The real presence.

We have already remarked the address of your lords spiritual of 1562 in not openly rejecting the real

"Hanc adorationem pontificiam si neges, positâ corporali præsentiâ "Christi in pane, crimen impietatis et contumelia Christi nec "apud papistas, nec apud ullos sanos potes effugere." (a)

66

66

The Calvinistic author of the Caution on the Book of Concord: (b) "Si Christus in pane eucharistico præsens esset corporaliter, necessariò nos ad panem hunc conversos oporteret "ipsi reverentiam et adorationem Deo debitam exhibere. Alligata "est autem adoratio ad hanc naturam humanam, assumptam a "Filio Dei, ut ubicumque vel sensu nostro, vel verbo ipsius constat eum esse præsentem, eò dirigi adorationem et honorem Christi, "animo et corpore necesse sit; sicut dictum est: Adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei. (c) Estque fabula impia et in Christum "contumeliosa quod aliqui (Lutherani) respondent Christum adesse "huic pani, non ut in eo adoretur, sed ut in eo comedatur, neque "jussisse ebi se adorari, sed edi. Sufficit enim universale Dei man"datum de adorando Christo, ad asserendum ei summum honorem. "Si igitur constaret eum ibi præsentem esse suo corpore, tam non "esset nobis expectandum speciale mandatum, de reverentiâ et "honore divino ipsi in hoc pane exhihendo, quàm non expectabat,

ແ

66

nec expectare debebat Thomas singulare mandatum de adorando "Christo, quem videbat ob oculos suos stantem in conclavi, sed eo "agnito, statim sui memor officii, procidens coram eo, exclamavit: "Dominus meus et Deus meus. In regis aut principis con

66

spectum nemo sanus prodit, quin ad illum converso vultu reve"rentiam ipsi debitam exhibeat. Quæ igitur fuerit impietas, si "Christus tam proprié nobis assistat corporaliter, ut per manus "sacerdotum in ora nostra cum pane se deferri patiatur, non toto "animo et corpore ad panem illum converso, divinos honores "Christo præstare? Nec obstat quod ibi non cernatur oculis. "Si enim verbi ipsius testimonio constaret, eum adesse ibi suo "corpore, hoc magis ad credendum et ibi adorandum ipsum nos obligaret, quàm testimonium sensus nostri."

66

Even Chemnitius himself, the disciple of Melanchton, found

(a)Balæus in Examen recit. p. 220,-(b)Ch. II. p. 388.-(c) Heb. c. I. v. 6.

presence, which still had its partisans in this Convocation, and which was afterwards admitted and defended by many doctors of your Church: perhaps I may have occasion farther on to make you acquainted with them. It is nevertheless true, that the Zuinglian and Calvinistic opinions, at last prevail with you to such a degree, that, upon discoursing on this subject in your country, I have often been astonished at persons, otherwise well instructed, when I advanced that the doctrine of the real presence had found most able defenders in the Church of England: I have even been obliged for my justification to produce writings and passages that I had at first cited from memory. Permit me now to ask you, what great discoveries your modern theologians have made in the holy scripture, to induce them to reject a doctrine as ancient in your country as its conversion to Christianity: to reject the natural sense which is presented to every unprejudiced mind by the words repeated by the three evangelists and by Saint Paul, this is my body, and according to the Syriac version of Saint Mark, this is my very body:' to

66

himself obliged to acknowledge that the corporal presence induced the necessity of adoration. "Nullus est qui dubitet an Christi "corpus in cœna sit adorandum, nisi qui cum Sacramentariis aut negat aut dubitat in cœnâ verè Christum esse præsentem," (a) 1Amongst the most judicious critics, some are of opinion that Saint Mark himself was the author of this Syriac version, and that he made it for the use of the converted Jews, to whom this language was then natural. Others, among whom is found Walton, the learned bishop of Chester, attribute it to some disciples of the apostles. According to the spirit of the original it should be translated: This is my body, my own body, which is given for you. This is my blood, my own blood. (b) For it is also for this

(a) Examen conc. Trident, sess. 31. cap. V.—(b)Proleg. Bibl. Polyglot.

reject the only sense which agrees with the discourse of the promise, which most certainly speaks only of the reality, and to substitute in its place one of figure, of representation and of absence, which contradicts the promised manducation of this flesh, which is truly meat, and which was to be given for the life of the world? But in place of discoveries, for no new discovery could be made in writings so well understood and so thoroughly examined before them, they formed their decision upon the same examples, and upon the same grounds, which the reformers had already produced to give credit to their new interpretation.

These examples and these grounds or reasons shall all be discussed in their turns: and in order that you may judge more correctly of the former, we will here produce some principles admitted by all parties. According to the rules of language there are some things established by use, as signs: there are others on the contrary which are not, and which cannot become signs except by a new and primary establishment of them as such. When signs are established by use, we have a right to suppose that they are known as such by those to whom we speak, and if we discover any perplexity in their mind, it arises from their being unable to ascertain, not what they are in themselves, but what they signify: then, by giving to these signs the names of the things signified, the perplexity ceases, and the meaning of the

reason that the Syriac, which is as ancient as the Greek, and which was done in the time of the apostles, reads, this is my own body; and that in the liturgy of the Greeks it is declared that what is given to us is the very body of Jesus Christ and his very blood. Bossuet, Medit. sur l'Evangile, 22e jour. K 2

VOL. I

phrase is clearly understood by every one. Thus, when you shew me a collection of pictures, you say : Do you see this portrait? It is the Prince Regent: or it is the Princess Royal. When you direct my observation to geographical maps, you say to me, This is England, This is Scotland: I perfectly understand you, because I know that pictures and maps are established signs: and my only difficulty was to know what they particularly represented. This is not the case with signs that are newly established for the first time. Not being accustomed to regard the thing you have named to me as a sign, and having been taught to consider it merely according to its natural and essential properties, I cannot understand that which you wish to establish by it, unless you acquaint me with the particular use to which it is destined by you. If you would have me to understand you, you must explain yourself, or let me know that, contrary to the established usage, you have taken it into your head to make a sign of what has hitherto been no such thing. In fact, to return to the portraits and maps we were speaking of, put in my place some uninstructed savage, and in vain would you repeat to him: This is the Regent; This is England: he will understand nothing about it, because, in regard to him, these maps and paintings are signs then for the first time established, which you must explain to him before you make use of them.

The principle naturally applies itself to the point in question. It is plain that, before the institution of the Eucharist, it had never been the custom to consider bread as a sign of any thing whatsoever, that it had not been classed among those objects that are ordinarily considered as signs, but in the number of those which are regarded as peculiar and distinct

things. Jesus Christ could not employ it to signify his body, unless he then, for the first time, established bread as a sign; and, in that case, to make himself understood, to speak according to the rules of language and good sense, he must have explained his intention to the apostles, who could not have the least suspicion of it; but this he in no wise did: or at least he must have previously intimated to them that he should on some future occasion make use of bread to give them a sign of his body; and we do not find that he ever announced any such thing, but rather quite the contrary. It is certain, therefore, that he could not have intended to establish bread as the mere figure of his body, by these most positive terms, this is my body, without a previous admonition or an actual explanation, because it would have been the first establishment of this sign, and we only then give to signs the names of the things signified, when they have already been regarded as signs. He, who was true man, spoke according to the language of other men: He, who was wisdom itself, could no otherwise express himself but in a wise and rational manner; He, who is truth itself, could never express himself in a manner that was deceitful and calculated to lead into error his disciples, to whom he had said: "The "time comes when I will no longer speak to you in "parables, but openly:" to whom he then wished to give his last most important instructions: to whom in fine he bequeathed a share in the testament which he instituted for them, on the eve of his separation from them by death.

And if in the course of his ministry Jesus Christ, making use of common metaphors, said to his apostles, I am the door, I am a vine; the minds of men were sufficiently prepared for this, and could