,' mean, 
 umentation 
 ery highly 
 such as we 
 fruit of the 
 i deniers of 
 Dt to conse- 
 tiere might 
 f conseora- 
 hal ice with 
 ■ no means 
 !, were this 
 itantiation ? 
 a serpent, 
 
 TRANSUB9TANTIATION SUSTAINED. 
 
 11 
 
 Still called a rod?--Ex. 7 ch. 12 v. and was not the water after 
 it became wine still called water?— John, 2 ch. 9 v. And why 
 not, in the same way, the wine, though really changed into the 
 blood, still be called wine? In fact, such is the usage, even at 
 the present day, throughout the Catholic Church, and nothing is 
 more customary than to say "consecrated chalice," "consfccrated 
 host," though it will hardly be denied, at least for a long time, 
 that the Catholics of the nineteenth century unanimously believe 
 the doctrine of Transubstantiation. In the case of the Blessed 
 Eucharist, it was very natural that the species shouW inherit the 
 name of the substance of which they were the species, as these 
 remained, for aught that is known to the contrary, absolutely 
 unchanged. If God (Deut. 4 ch. 24 v.) was called a "consuming 
 fire," because he had appeared under an igneous form -if Abraham 
 termed the angels he had entertained, men, because they had the 
 appearance of men— why not the Blood of the Redeemer in the 
 Blessed Sacrament be called wine, because it has the appearance 
 of wine ? If a substance transubstantiated into another substance, 
 and transformed into the form of that other substance, still con- 
 tinued to give its name to that other substance, all of which were 
 the case with Aaron»8 rod and the seipent— how much more 
 natural is it that a substance merely transubstantiated should give 
 its name to the substance into which it is merely transubstantiated, 
 but into whose forir. it is not transformed— and these last are 
 precisely the case with the wine and the precious Blood in the 
 Blessed Sacrament. From the allegation, therefore, that the 
 consecrated cha'ice is still called in Scripture « the fruit of the 
 vine," absolutely nothing can be concluded against the doctrine 
 of Transubstantiation. 
 
 The i.ext objection intended to be scriptural, might be thus 
 stated : The auxiliary is is sometimes used for represents ; iheie- 
 fore, the same must be the case in the assevervation, « this is my 
 body." The premises, it is evident, even to a sorry logician, do 
 not contain the conclusion, but simply warrant and legitimate an 
 inquiry into the circumstances of the case, to know whether the 
 auxiliary retains its native meaning or is merely employed in a 
 figurative sense. This question will be resolved by setting forth 
 the scriptural proof ia eestabiishmeiit of ihc real presence. It 
 appears to us that to the ?»'.ove two objections is reducible every- 
 
i 
 
 12 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 thing the rev. doctor has attempted to urge from Scripture, directly 
 agaiust Transubstamiation. , .c,. 
 
 Next he tells us this doctrine « is opposed to four out of the five 
 senses with which the Creator hae gifted us." This assertion is 
 followed by a magniloquent dissertation on the senses, into which 
 enter in sublime confusion " water," "wine," antl a "cured lame 
 man leaping and walking." But does the dj[K!tor want to discover 
 by the senses— does he want to see with the eye a thing which is an 
 object of faith ? If so, let him attentively hearken to St. Paul, who, 
 in the 11th chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews, says;—" No\y, 
 faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of 
 things that appear not." If the apostle of nations lived at the 
 the present day, whether would he pronounce in favor of one that 
 contended that the invisibleneijs of God, both as to his divine, and 
 human nature, in the Blessed Sacrament, is no argument 
 against his real presence therein, or in favor of one who should 
 maintain that God is not in the Blessed Sacrament because invitt- 
 Wel If St. P? il wrote under divine inspiration that « laith is the 
 evidence of things that appear," then should Cathoiics cordially 
 renounce transubstantiation, and even assist their eyes with spec- 
 tacles and telescopes, and then join their Presbyterian brethren in 
 the sense quest of faith. But, unfortunately for the Presbyterian 
 cause, St. Paul penned that peculiarly mischievous word "not," 
 which certainly is calculated to unnerve the eye on its first start in 
 quest of objects of faith. Before Presbylerians, therefore, appeal 
 to four out of five of the senses to give evidence against an incar- 
 nate God, they should first uncanonize the word << not," as others, 
 in another connection, inspired the word « only" " by faith only," 
 and make St. Paul's text read, " Now, faith is the substance 
 of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear." 
 The inspired definition of the divine virtue of faith, as given by 
 the great Apostle, evidently deals a hard blow against those whose 
 faith extends no farther than their sight. But is it true that tran- 
 substantiation stands opposed to four out of the five senses with 
 which the Creator has gifted ns ; What do the senses say on the 
 subject ? They affirm that all the accidents of bread and wine 
 remain after as well as before ccnsecration, and in this affirmation 
 iiicir tusiiraony is perfectly correct. Bui do liie senses say the 
 substances of bread and wine remain after as well us before, or is 
 
 j(i 
 
 ^^^? 
 
""* 
 
 TRANSfJBSTANTIATiON SUSTAINED. 
 
 13 
 
 pture, directly 
 ■ ■ >y--b'' 
 )ut of the five 
 is as8erti<Mi is 
 (s, into which 
 "cured larae 
 lit to discover 
 g which is an 
 St. Paul, who, 
 lys i— " Now, 
 e evidence of 
 lived at the 
 )r of one that 
 is divine, «nd 
 K)- argument 
 e who should 
 !catts& iavi^- 
 « laith is the 
 >lic8 cordially 
 Bs with spec- 
 n brethren in 
 Presbyterian 
 word »* not," 
 3 first start in 
 efore, appeal 
 Inst an incar- 
 t," as others, 
 ' faith only," 
 le substance 
 lat appear." 
 as given by 
 those whose 
 ue that tran- 
 senses with 
 )s say on the 
 id and wine 
 s affirmation 
 ises say the 
 before, or is 
 
 it the province of the senses to pronounce upon substances at any 
 time ? Let the learned answer the question, nor will it do to appeal 
 to the ignorance and the prejudice of the untaught. How many 
 subjects are there on which it seems we have the testimony of the 
 senses, especially of the eye, and on which we are, nevertheless, 
 by the other senses as well as by the eye, totally misinformed ! 
 Does not the eye tell you that a straight stick immersed in water 
 is bent? You take it out and find it straight as before. You are 
 moving rapidly in one direction, things around appear moving in 
 an opposite direction— but it will be objected the other senses 
 correct those errors. Granted. Which senses corrected the hoary- 
 headed error, some five thousand five hundred years old !— an error 
 apparently taught us very assidiously by the eye — an error con- 
 nived at and sustained as far as they could be brought to 
 bear on it by all the senses— I mean the error that this big 
 earth of ours does not move, has no motion whatsoever? If 
 a college gentleman should tell millions of unsophisticated 
 persons, even at the present day, that this earth on which 
 we live has two very rapid motions, ♦hat it goes through 
 several miles every hour, it would be interesting to see the gentle- 
 man attempting to extricate himself from the labyrinth of the 
 objections furnished by the senses, and especially by the eye. 
 Could not those millions of persons say that they see the earth and 
 nearly everything on it quite immovable, and that all their senses, 
 so far as they can be brought to bear on the subject, concur m the 
 same verdict? Hence the delusion of the world, learned and 
 unlearned, for the long space of tive thousand five hundred years, 
 on the subject of the earth's motion ; and hence the delusion even 
 at this day, of at least some Presbyterian scholars, who swallow 
 from P.-esbyterian theology the antiquated and unscientific propo- 
 sition that the earth does not move. They p.efer to wage war on 
 natural science rather than admit that the eye seems an arrant 
 cheat : for if they admit this in natural science, logic would imme- 
 diately assert its empire, and bow down the senses in profoundes 
 adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Might it not be said that 
 God has his own designs in v '.dosing to the world a scientific fact 
 which shows the unsafety of undue reliance on the eye, and espe- 
 cially since he disclosed that fact about the period when that organ 
 was appeale i to by Uie teiormers lo give ic=»t.i"Owj «a.., 
 
14 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 
 ;i 
 
 But whatever may be thoiijrht of this observation, it is certain that 
 the eye &iid all the senses, as far as they are available in the 
 matter, inspire a^ strong con vie ion that the earth does not move 
 as they do that the Divinity and Humanity of the Incarnate Word 
 are net contained in the ever-adorable Sacrament of the Altar.—- 
 Who wern the sworn enemies of Columbus, when he solicited 
 means to discover a new world ? The senses, judging in a court 
 where they had no juiisdiction. Had their decisions been 
 hearkened to, might not the naked, red Indian, be the sole inhab- 
 itant of the new world at the present day ? 
 
 But is it not highly injurious to the attributes of God to maintain 
 that he (jannot make one substance assume the accidents of 
 another ? Could he not transubstantiate water into wine and leave 
 itscolor unchanged ? Ami who will dare say that he could not do 
 the same as far as the other accidents are concerned, thus leaving 
 those entirely unchanged, and yet the water absolutely transub- 
 stantiated? If such be possible in the case of water and wine, 
 two created substances, why not the same be done with bread and 
 the body of the Lord, with wine and his blood, for all these are 
 likewise created substances? Ah, in the nineteenth century, 
 there is a tendency to lengthen the arm of man and shorten the 
 arm of God! and to forget that "He breathes worlds, thinks 
 creations, and speaks universes." Nor is there in the case of 
 Transubstantiation any deception even on the senses, since God 
 tells us that the Blessed Eucharist is his Body and his Blood, his 
 Soul and his Divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine. 
 If a consecrated host should fall under the eye of an unbeliever, 
 the error, if any there were, could ne more be chargeable upon 
 God, than coold the original sin in which both believer, and 
 unbel-evers are born. We do and must labor under some disad- 
 vantages in consequence of the primal fall ; but those disadvant- 
 ages cannot be imputed to Him who willed them, neither in 
 themselves nor in their cause. And is it not a happy thing, a 
 blessed dispensation, that Providence deigns to mortify, by con- 
 tinually keeping in subjection, that organ which "saw that the 
 tree was gooti to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to 
 behold ?» But it is truly a melancholy spectacle to behold those 
 who admit that God is a spirit, and must be adored in spirit and 
 IS—.., _^p„.., ,„ ,„^ ^T^uoca lu givuT lesumony agairtsi liieir Creator. 
 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 it 
 
TRANSUBSTANTFATION SUSTAINED. 
 
 15 
 
 3eitaiu that 
 ible in the 
 i not move 
 •nate Word 
 18 Altar. — 
 le solicited 
 in a court 
 sions been 
 jole inhab- 
 
 maintain 
 scidents of 
 
 1 and leave 
 auld not do 
 us leaving 
 ly transub* 
 
 and wine, 
 bread and 
 these are 
 ti century, 
 shorten the 
 Ids; thinks 
 le case of 
 since God 
 Blood, his 
 and wine, 
 mbeliever, 
 lable upon 
 levers and 
 )me disad- 
 disadvant- 
 neither in 
 y thing, a 
 y, by con- 
 v^ that the 
 ightful to 
 lold those 
 spirit and 
 ir Creator. 
 
 » 
 
 Luckily, however, the very elements of natural science itseit, of 
 astronomy, invalidate their alleged testimony, and render it " null 
 and void in the sight of God and of His Chiuch." The charge, 
 therefore, that Transubstantiation " is opposed to four out of the five 
 senses with which the Creator has gifteil us," is of very little avail 
 towards proving that the Redeemer meant by "this is my bodyj" 
 "this is not my body," and by "this is my blood," "this is not 
 my blood." 
 
 The next position which Dr. Burns assumes, is that of trying 
 and nonsuiting " Transubstantiation at the bar of common sense." 
 At this very bar the Deist tries and nonsuits the Trinity— the 
 Rationalist tries, nonsuits, and mythifies revelation- and the 
 Atheist tries, nonsuits, mythifies, and annihilates God him?elf'. 
 We are very lion-hearted in this century of ours ; but our courage 
 is scarcely such as is inspired by Christian meditation of the 
 words, <' Scrutator majestatis opprimetura g-/onrt."— "So he 
 that 18 a searcher of mystery shall be overwhelmed by 
 glory.'^— Pror., 25th ck. and QHth v. But what does human 
 reason say on the subject of Transubstantiation? After disposing 
 of the assertion, and proving, as might be thought, to his own full 
 satisfaction, in his preceding paragraph, that the doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation stands opposed to four out of five of the senses, 
 the rey. professor's fourth sentence to prove that Transubstantiation 
 is contrary to human reason is expressed in these words : " The 
 doctrine of the Trinity does not lun counter to the evidence of the 
 sense in a single instance ; the doctrine of Transubstantiation is 
 opposed to four out of the five senses." Now, one would think 
 he might have disposed of the senses under their proper head ; 
 but his evident dissatisfaction with the unsolid character of the 
 defence he makes of his objections, leads mm to repetitions which 
 generate in the pages of his pamphlet about as much confusion as 
 could be comfortably accommodated, even by the greatest econ- 
 omy, withm the same narrow space. In tacS it is difficult to 
 perceive whither he is drifting at all in this portion of his produc- 
 tion. It is, beyond doubt, the most unfortunate page in his 
 pamphlet. He speaks of a mathematical axiom- but is it not a 
 metaphysical axiom, also?-that it is impossible for the same 
 thing to be and not to be at the same time ; and thence concludes, 
 and in the conclusion, as a fact, every right mind must concur, 
 
 k 
 
% 
 
 16 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 that "the same thing cannot be simple bread and real Hesh at 
 the same time." The doctor was unwittingly writing Catholic 
 doctrine, whilst in his heated zeal against it he innocently imagined 
 he was 'successfully refuting it. The Eucharist is not real flesh 
 and simple bread at the same time, and if human reason shews it 
 to be simple bread, we will heartily renounce the idea that it is 
 real flesh. But the learned doctor, whilst trying and non-suiting 
 Transubstantiation at the bar of human reason, has net given 
 himself the trouble of attempting to prove by human reason that 
 the Eucharist is simple bread, as every one who reads a portion of 
 his pamphlet (pages 16 and 17) can readily perceive. He indeed 
 summons the senses to depose anew against what he very politely 
 erms the " monstrous dogma ;" but human reason, during the 
 trial, seemed to be ermined on the tribunal, and maintained 
 throughout, and even at the end, a most dignified and unbroken 
 silence. Writers who propose to themselves the instruction 
 and edification of the public, should, if possible, understand 
 the topic they write about, and then try and infuse % dash 
 of order into the treatment of their subject. Presuming that 
 Transubstantiation will be agani summoned to the bar of human 
 reason, when more witnesses maybe available, let us in the mean 
 time get a glimpse at the doctor as he tries it " by the test of its 
 direct and necessary consequences." In this trial, no doUbt, the 
 doctor will display all his logic. His first charge is, « Transubstan- 
 tiation destroys the sacramental character of the Lord's Supper;" 
 but the professor did not tell us whether he intends this charge to 
 be ranked among the direct or amony the i ecessary consequences. 
 Indeed, the distinction between both seems to have been not very 
 indelibly impressed on his mind, for no indication of it is after- 
 wards to be found in his pamphlet. But expletives have their own 
 utility, especially when intended lo pass for solid argument ; and 
 professors have an undisputed right to use them when necessity 
 requires. It may be permitted, however, to inquire by what genus 
 or species of testimony is established the charge that Tranhubstan- 
 tiation annihilates the sacramental character of the Lord's Supper. 
 Where is the proof? None even attempted. The doctor con- 
 tmues :—" There is no longer a deed of sacred remembrance." 
 Is not God, under the appearance of bread and wine, a very good 
 remembrancer of God visible in the flesh ? Ah ! there is longer a 
 
f 
 
 TRAN9UBSTANTIATION SUSTAINED. 
 
 17 
 
 real flesh al 
 ing Catholic 
 tly imagined 
 )t real flesh 
 son shews it 
 3a that it is 
 
 non-suiting 
 3 net given 
 
 reason that 
 
 1 a portion of 
 
 He indeed 
 
 ^ery politely 
 
 , during the 
 
 maintained 
 d unbroken 
 
 instruction 
 
 understand 
 jse %. dash 
 uming that 
 r of human 
 u the mean 
 3 test of its 
 3 doubt, the 
 ransubstan- 
 's Supper;" 
 is charge to 
 (sequences, 
 en not very 
 it is after- 
 e their own 
 ment ; and 
 1 necessity 
 what genus 
 anhubstan- 
 I's Supper, 
 lector con- 
 mbrance.'* 
 
 very good 
 is longer a 
 
 deed of sacred and of mo3t sacred remembrance, not indeed in the 
 Piesbyterian system, but in the Catholic faith. Could there, in 
 fact, be conceived a more sacred remembrance of God visible in 
 the flesh, than God invisib'e in the Blessed Sacrament? The 
 doctor says :— " There is an act of direct creation." Again, per- 
 haps so in the Presbyterian opinion, but not so in the Catholic 
 faith. Indeed, the doctor seems to employ the terms direct and 
 indirect very loosely—a custom rather awkward in philosophical 
 or theological disquisitions. The doctor next complams— " There 
 are no longer symbols— there aro actual realities " This com- 
 plaint would have been intelligible on the lips of a wandering 
 Jew ; but made by a Christian professor, is not easily explained. 
 Had not the world symbols long enough, and are not actunl reali- 
 ties far better than symbols ? Thank God that the synagogue was 
 buried with honor, and that there are no longer symbols but actual 
 realities But where, again, is the attempt to prove that the Mass, 
 because a dread reality, can have no value as a remembrance of 
 Christ ? We have looked for it but have not found it. 
 
 The reverend doctor's next and last charge is that Transubstan- 
 tiation " inflicts a Ibtal wound on the evidences of the glorious 
 Gospel, and more particularly on the evidence of miracles." Now, 
 it mu»t be observed, that Catholics do not contend that the testi- 
 mony of the senses can never produce certainty ; nor does the 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation render their testimony in all cases 
 valueless or doubtful. Does the fact that virginity and motherhood 
 were united in the same singularly privileged female, destroy the 
 certainty we have that Nature's law will be observed in relation 
 to all other females ? Ah ! sir, logic, have mercy on logic, and ruh 
 not over its grave to conclusions which that science would resist 
 unto annihilation. But it may be said the virginity and materrtity 
 of her whom Heaven's Archangel styled " full of grace," was 
 prophesied— but what of that ? If a prophet said, " A virgin shall 
 conceive," did not He who is more than a prophet say, " The 
 bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." If 
 it is said, « The Most High shall overshadow thee," it is said, 
 " This is my body, this is my blood." Hence, by submitting the 
 senses in one particular case, and that under the special direction 
 of Providence, we by no means pass against them sentence of 
 incapacity for judging of the truth of miracles. When, then, it is 
 
18 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 asked, << Can that doctrine be from God which is at war with the 
 evidences of his glorious Gospel V* the reply is simply this : — No 
 doctrine can be from God which is at war with the evidences of 
 his glorious Gospel ; but it is emphatically denieU, and the truth of 
 the denial is proved, that Trans ubstanti at ion is at such " war." 
 It most be moreover evident to the reader of ordinary intelligence 
 and ordinary candor, tjhat no serious attempt has been hiade to 
 prove the grave charge so flippantly and eweepingly made upon 
 it. The assertion, therefore, that Transubstantiation inflicts a fatal 
 wound on the evidences of the glorious Gospel, and more par- 
 ticularly on the evidences of miracles, beciuse unproved and 
 ilnprovable, establishes neither that this doctrine is a "mental 
 hallucination" nor a " speculative error.'* Logic, being the tutelar 
 genius of Catholic truth, must needs be the destroying angel of 
 new-fangled error 
 
 Dr. Burns, page 20, says : — *' In the third place, the doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation tends directly to atheism. < The Heavens 
 declare the glory of (lod, and the hrmaraent sheweth forth his 
 handiwork. The invisible things of God, &o., are clearly seen.' " 
 As this objection differs not in principle from its predecessor, the 
 reply already given would suffice. Catholics adoringly acknow- 
 ledge that the Heavens declare the glory of God, and that the 
 firmament sheweth forth the works of his hands (preferable to 
 handiwork.) Nor is there, as has been already shewn, anything 
 in the doctrine of Transubstantiation to prevent Catholics from 
 giving the fullest credence to the testimony of the senses, when 
 those are properly exercised, and within their own proper sphere. 
 Not true philosophy, therefore, but Presbyterian sophistry, struck 
 out a direct path from " Transubstantiation to Atheism." 
 
 The doctor, page 21, continues : " In the fourth and last place, 
 the doctrine of Transubstantiation, with its necessary concomitants, 
 the sacrifice of the Mass and Extreme Unction" — (it would be 
 hard to count the number of syllogisms, unless they were Presby- 
 terian, I' at should be made to deduce Extreme Unction from the 
 Mass)—" necessarily invests fallible and erring man with a power 
 that is unnatural and altogether unreasonable." The Priests of 
 the Church of God, " fallible and erring men," as they individu- 
 ally are, can never be grateful enough for the superangelic power 
 they receive in ordination ; and the consideration of the sublime 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 1* 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 4 
 
TRANStBSTANTIATION SUSTAINKD. 
 
 19 
 
 ir with the 
 this :— No 
 vidences of 
 the truth of 
 ch " war." 
 ntelligence 
 n knade to 
 made upon 
 licts a fatal 
 more par- 
 >roved and 
 a " mental 
 ; tlie tutelar 
 g angel of 
 
 doctrine of 
 3 Heavens 
 h forth his 
 ly seen.' " 
 scessor, the 
 y ack"0W"' 
 id that the 
 eferable to 
 1, anything 
 lolics from 
 ises, when 
 per sphere, 
 itry, struck 
 
 last place, 
 icomitants, 
 
 would be 
 re Presby- 
 n from the 
 th a power 
 
 Priests of 
 y individu- 
 elic power 
 le sublime 
 
 dignity with which they are, through God's bounty, n.vested, 
 should inspire them couRtantiy with sentiment- of most profound 
 humility. But that power, however extraordmary, that dignity, 
 however heavenly, can neither be termed unnatural nor unreason- 
 able, if by these terms be meant what is opposed to nature and 
 what is opposed to reason. If God, for his own inscrutable pur- 
 poses, gave to man the power of scourging his botly and ot shedding 
 his blood-the power of putting him t.> death-" and there they 
 crucified him"--i8 it not mort» natural and reasonable that m his 
 boundless love the Incarnate Word should confer on man the 
 unutterably sublime power of changing bread into that same 
 adorable Body, and wine into that same adorable Blood ? Let 
 cultivated Paganism be asked which power is the more natural 
 and reasonable, which power is the less difficult to be believed, 
 and the answer will invariably be. "the power of Transubstanti- 
 ation.*' Has not Infidelity as much fo say against a God in the 
 manger, a God on the cross, as Ptesbyterianism has to advance 
 against a God really present in the adorable sacrament of the 
 Eucharist? In reply to the charge that God has made the 
 salvation of some dependent on the good or bad will of the 
 priest, It might be asked : Is not the savage dependent for 
 salvation on the missionary, and the child on him who ad- 
 ministers baptism? Why things are so, why one man can 
 afi-ect the salvation of another man, is what may not be well 
 known ; but that matters are so, and that one man 3an atlect m 
 some way the salvation of his fellow man, is what Presbyterianism 
 itself admits, else for what are Presbyterian minister.- good? A 
 thought on the glass-house proverb would not always prove 
 unuseful. On the score of persecution, it ill becomes a rev. friend 
 to him who maintained in his sermons and writings that Catholics 
 should not be tolerated, even under Pagan government, to advance 
 any charge on this head. And that the disciple is not less friendly 
 to persecution than the master, appears from page 6, where, to 
 our surprise, we find Dr. Burns writing, apparently with heaitfelt 
 approbation and a certain delight: "And need we remind the 
 reader, that till within these very few years, a declaration against 
 the doctrine formed the test by which a senator, who might be 
 suspected of Popery or of Popish leanings, was permitted to take 
 his seat in the parliament of Great Britain?" Now, there is no 
 
«0 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 H .:^:! 
 
 liberal Protestant who will not abominate 8Uoh a test, though it ia 
 to be supposed that, if every member of the British Government 
 had Uie ammua of the Rev. Pit)io»8or of Church History i» Knox 
 College, the test would be in vigor at the present day, and that its 
 continuance W(iuld be an injunction bequeathed to the remotest 
 posterity. Indeed, the professor would not bo disinclined, if 
 judged by hi. pamphlet, to hold with the Dutch reformed brethren 
 to whom he .., if we understand well, nearly allied, that the office 
 01 the civil magistrate is, "that they proUKJt Uie sacred ministry" 
 (Presbyterian, of course) .'and they may remove all idolatry and 
 false worships. Wherefore," continue the Dutch reformed brethren, 
 we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious prople," &c. Re- 
 move "false p.uphets,>' by burning lalse worshippers, as Calvin 
 did, or cau^d to be done, to poor Michael Servetus, at 
 C-eneva, in 1553. But the question of persecution, one might 
 imagine, was disposed of s^isfactorily to Presbyterians and 
 Tn it« ' 11. di.cus.ion which took place, at Philadelphia, 
 1 *. ^ o" '^' ^^^- -^^^^ ""«^«»' o^ tb« Catholic 
 The'c^tlr fl"- "^'^^ ^'««k««"dg«. on the Presbyterian. 
 The Catholics of the new world, and of the old too, were and are 
 well satisfied w.th the result of that discussion, .nd the same may 
 be «a.d of the Rev. John Hughes, who was then quite young, and 
 TZ ^rT' ^^'' '^" ""^ ''' ""^ ^h«^ "^^y h« ^ong continue 
 
 Itt t «"'l"°"l\"'^'^^'^°P'^^ ^«^Y°^^- If Presbyterians 
 are not satisfied with the re.ult of that discussion, they have only 
 
 the unsoundness of their own doctrine, not the acknowledged ability 
 
 of their afterwards undistinguished champion to blame. The discus- 
 
 As to the other minor objections, fluctuating and repeated in 
 most unamiable disorder through the pages of tlie pam^hletth y 
 are not intended to prove fatal to the doctrine of TransuV/.mition 
 Among them is, « How can the same body of Christ be in ^m^r^-ri 
 places at the same time?" How can, it may be ask.^l, ia, «..,« 
 God simple HI essence, be whole and entire in erery particle of 
 creat,on ,t the same time? Does human reason herself cor^pre- 
 
 and hi • f'""' '' '^"' ^'^* "^^^^ ^^"^- ^^^ eveiywhere, 
 and his circumference nowhere?" How can the human soul 
 
 wh ch ,. b.t ana in ^le individual, be whole and entire in ever; 
 
 particle o ui. .ur.nan body ? It must be borne in mind, tco, that 
 
hough it is 
 •overnment 
 •ry ia Knox 
 Bind that its 
 \9 retnoteat 
 ine lined, ir 
 »d brethren 
 it the office 
 
 rniniBtry" 
 loJetry and 
 d brethren, 
 ' &c. Re- 
 
 as Calvin 
 rvetus, at 
 one might 
 rians and 
 ladelphia, 
 Catholic 
 sbyterian. 
 e and are 
 same may 
 3ung, and 
 ■ continue 
 ibyterians 
 lave only 
 :ed ability 
 le discus- 
 y perusal. 
 :)eated in 
 ilet, they 
 mtiation, 
 
 d?F"j".'nt 
 lim Saiae 
 article of 
 compre- 
 rywhere, 
 an soul, 
 in every 
 tco, that 
 
 TKANSITB8TANTIATION SUSTAIN El). 
 
 i 
 
 
 llie body of Chri&t i,s in itn j^lorifieil slate ii) the Blessed Sacrament. 
 " Christ lising from the dead dieth now no more, deatli shall have 
 no more dominion over him.'' And we have no exhaustive 
 knowledgj of the qualities of a glorified body. The apostlui 
 indeed, sayp, "We shall all ri.so again, but we shall not all bo 
 changed." Some shall be changed, but to what extent changed ? 
 "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal 
 must put on immortality." — 1 Cor. 16 ch. As we do not and 
 cannot kiow in this life, the qualities of an immortal and a 
 g^lorified body, much less of the immortal and glorified Body of 
 " the Word made Flesh ;" Dr. Burns himself furnishes us with 
 the answer to the objection with which we deal. He says, page 
 17 : " We are not entitled to affirm of a proposition, that it involves 
 a clear and manifest contradiction^ unless all the terms of the 
 proposition are intelligible to us, and the whole subject one that is 
 level to our apprehensions." Now, the whole subject of the 
 glorified body of the " Word made Flesh" is not level to our 
 apprehension ; and, therefore, according to the doctor himself, it 
 is unreasonable to assert that the glorified body of the " Word 
 made Flesh" cannot be in difTerenf places at the same time. 
 
 Having thus classified, as far as they were reducible to distinct 
 heads, the doctor's objections, and having responded to ther.i 
 seriutimy it now becomes our pleasing task to state the Catholic 
 doctrine on the subject of the Eucharist, and to mention in its 
 defence some of those arguments which we are taught by ** the 
 pillar and the ground ol truth." The question betv/een Catholics 
 and non-Catholics, is not whether the species which are seen be 
 God, all admit they are not — but whether what i« invif ibly contained 
 under the species be ihe Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of 
 Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church answers this question in the 
 affirmative, and teaches that the Blessed Eucharist is the Body 
 and Blood, Soul and Div nity of Jesus Christ, under the appearance 
 of bread and wine. This doctrine the learned doctor might have 
 found in Butler's English Catechism, a little work intended for 
 those who do not know, but who are sincerely anxious to learn the 
 principal mysteries proposed for our belief by the Catholic Church. 
 Had he taken this short and simple way to learn those mysteries, 
 instead of wading through French publications, which gave him 
 but very confused and erroneous ideas on the subject of the 
 
1l 
 
 22 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 1 1 '> 
 
 Catholic doctrine, he would not have given the printers u chance 
 to rob some of the French woids of their ne-^es^ary accents, and 
 possibly the English catechism might have been to h^m quite as 
 ^ntelJi^ .>le. It appears our printers are not very accurate in 
 French non-essentials, as the word abrege, and the preposition d 
 before « la sainte messe," are both robbed of their necessary 
 accents m their milling course through, the English press 
 Another word on the real nature of the doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church on the Eucharist. By the power of God, when the Priest 
 pronounces the words of consecration, thf bread is transubstanti- 
 ated mto the glorified Body of our Lord, i. e., thr whoie substance 
 0. the bread^is changed into the glorified Body, but the form and 
 other accidents of the bread remain as they were before. The 
 sane is to be said of the wine and the glorified Blood. By the 
 power o. God, when the Priest pronounces over the chalice the 
 words of consecration, the whole substance of the wine is changed 
 into the glorified Blood ot our Lord, but the form and other 
 accidents remain the same as they were before. The words of 
 consecration, therefore, pronounced over the bread render the Body 
 of the Lord present, and the Blood, the Soul and the Divinity are 
 present, not m virtue of the words of consecration precisely, though 
 these are the conditio sine qua nan, but by concomitance, 1. 1, 
 m virtue of their inseparableness from the living, glorified Body. 
 From this it will be observed that the bread is changed into the 
 Body only net into the Blood, Soul or Divinity. The same is to 
 be affrmed of the wme, which is changed into the Blood only, but 
 not into the Body, Soul or Divinity, though all the,se are present in 
 the chalice, on account of their inseparableness from the glorified 
 Blood mto which the wine i. transubstantiated. From what has 
 been said, it is evident that he who receives under one specie, 
 receives just as much as the celebrant, who receives under both • 
 because under one species, as well as under both, there is really 
 present, the « Word made Flesh," true God and adorable glorified 
 
 Between, then, the doctrine of the Catholic Church and that of 
 
 her adveraarit.s, in relation to the Blessed Sacrament, there is just 
 
 as much difference as there is between God and bread. This is 
 
 ^ctear. The Presbyterians say the Eucharist is b:?pd. Catholics 
 
 cry out from their inmost son! that the Eiichaiiat is God. When 
 
TRAIVSUBSTANTIATIOJV SUSTAINED. 
 
 2S 
 
 iters u c'lance 
 ' accents, and 
 him quite as 
 ' accurate in 
 preposition a 
 eir necessary 
 iglish press. 
 ' the Catholic 
 len the Priest 
 iransubstanti- 
 o'le substance 
 the form and 
 before. The 
 ood. By the 
 5 chalice the 
 e is changed 
 n and other 
 'he words of 
 der the Body 
 Divinity are 
 isely, though 
 litance, t. e., 
 arified Body. 
 iged into the 
 B same is to 
 >od only, but 
 re present in 
 the glorified 
 ra what has 
 one specie? 
 under both ; 
 sre is really 
 ble glorified 
 
 and that of 
 ;here is just 
 d. This is 
 1, Catholics 
 Ki. when, 
 
 therefore, Dr. Burns says : — " A man who denies Transubstantia- 
 tion virtually renounces Popery," he states a naked fact, and 
 for telling the truth on this occasion we gladly give him 
 credit. Having thus briefly, and perhaps clearly stated the doc- 
 trine of the Catholic Church on the subject of Transubstantiation, 
 it might not be amiss to observe that this doctrine, apart from its 
 intrinsic truth or falsehood, deserves the most serious attention of 
 the thniking portion of mankind. At the present day, more than 
 two hundred r~iiilions of Christians believe this doctrine to be 
 revealed ; and of these two hundred millions, many are Ijearned 
 laymen, some occupying most prominent positions in civil and 
 military life, some whose brows are adorned with the crown, 
 others again learned bishops and prelates, whose scientific attain- 
 ments not un frequently conciliate to theai the esteem of every 
 honorable adversary. 
 
 Besides, the doctrine was defined, even according to Dr. Burns, 
 as early as 1216. Where were the learned professors of the doc- 
 trine no .V taught in Knox's College at that lime ? What were they 
 doing, and why did they not prevent the definition of what one of 
 them delicately calls " the monstrous dogma ?" It is also admit- 
 ted that Transubstantiation was taught as early as the ninth cen- 
 tury. These facts alone, besides many others that might be ad- 
 duced, prove, to a demonstration, that, even waiving the intrinsic 
 moment of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, it would be the 
 greatest pmsumption to reject it without giving it most serious con- 
 sideration. In commencing this consideration, which must needs 
 be brief, let us open the pages of the inspired record, and see 
 whether this doctrine be taught therein. In the 6th chapter of St. 
 John's Gospel we are told the Redeemer said : " If any man eat of 
 this biead, he shall live forever, and the bread which I will give 
 is my flesh for the life of the world." Presbyteriau'sm says He 
 did not give his flesh to be eaten by any man, but mere bread, 
 "such bread as was before him." The fifty-third verse of the 
 sixth chapter has : " The Jews therefore debated among them- 
 selves, saying. How can this man give u^ his flesh to eat ?" Now 
 did not the Jews understand they were to get the flesh to eat 
 though they did not understand hovir? "Then Jesus said to 
 them. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the Flesh of the 
 Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 
 
THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood iiath everlasting 
 life ; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is 
 meat mdeed and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my 
 flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him." Could 
 any sentences be more in earnest and better calculated to express 
 the most solemn realities, than those uttered on that occasion by 
 the lips of an Incarnate God ? Does he not speak of real flesh and 
 of real blood ? His flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink 
 indeed. He that eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood shall live 
 forever. If the word is in << This is my body," could not have 
 been avoided, surely the expression to eat flesh, and to drink blood 
 could have been avoided. The Redeemer continues : " As the 
 living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that 
 eateth me, the .same also shall live by me. This is the bread 
 which came down from Heaven. Not as ycur fathers eat 
 manna in the desert and are dead. He that eateth this bread 
 shall live forever." Many, therefore, of his disciples hearing it, 
 said <*this saying is hard and who can hear it." He then tells 
 them " the flesh profiteth nothing ;" their carnal sense of things 
 is of no avail. " After this many of his disciples walked no more 
 with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve will you also go away ? 
 Then Simon Peter answered him saying, Lord to whom shall we 
 go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life {** Then Simon Peter in 
 his own name and in the name of the other Apostles, yields to the 
 doctrine of the Saviour, makes an act of faitli en the spot, and sub- 
 mits his intellect to Him who " has the words of eternal life." 
 Would that our figurists oi the present day, would imitate in this 
 respect, the Prince of the Apostles, and bow down their intelli- 
 gences before Him who not only has <• the words of eternal life," 
 but whose thoughts are above our thoughts, and whose ways are 
 above our ways, as the Heavens are exalted above the earth. 
 
 We will now dwell a little on one sentence contained in the quo- 
 tation made from the sixth chapter of St. John. The sentence is, 
 " As the living Father hath sent me, and 1 live by the Father ; so 
 he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me." We will 
 here premise an observation on the peculiar strength of " so," 
 " as," when employed as comparatives or assimilatives. Look at 
 their use even in the exact sciences " As two are to four, so are 
 four to eicrht." The rf^lation of two to (our is exactly iflenticai 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION SUSTAINED. 
 
 <u 
 
 h everlasting 
 r my flesh is 
 lat eateth my 
 tiim." Could 
 ed to express 
 
 occasion by 
 eal flesh and 
 lood is drink 
 x)d shall live 
 )uld not have 
 drink blood 
 es : " As the 
 r, so he that 
 is the bread 
 
 fathers eat 
 th this bread 
 )s hearing it, 
 He then tells 
 rise of things 
 ked no more 
 so go away ? 
 »m shall we 
 mon Peter in 
 yields to the 
 pot, and sub- 
 ternal life." 
 aitate in this 
 their intelli- 
 jternal life," 
 )se ways are 
 e earth. 
 
 d in the quo- 
 sentence is, 
 e Father ; so 
 ," We will 
 p.\\ of " so," 
 }s. Look at 
 • four, so are 
 tly identical 
 
 M 
 
 with the relation of four to eight ; and th's identity of relation 
 Arithmetic expresses by " so," « as,"— the strongest terms when 
 used as comparatives or assimilatives that can be found in the 
 language. The Greek terms, «»ca««;»s," "xal," have equal force 
 with " so " — <» as ;" and are by them excellently translated, as 
 appears from the fact that '* so " — « as " are the very terms em- 
 ployed both by the Protestant and Catholic version to render the 
 Greek terms, "fta««;»y," "koI." Requesting that these remarks 
 may be borne in mind, we hold that the concluding portion of the 
 sentence " so he that eateth me, the same shall live by me," fur- 
 nishes another unanswerable proof of the rfevealed character of the 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation. Is it not true that we live really, 
 not figuratively, by the Redeemer ? How then could our living 
 by our Saviour, which is real and not figurative, be compared with 
 our eating him, if our eating him be figurative but not real ? How 
 in such a case could it be said : « So he that eaieth me, the same 
 •halllive by me?" Again, in the first part of this sentence is 
 contained the idea of two dread and incomprehensible realities,— 
 the idea of the mission of the eternal Son from the living Father, 
 « as the living Father hath sent me," and the idea of the eternal 
 Son's life by the « living Father"— "And 1 live by the Father." 
 Are there in the whole sacred record two niore incomprehensible 
 and sublime realities iinked together than the eternal Son's ims- 
 sion from the living Father, and the eternal Son's life by the living 
 Father ? And yet incomprehensible and sublime though be those 
 reiilities, are they not put by the Saviour on a level, in point of 
 reality, with the eating of himself, and with the life by himsolf 
 consequent upon that eating ? Not Catholics, but the Scriptures, 
 say that the Redeemer pronounced this sentence : '^ As the living 
 Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father ; so he that eateth 
 me, the same shall live by me." How could the first part of this 
 sentence express two dread, mysterious, profoundly incomprehensi- 
 ble realities, and the last part two mere shadowy, figurative unreali- 
 ties, and yet the realities and unrealities be likened to each other by 
 the most assimilating terms of comparison to be found in the Ian- 
 guage-the terms " so" and "as ?" What say the figurists? 
 This sentence, therefore, "As the living Father hath sentme and i 
 live by the Father, so he tha:t eateth me, the same shall live by 
 „ „: ^1 i:*« «f tha ii an\\na^^ as held in the Catholic 
 
M 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 Church, and consequently the divine origni of tlie doctrine of 
 Tiansubstantiation, just as validly as the "I am" of Exodus 
 establishes the existence of God. 
 
 The promise made in the sixth chapter of St. John we find fut- 
 fiUed at the last supper, when Jesus took bread and blessed aixd 
 broke and gave to his disciples, and said « take ye and eat. This 
 IS my body. And taking the chalice, he. gave thanks, and gave 
 to them saymg, drmk ye all of this. For this is my blood of tte 
 New Testament which shall be shed for many unto the remission 
 of 8m."-St. Mathew, 26th chap. The words of the institution 
 could not be plainer, and taken in connection with the promise 
 can have no conceivable meaning other than that aiways put on 
 them by the Catholic Church. The Blood which he gave is the 
 Wood wlwch was shed for many unto the remission of sins. 9ut 
 the Blood which wa* tbed for many unto the remission of sins is 
 
 m i'^-l ^"^ '^*^' "**^ ^^ ^^*^ ^ ^S««- Ti»erefore;thp 
 Blood which he gave is his blood in very deed, not his blood in 
 -figure. Thw, it m»y be ob^em^ mjHum^ i^.the Catholic plan 
 Ofoonstrucfaflgasjrll^iei^., ^ 
 
 ^, Beftide«, to hold that the word is is figur^tirdy used, is to »o 
 d,ro<^tly against ^1 the ruies of figurative language, as is abund- 
 anUyv^showu m e^ory Qatholic work treatmg of the sutyect. ,To 
 «ay that m the a«ieveration ^^TMs is my Body," the»redicatow 
 is employed thrtwgh necessity, is to pay a nice tribute^to Ihe 
 omniscience of God, who couM have invented and ^xjriained a 
 term preciselyexpreasiveof his meaning. This doctrine of neees- 
 wtjvfor man and man's Creator, however fondly cherished by 
 Presbyt«ian»m, is- at war, in the present instance, with the facte 
 otth^ca«*e, as appears from the fact that Cardinal Wiseman es- 
 tablishes, beyond contmdi<5tion, the pmposition that the Syriac 
 tenguage had seteral terms, perhaps more torms than any other 
 language to signify « mpresents.*' See his « hor^ Synac<P,^> his 
 S^c hours.'' When therefore the Redeemer said "This is 
 m Body," -This is my Blood," he said so not from necessity bul 
 *om choice, and he smoerely and exactly meant what he said. 
 »Hi^!^''!K ^^f'^^^'-'' he that eateth and drinketh unwor- 
 
 Body of the Lord»~lead one to think that not only real eating, but 
 teal eating which might be unworthy as well as worthv.andtcon- 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION SUSTAINED. 
 
 rt 
 
 > doctrine of 
 " of Exodns 
 
 we find fu^- 
 blessed and 
 id eat. This 
 cs, and gave 
 blood of the 
 iie remiesion 
 e institution 
 the promise, 
 ««ay8 put on 
 ) gave is the 
 'sins. 94t 
 m of sins is 
 terefore, tM 
 lis blood iin 
 itiu»lic plan 
 
 mJ, IB to go 
 i is abund- 
 Jlyect. ^"^o 
 jN'edioate i$ 
 t>ute-to ihe 
 xplained a 
 le of neees- 
 erish^d by 
 h the facts 
 isenian •»<• 
 the Syriac 
 
 any other 
 iaccRy^* his 
 I " Tiis is 
 cessity but 
 he said, 
 th unwor- 
 >ming the 
 ating, but 
 
 and, con- 
 
 sequently, that Transubstantiation was thought of as early as the 
 days of the great Apostle, and that he himself did not escape from 
 being infected with the "monstrous dogma?'' as Dr. Bums calls it. 
 The promise, the institution, and the use, of the Blessed Sacra- 
 ment, as recorded in holy writ, are therefore aVnndantly and 
 superabundantly demonstrative of the real presence of our Saviour 
 in the adorable Sacrament of the Altar. Indeed, that the Apostles 
 had, and that their successors in the priesthood were to have, the 
 power of transubstantiating, is a fact which every Catholic child 
 instructed in the Christian doctrine can easily prove. The inspired 
 writers say that at the last supper Jesus took bread. It was then 
 bread, otherwise the Scriptures would not call it that name. But 
 the same inspired record says that the Redeemer afterwards called 
 what had the appearance of bread " His Body." " This is my 
 Body." Therefore, it was his body ; otherwise, he could not, in 
 the circumstances, have called it so. But a substance at one time 
 bread could not have become his body, without undergoing exactly 
 the change implied by the term transubstantion, which means 
 precisely the change of the whole of the substance of the bread 
 into the body, and the whole of the substance of the wine into the 
 blood, of the Redeemer; so that, after consecration, there is neither 
 bread, under the appearance of bread, nor wine, under the appear- 
 ance of wine, but the real body and blood, ?oul and divinity, of 
 Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread, and ihe same under 
 the appeaiance of wine. Hence, our Saviour, at the last supper, 
 transubstantiated bread into his body, and the same ijrgument 
 shews that he transubst.mtiated wine into his blood. And after 
 performing this act, he says to his disciples, "do this in com- 
 memoration of me.** Do what? Transubstantiate bread into his 
 body and wine into his bU)od, as he had done, and he thereby, that 
 is, by the command, conferred on them the power to do so, for he 
 did not, and could not, give a command impossible of fulfilment. 
 And as often as you do this, said the Redeemerj addressing his 
 disciples, in remembrance of me, so often you show forth my 
 death until roy coming. 
 
 The scriptural arguments, as is evident, might have been dwelt 
 on more at length, but the sp«ce to which we confine ourselves 
 does not permit. We hope that encxigh has been said to convince 
 the candid mind that the docttisse of the Catholic. Church on the 
 
28 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 subject of the Blesaed Eucharist h scriptural, a„d that Transub- 
 
 rr xirr "' "'" ^ '"'■^^"' - *« ^-^^-^ ^-^^^ 
 
 We will now give a few, and indeed they wiil be few nairi..,,. 
 p.. f, ,„ favor of the real presence, and tl Je will .i^^^CZ 
 ^ to be put m the reverend Professor of " Church History" in Kno. 
 College, Toronto, C. W., when in the broad daylight of the ^ne 
 eenth century he unblushingly hazards the assertio,^ ,h af u It 
 not unttl the n.nth century .hat the doctrine of the real presel^ 
 
 Z hv rn7 r,'- ""' "" "" '"'^ """'•■'"' "- Sain. ~. 
 who lived in the first century. He was a disciple of St. Peter, firs 
 
 I»n«i„?if r ''"' """''"""8 ^^^yf""" *e truth, St 
 
 theEueh'l, /Tt""""'''^ spirit, says:-" They abstain Lm 
 the EucW ,t and from prayer, because Ihey do not acknowledge 
 he Euoharrst to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Chrirt wS 
 suffered for our srns." It appears there were sacramentarranrin 
 those days too. Neither do the Presbyterians acW edge the 
 Eucharrst to be the "flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ iClIf St 
 
 ir^' '"M' "^ "• '"'""' '^^"'^-^ ■» *e first'ceC the 
 hrr'r , T"''/™" ^^ "PP™™ " '« «"« nineteenth ? Z 
 
 Zl" «h ' "'f^J' ^y«^-"N''"- 1" «e receive those 
 
 things (the consecrated host and the consecrated chalice) "a. 
 common bread and common drink ; but as Jesus Christ riavioTr 
 Srr K . vi' */ """ "' '=°<'' '"'' "•« ""^^ «f 0" salvia 
 
 uthetsr anStLT t^*. "" "'"^'" '^'" ""» -"™'^m::^ 
 IS ttie flesh and blood of the incarnate God." "As the oansa 
 
 and tl"cf ^h ?"' "" "'r"'""" '^ '"^ no„rishn,:nUhe flZ 
 and Wood of that incarnate Jesus." How had " the cu-ie of nnr 
 
 salvation flesh and blood V Figuratively or substantial yt And 
 
 yet his martyred apologist states the teaching of the Church at 
 
 tlnTa "r"«'»"f'"-«'*«« »».«.. AndyetTra^sub 1. 
 lat on was first promulgated in the ninth century ! In the tSrd 
 century, Tertullian writes that our Saviour, " by saying < tit il my 
 ^y,' made the b,«ad which he took into his hands become Z 
 S' Ttt i'"'*"'*' "'" '•'^ ••'"'P''''-" What did Tert"^^^^ 
 
 tTvt dt. ^T"^' '" ''«""""*«'«^ «"' «<iversa,ie, say, be- 
 fore the doctrine of Transubstantiation was p,»mulgated ? In the 
 
'^?%; 
 
 TRANSU89TANTIATION SUSTAINED. 
 
 ^0 
 
 lat Transub- 
 red pages of 
 
 Bw, patristic 
 if what faith 
 ry" in Knox 
 of the nine- 
 that it was 
 al presence 
 int Ignatius, 
 :. Peter, first 
 Smyrneans, 
 le truth, St. 
 bstain from 
 jknowledge 
 Christ, who 
 ntatians in 
 wledge the 
 •* and if St. 
 century the 
 eenth ? In 
 he second 
 eive those 
 alice) "as 
 )ur Saviour 
 r salvation 
 mrishment 
 the cause 
 It the flesh 
 use of our 
 iy? And 
 Church at 
 insubstan- 
 the third 
 this is my 
 Bcome his 
 rertullian 
 8 say, be- 
 ? In the 
 
 fourth century, deacons aw forbidden by the Council ot Nice 'Uo 
 give to priests the body of Christ." And yet Transubstantiation was 
 first promulgated in the ninth century ! ! ! St. Cyril of Jerusalem 
 said :~« Since Christ himself affirmed and asseverated, < this is my 
 blood,» who shall ever doubt saying it is not his blood ?" The 
 same holy writer afterwards continues :-« For under the appear- 
 ance of bread the body is given to you, and under the appearance 
 of wme the blood." St. Chrysostom, his cotemporary, says :- 
 " Smce Christ affirmed this is my body, let us obey, let us 
 believe." St. Coesarius, in the sixth century, writes :— " When 
 the elements are placed on the altar to be blessed l.y heavenly 
 words, there is, before the consecration, by the invocation of the 
 holy name, only the substance of bread and wine ; but after the 
 words are pronounced, there are present the body and blood 
 of Christ. What wonder that, by a word, he could convert thos« 
 things which, by a word, he created ?" And yet Transubstantiation 
 was first promulgated in the ninth century ! St. John Damascene, 
 who departed about the year 760, writes : -« Nor are the bread and 
 wme a figure of the body and blood of Christ, but the body of the 
 Lord Itself, clothed with the divinity, since the Lord himself said, 
 * this IS not a figure of my body, but my body, nor a figure of my 
 blood, but my blood.' » And a little after he says : « If some, as St. 
 Basil, called the bread and wine types, images or figures of the body 
 and blood of the Lord, they made use of this form of expression, not 
 after consecration, but before the oblation itself was consecrated." 
 Was St. .John Damascene a Presbyterian in reference to Transub- 
 stantiation ? How would his doctrine on this subject, as above 
 quoted, sound in Presbyterian ears, from a Presbyterian pulpit, say 
 fmrri the pulpit of the Rev. Dr. Burns, D. D., Professor of "Church 
 History,' Knox College, Toronto, C. W. ? Could a Catholic 
 polemic of the present day write Catholic doctrine on the Blessed 
 Eucharist more forcibly than St. John Damascene wrote it mora 
 than eleven hundred years ago? Nicephorus, Patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople, wrote in the ninth century :-« We, Catholics, do not 
 call these «Ae body and blood, an image nor a figure; but the 
 deified body of Christ." The doctrine, therefore, contradictory 
 the doctrine of « image" or "figure," was already Catholic 
 doctrme, since the patriarch of the Eastern Church said "we. 
 Catholics." The confession, "we, Catholics," as above used 
 
30 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 suffices, as is evident, to disprove the rev. professor's assertion 
 hat Transubstantiation was not officially recognized by the Church 
 until 1215. It was always officially recognized by the Church, 
 though not formally defined, and it was not formally defined, be- 
 cause not heretically impugned. Will it be concluded that previously 
 the divinity of Christ was not officially recognized by the Church, 
 from the fact that his divinity was solemnly and formally defined 
 by the Church in the Council of Nice, in 325 ? Ah ! doctor, logic 
 should not be beneath the notice of a learned professor of " Church 
 History;" nor should he disdain to pore over the good Latin and 
 Greek volumes, written on Church doctrine, by the wise and 
 holy Latin and Greek Fathers. To the quotations already made 
 from them, innumerable others might be added, but this were 
 unnecessary, as our adversary admits that the main difficulty 
 regards the period anterior to the ninth century. From the quota- 
 tions already made from the Christian Saints and Doctors of the 
 first nine centuries, and for the fidelity of which quotations we 
 vouch, it is evident that the rev. professor of '< Church History" 
 must have largely calculated on the amount of knowledge of the 
 dead languages, of which his Toronto congregation, for whose 
 benefit and instruction he wrote, are not possessed. Catholic 
 clergymen are reproached, though caluminously, with the design 
 to keep their people in ignorance, but Catholic clergymeri would 
 soon suffer shipwreck in their reputation for veracity, if they 
 offered as a holocaust to their own private ends, and sacrificed by 
 the hecatomb both "Church History" and sacred truth, and 
 without pretending to penetrate his motive in doing so, the learned 
 doctor did sacrifice by the hecatomb both « Church History" and 
 sacred truth, when he asserted Transubstantiation was first pro- 
 mulgated in the ninth century. Would a genuine Oxford scholar 
 make an assertion so glaring, an assertion suited to the very 
 meridian of ignorance of « Church History"— would a Faber, a 
 Wilberforce, or a Newman, even before their conversion to Catho- 
 licity, entertain for a moment the dark thought to fling the cruel 
 veil of misrepresentation over the beautiful face of the Christian 
 Church, for the first nine centuries, during the first part of which she 
 was m the zenith ot her glory, because in the young bloom of her 
 martyred sanctity ? Besides, ought not Dr. Bums to know very 
 well that in our Toronto Grammar Schools there are students ci 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION SUSTAINED. 
 
 31 
 
 Latin and Greek, who could accompany hira into the University 
 Library, which is a very superior collection, and there put his 
 finger on the many passages in the Latin and Greek Fathers which 
 establish beyond doubt that he was simply penning what was not 
 true when he penned, " Transubstantiation was first promulgated 
 in the nmth century." Indeed, the innocent paper might have 
 blushed for him, as ha made it the tale-bearer of so palpable a 
 misstatement. Nine centuries hence,and another professor, of views 
 yet unthougUt of, might assert that Tranaubsta^itiation was first pro- 
 mulgated in the nineteenth century ; nor could there, to disprove 
 his assertion, be brought forward from the nine centuries imme- 
 diately preceding the present, proofs more irrefragable than those 
 which are now adduced from the first nine centuries, to explode 
 the new-fangled theory that '< Transubstantiation was first promul- 
 gated in the ninth century." 
 
 If some few of the Fathers spoke in a manner which to as now 
 seems ambiguous, they should be explained by the general belief 
 of the day; and it should also be borne in mind that, as St. 
 Augustine well observesr " they spoke in security, because there 
 was no enemy"— -Secun loquebantur quiu nullus erat hostis. 
 
 What else than Transubstantiation gave rise to what is well 
 
 known in "Church History" as "the discipline of the Secret?" 
 
 What but the doctrine of Transubstantiation gave rise to the 
 
 groundless crime which, every reader of "Church History" knows, 
 
 tho i^agans charged upon the Christians— the crime of eating at 
 
 their Christian assiemblies the flesh and blood of an infent? A 
 
 whole host a" other facts might be adduced, to prove that ever in 
 
 JathoUc Chttroh was held, aa is held to-day, the doctrine of 
 
 »nb9iantiation ; nor need we hesitate to observe that ecclesi- 
 
 ,ai history establishes the universality and the perpetuity of 
 
 this doctrine in the Church, just as solidly as profane history 
 
 demonstrates any fact recorded in it, frem the days of HercHotus 
 
 to tS63. 
 
 It is, therefore, a lamentable fact, that men should employ so 
 much zeal and natural ability in endeavoring to refine away to 
 nonsense the four words of the Bedeemer, "This is my body," 
 instead of bowing down in grateful adoration of God for iiis 
 « unspeakable gift." And a very remarkable fact it is, that the 
 opposition to the words of God in this matter closely resembles the 
 
32 
 
 THE OOCTRINE OF 
 
 conduct pursued towards the Creaior in Paradise in connection 
 with the fail. The Creator threatened Adam, " For what day 
 soever thou shalt eat of it thou ahalt die the death;" and in 
 Genesis, 3rd chapter, we read : The serpent said to the woman, 
 «No, jou shall not die the death." Mark the serpent's « not," 
 where God had left it out. The Eternal Son said, "this is my 
 body." Presbyterianisra holds he would have said the truth, had 
 he said, "this is not my body." The Eternal Son threatened, 
 « unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ' 
 you shall not have life in you"— or, which is the same thing, 
 "you shall surely die." Presbyterianism says, "donoteatthe 
 flesh of the Son of man, and do not drink his blood, and you shall 
 have life in you -you shall not surely die." Indeed, the serpent's 
 "not," whether contradicting the Eternal Father in relation to the 
 tree of life m Paradise, or contradicting the Eternal Son in relation 
 to the Bread of Life in the Christi&n Church, must needs always 
 have deplorable and fatal consequences. In connection with the 
 Blessed Eucharist, this ^^not" robs God of much of his external 
 glory, and the human heart of inexpressible consolation. « Come 
 to me," says the Redeemer, "all ye that labot and are heavily 
 burdened, and I will refresh you." How many an achmg heart 
 18 soothed and consoled by Jesus, in the adorable sac; iment of his 
 love ! He divests himself of glory, as far as he can, on our altars, 
 as he formerly did in the crib of Bethlehem, and on the cross of 
 Calvary. But, ah! as those who imagined they were led by 
 human reason, by the senses, « by direct and nece.ssary conse- 
 quence8,>» by the flesh « which profiteth nothing," cried out to 
 him, when he hung bleeding on the rood between haaven and 
 earth for our redemption-as those cried out to him, « If thou be 
 the Son of God, come down and save thyself," so those who know 
 no better cry out to him in the sacrament of his love. If thou be 
 really pre^nt, come and shew thyself to us. Man's ingratitude 
 and mcreduhty are almost as incomprehensible as the generosity 
 and mfinite science of God. But he console* himself, so to speak, 
 for man's mgratitude, with the glory he is ever renderinThis 
 heavenly Father on the altar. Every moment an act of infinite 
 worship ascends fro.n earth to heaven, and this act keeps the 
 ear^h m constant snbjeetion-it is a continuous and a glorious 
 protest agamst, and more than suflioes to atone for, all the crimes 
 
TRAN6VBSTANTIATI0N SUSTAINED. 
 
 33 
 
 committed by men in this world. On the altar, too, the human 
 soul of the " Word made Flesh" unceasingly adores his divinity ; 
 and the Eternal Son on earth renders, as was already said, in^. Jte 
 homage to the adorable Trinity in heaven. Is not this doctrine, 
 in itself, beautiful ! Poor Presbyterianism has not a victim u 
 precious as a Jewish scapegoat, though it affects to extol highly 
 its own superiority over the religion of the children of Jacob. 
 When our redeeming and adorable victim came into the world 
 and subdued it, when he for ever furled on Calvary's top the 
 banner of man's rebellion, he did not, after the manner ot 
 military conquerors, content himself with leaving the human 
 nation to be governed by a representative merely—his delight was 
 to be with the sons of men ; he remains with them in the Blessed 
 Eucharist all days, even to the consummation of the world. 
 Catholics, therefore, should unceasingly and adoringly thank 
 their " hidden God" present in the holy sacrament of the altar, 
 and at the same time pray unceasingly with truly Christian 
 charity, that « all may come to the knowledge of the truth and 
 be saved." 
 
 
 • * 
 
 • • • •