and your most learned countrymen, who would all have repeated that beautiful invocation of one of your bishops: "O God incarnate, how "thou canst give us thy flesh to eat, and thy "blood to drink! How thy flesh is meat "indeed! How thou who art in heaven, art

66

66

present on the altar! I can by no means

explain. But I firmly believe it all, because "thou hast said it; and I firmly rely on thy "love, and on thy omnipotence to make good

66

thy word, though the manner of doing it I "cannot comprehend."*

Since the time of this religious and truly philosophical invocation, theology has sustained a terrible shock in your church. Bishop Ken and Mr. Faber were brought up in quite opposite doctrines on the subject of the Eucharist; the former in the principle of reality, the latter in that of figure, which so far from inspiring its cold partisans with the sublime faith of the Bishop, would not even allow the Rector to admire it. Still let us congratulate him on his having rejected as rash and presumptuous

* Dr. Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells.-Exposition, 1685.

the consequences which many of his brethren have imputed to the Catholic doctrine, and censured the declamations with which their pulpits have been made to resound in that positive and decisive tone, which imposes on minds incapable of fathoming metaphysical questions.

Mr. Faber, as I feel happy again to acknowledge, beheld the difficulty with a great deal of just discrimination when he reduced it to this simple question of fact: "Was transubstantia"tion revealed by Jesus Christ, or not?" But he soon after, without being aware of it, substitutes the dogma of the real presence for that of transubstantiation; for the greater part of his arguments are directed against the reality. I am induced to remark this, not so much to reproach him with it, as to exhibit the want of accuracy in his ideas. For after all it is evident, that if there be no real presence, there can be no transubstantiation in the Eucharist. Let us now examine his proofs against the real presence. Hitherto it has been the usual course of divines to examine the promise made by Jesus Christ, before its accomplishment. Such is not the

plan of the Rector: he returns to his usual method of inverting the order of his ideas. He enters upon the discussion of the scripture proofs by the words of institution; taking care however to discourse later of the promise which our Saviour had made long before hand. He must allow us to bring back things to their natural order: we will follow him afterwards in the inverted march which he has chosen to adopt.

CHAPTER THE SECOND.

PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE OF OUR DOCTRINES ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST.

I. I think you will not require me to repeat to you at length the arguments developed in my first volume, from p. 250 to 279. Be so kind as to read again this portion of the Discussion Amicale. I content myself with presenting you a summary sketch of the arguments which prove that Jesus Christ had promised to give us, not the figure, but the reality of his sacred body.

1. He begins by reminding the Jews of the great miracle of the multiplication of the loaves, which had taken place before their eyes the preceding day, and which alone ought to have gained him their entire confidence. He reproaches them with their backwardness in confiding in him, and establishes his claim to their confidence. What is the meaning of this exordium, and this manner of opening himself to them imperfectly and by degrees? Whence

66

comes it that he reminds them at every turn of the necessity of faith due to his character, his miracles, his heavenly origin and divinity?— What is the object of these recommendations, precautions and preliminaries? What end has he in view, and what does he intend to propose to them? Certainly something extraordinary, and extremely difficult to receive. Let us attend to his words: "I am the living bread .... if any man eat of this bread he shall live for "ever: and the bread that I will give, is my "flesh for the life of the world."* A declaration so strange, so far removed from human ideas, could not relate to a figurative eating, which is simple enough. The natural sense of the words as the Jews have just heard them, astonishes and confounds their minds. They judge it impossible for them to eat the flesh of Jesus. The carnal manner which they conceive inseparable from this manducation, evidently supposes the reality; and no less evidently excludes the figure. It was the reality therefore which they understood.

2. So far from undeceiving them, or explain* St. John vi. v. 51, 52.