Consubstantiation.

135

in the form of a little piece of bread, that dogma which grew into credit when the great mass of the priesthood were sunk in the lowest depth of libertinism,—that dogma which massacred its hundreds of thousands in the service of religious persecution, and brought so many of the best and purest Christians to the stake, seems the most inconsistent kind of idolatry amongst them all, and the most degrading to a proper conception of the Deity.

The true test of idolatry, therefore, is not a point of abstract intention, but a question of fact. And hence the Israelites were guilty of idolatry when they worshipped the golden calf, although they intended to worship, in this form, the true God who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. Consequently, if the Romanist worships the consecrated symbols of Christ's body and blood, under the false belief that they are Christ Himself, he does unquestionably fall into the sin of idolatry. From this there is no escape, except by proving that the dogma of Transubstantiation is the truth. And, like every other article of the Christian faith, this can only be done by the Scriptures, as interpreted by the Catholic consent of the primitive fathers.

Your author next complains that although the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation is as objectionable to the Church of England as the doctrine of Rome, yet the English Parliament has only legislated against the Romish dogma, and has tolerated every other variety of opinion upon the subject. But in declaiming upon this instance of what he calls" disingenuity and injustice," he chose to ignore altogether the reasons why the law of the land should have guarded against the one error, and not against the others. He chose to forget that the Lutherans, although they were at first misled into the idea of consubstantiation, yet, after the death of the great Reformer, gave it up, and

conformed quietly to the doctrine of Calvin. He chose to forget that Luther himself at no time allowed any act of worship to the consecrated elements, as to the present Christ, in which consists the sin of idolatry. But, above all, he chose to forget the point which made the Romish error a fit subject of parliamentary prohibition, namely, that Rome had made Transubstantiation the test of faith, and had punished those who disclaimed it, with the dungeon and the flames. The English nation had nothing to fear from the Lutheran error, which did not concern them. But they had everything to fear from that Papal despotism which enforced its creed with the arms of cruel persecution, and visited the effort to reform the Church from its corruptions, with tortures and with blood.

The last remark of Dr. Milner, with which he concludes his 36th letter, is, that "as transubstantiation was the first of Christ's miracles, in changing the water into wine; so it may be said to have been his last during his mortal course, by changing bread and wine into His sacred body and blood." To which I would reply by saying, that if our Lord had changed the water into wine, at the marriage supper, in no other way than the Romish priest changes. the bread and wine of the Sacrament, it would have been no miracle at all, because the senses of the company would have borne testimony that it was water still. Flesh and blood are as much the objects of sense, as wine and water. And a miracle which is so far from appealing to the senses that all the senses refuse to acknowledge it, is a contradiction in terms, and involves a perfect absurdity.

* Page 244.

The End of Controversy, Controverted.

137

LETTER XXXIV.

3

MOST REVEREND SIR:

THE 37th letter of your favorite, Milner, opens with an attack upon the Catechism of the Church of England, which declares that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful, in the Lord's Supper. This he calls a "disguising of our real tenets by adopting language of a different meaning from our sentiments, in consequence of such being the language of the sacred text." Next, in a note, he sets down what he calls the variations in the Liturgy upon the subject. Thirdly, he quotes the scriptural argument on which his Church relies. Fourthly, he cites some passages from the fathers. Fifthly, he undertakes to press many English divines into his service, amongst whom he particularly specifies Hooker. to his reference to Luther, I shall pass it by on the same ground as formerly, being only called upon to vindicate the truth of Christ, in reference to our own Communion. The other topics I shall proceed to consider in the order pre

sented.

With respect to the first charge, namely, the alleged disguising of our meaning in the Catechism, it is like all the other charges of your reckless author-bold enough, but totally wanting in fairness and candor. For the same Catechism goes on to define a sacrament as consisting of two parts—the outward and visible sign, and the inward invisible grace. And the outward part or sign of the Lord's Sup

per is declared to be Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received, while the inward part or thing signified is the Body and Blood of Christ, which are spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. Where is the disguise? Where the inconsistency? The spiritual reception of the body and blood of Christ, granted by Himself to the faithful believer, is verily and indeed as real and true, as a bodily or corporal reception from the hand of the priest could be, were such a thing possible as the act claimed by your Romish system. According to our doctrine, the consecrated symbols of the body and blood are given by the priest, that is, the outward part of the sacrament, or the bread and wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received; but the inward part or thing signified is the gift of Christ Himself to the faithful. According to the Church of Rome, the priest has transubstantiated the elements; the bread and wine are there no longer, but he holds in his hands, and delivers over to the communicant, the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and there is nothing left to be done by the grace of God, who is the sole Dispenser of every heavenly blessing. No language could be more simply expressive of the enormous difference between the two systems than the words of the Catechism, taken together. Our author, indeed, thinks fit to represent it as a contradiction. "It is saying," as he tells his readers, "you receive that in the sacrament which does not exist in the sacrament." But, according to the Catechism, a sacrament consists of two parts—the outward, which is committed to the priest, and the inward, which is conferred by the Saviour. The divine gift, therefore, is in the sacrament, considered with respect to its inward grace, and hence there is neither contradiction nor inconsistency.

The Sixth Chapter of St. John.

139

It is true, however, that this word, Sacrament, is frequently employed in the outward sense only, and rightly, because such is the mode in which it was used by the ancient fathers. But in undertaking to censure our Catechism, Dr. Milner was obliged, in fairness, to notice the definition given there; and had he done so, he might perhaps have spared his readers this very small display of his disposition to carp at nothing.

His next exhibition of spleen is in the attempt to ridicule the "variations" of the English Liturgy. But what are they in comparison of the variations in the Roman Liturgy? And when it is considered that from the very nature of the case, the English Reformers could not have completed so vast a work immediately that their own views were necessarily progressive-that it was only by degrees that their eyes were opened to the full amount of the corruptions of doctrine in which they had all been educated, and that they were careful to make no changes until the fullest examination and most satisfactory proof had satisfied them with respect to each :-the wonder will not be that some amendments were found advisable, but rather that the task of duty was completed so early and so well.

We come, in the third place, however, to the main point, viz., the evidence on which your author undertakes to justify your modern Romish doctrine. And this he finds abundantly, as he supposes, in the Gospels. First, he quotes the 6th chapter of St. John's Gospel, where our Lord saith, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the