4. The possibility of the simultaneous existence of bodies in their natural or present condition, however wonderful, cannot be shown to be impossible.When Christ fed vast multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, he gave us a type or figure of the miraculous multiplication of His body in the Eucharist; for how can this miracle be explained or understood, unless on the supposition of the simultaneous existence of these bodies. Although these miracles are generally called by the name of the multiplication of bread, yet this cannot be admitted in the sense, that there was any additional supply of food produced by Christ for the words of the Evangelists are explicit, that he fed them with a few loaves, and that he ordered the fragments of these few loaves to be gathered up, which being done, they filled more space than the original supply of food. I know not what others may think of this illustration; to me these miracles appear necessarily to imply the simultaneous existence of bodies, as this is the only way I can understand, not how the miracle was performed, but what miracle was performed. Even if it were established that bodies in their actual condition could not be, at one and the same time, in many places, this would not apply to the body of Christ, either before or after his resurrection. Let the qualities of a glorified body, as described by St. Paul, I. Cor. 15, be well considered; and it will be found impossible to deny, that every inference drawn from our present state of existence to the condition of glorified bodies must be necessarily inconclusive. Could a body in its natural state enter an appartment, every opening into which was closed? And yet Christ appeared to his disciples, the doors being shut. (John XX., 26.) As this change in our condition is effected by the power of God, Christ could have given to his body, even while on earth, qualities which no other body could have in the present order of things; so that this principle is equally applicable to the solution of the difficulty before as after the Resurrection. Could it, then, be shewn, that our bodies in their present state cannot be in many places at the same time-which it cannot-no objection to to the simultaneous existence of Christ in a thousand places could thence be derived. 5. It does not contradict the evidence of our senses, as Hallam acknowledges, and shews by a very cogent argument. (See his words already quoted.) Our senses report to the mind the appearances, not the substance of external objects. They tell us, for example, that in the Eucharist after consecration, there are the same appearances as before; and they are not deceived in the one case more than the other. All the instances in which the senses are deceived, and which are brought by some theologians to invalidate their testimony with regard to the consecrated elements, are nothing to the purpose. Here there is no deception of the senses; and it is curious to observe with what philosophical accuracy a schoolman of the "dark ages" thought and spoke on this subject six hundred years ago. "The appearances," says St. Thomas of Aquin, "remain without their substance in it (the sacrament;) that there may be room for faith while the invisible is visibly received, concealed under a foreign appearance, and the senses are exempted from deception, which only judge of the appearances that strike them." 6. It does not invalidate the testimony of man. When I see bread that has not been consecrated, I see, not the substance, but the appearance, of bread; but, by a necessary conviction, that God could not have created a system of universal and perpetual delusion, I conclude that where are the appearances, there also the substance, of bread must be. I have nothing to interfere with me in coming to this conclusion; the certainty of which ultimately depends on no other principle than my innate conviction of the wisdom and providence of God. Let this bread and wine be brought to the Altar, and let the minister of Christ pronounce over them the words "This is my Body," "This is my Blood,”—I can no longer form the same judgment, as before. Not only is the foundation of the first judgment-the conviction that unless the substance corresponded to the appearance God would be the author of an universal and inextricable error-taken away; but I have, moreover, the words of God himself, 'telling me'-to use the words of a Holy Father-" Judge not of this thing by the taste. What appeareth to thee to be bread, is not bread, but the Body of Christ; what appeareth to thee to be wine is not wine, but the Blood of Christ." My judgment in the one case is as rational as in the other; and in both derives its certainty from being ultimately resolvable into the principle,that God cannot deceive; but this more immediately and clearly in regard to the truth of faith than with regard to that which rests solely on a mere process of reasoning. In answering these objections, we may appear to be doing what is unnecessary, as many of those who oppose the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist have disclaimed any aid derived from its incomprehensible character. Nay more: Mr. Palmer in the last paragraph quoted from him in the Appendix to Dr. Pusey's sermon, seems to make it a ground of objection to Transubstantiation, that it is derived from human reasoning, which in the affairs of religion ought not to be admitted; and he had before acknowledged that our doctrine 'facilitates the mental conception' of the mystery of the Real Presence, which he thus insinuates is a greater mystery in the Anglican, than in the Roman Catholic Church. This being so, why lose time in establishing a point already conceded? Our reply is, that what we have written has not been solely intended for those who range themselves under the Oxford banner, but for all who disbelieve this mystery of faith; and for whose advantage, therefore, have we attempted a reply to the most ordinary objections, as above stated. We feel it, moreover, a duty to lay before the general reader the following concessions of writers-all of them with, perhaps, the exception of the last-bitter opponents of our doctrine; but who have nevertheless acknowledged that its incomprehensibility cannot be a reasonable argument against its truth. Accidentia autem sine subjecto in eodem subsistunt ut fides locum habeat dum visibile invisibiliter sumitur aliena specie occultatum,, et sensus a deceptione reddantur immunes qui de accidentibus judicant sibi notis.-[S. Thomas in Opusc. 57. FABER. Difficulties of Romanism. Chap. IV. "The doctrine of Transubstantiation, like the doctrine of the Trinity, is a question not of abstract reasoning but of pure evidence. We believe the revelation of God to be essential and unerring truth. Our business, therefore, most plainly is, not to discuss the abstract absurdity, and the imagined contradictories of Transubstantiation, but to enquire, according to the best means which we possess, whether it be indeed a doctrine of the Holy Scripture. If sufficient evidence shall determine such to be the case, we may be sure that the doctrine is neither absurd nor contradictory, if the evidence be insufficient, we require not the aid of irrelevant abstract reasoning, for we then reject the doctrine because we have no sufficient evidence of its truth. Receiving the scripture as the infallible word of God, and prepared with an entire prostration of mind to admit his declarations, I shall ever contend that the doctrine of transubstantiation, like the doctrine of the Trinity, is a question of pure evidence." COSIN. History of Popish Transubstantiation. Chap. III. "If it seems impossible that the flesh of Christ should descend, and come to be our food, through so great a distance, we must remember how much the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds our sense and our apprehension, and how absurd it would be to undertake to measure His immensity by our weakness and narrow capacity; and so make our faith to conceive and believe what our reason cannot comprehend." REV. M. FROUDE, of Oxford. "In respect of the scriptural miracle of the Eucharist, it is objected that the Eucharistic bread and wine cannot be supposed to become that very Body of Christ's which was broken for us, and that very Blood of the New-Testament which was shed for us, without supposing that the Body and Blood of Christ are at the same time present in two places, in Heaven and on the Altar; and that this is a contradiction. Now I am convinced that upon serious reflection, faithful Christians will admit it to be no contradiction. As to the sense in which it is true to say that the Body and Blood of Christ are present on the Altar, many persons may have differed about it; but that there is any contradiction in supposing the Body of Christ which is in Heaven, to be on the Altar, they will, I think, see to be an ignorant prejudice." These concessions, we belive, are sufficient to shew that in the popular objections to our doctrine, a principle is applied, which the most learned and candid of our adversaries have long since abandoned as untenable. But we feel that we owe an excuse to the readers of the CABINET, for having occupied so many of its pages by what will doubtless be voted by the majority of its patrons-a dry polemical essay. Our apology for having introduced the subject. under the present form, is, the great notoriety which the Sermon of Dr. Pusey has given to the doctrine with which the subject of which we have treated is intimately and essentially connected. It is not an unusual reply to the charge of Catholicism made on the Tractarian doctrine regarding the Eucharist, that it is no less opposed to Transubstantiation than the opinion of a merely figurative presence. Now our object has been to shew that, if the literal meaning of the words of Christ is to be admitted,-if the authority of the early christian writers is to be allowed any weight,-Transubstantiation no less than the Real Presence must be admitted. Let us conclude by expressing the hope, that this 'Mystery of Faith,' may, day after day, become more and more credible to our fellow christians of every denomination, especially to those whom nothing appears to keep estranged from our communion, but a want of seeing our doctrines in their true light, and the imperfect application of a principle which they agree with us in recognizing as a test of truth. VESPER HYMN.-ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL. It is the Eternal Light, whose beauteous ray The world's Preceptor, with Heav'n's Janitor, Oh! happy Rome, hallow'd with glorious blood Thou purpled in their gore excell'st alone Glory eternal to the Trinity, Honour and power, and shouts of joyful praise, Ever and ever through ending days. ST. SCHOLASTICA. "OH MARY, CONCEIVED WITHOUT SIN, PRAY FOR ME, WHO HAVE RECOURSE TO THEE." "Her prayer was scarcely ended, when there happened such a storm that neither St. Benedict nor his sister could set foot out of doors," &c. "St Benedict, lifting up his eyes to Heaven, he saw the soul of his sister ascending in the shape of a dove."-[Butler, Life of St. Scholastica, Virgin. She knelt beside him, and the dove "And stay, my own dear brother, stay, Already day-light fades away Already shines the evening star. "The evening star, that ever bears Resemblance to the Queen of Heaven, "Then rest thee, brother, rest thee here, My spirit, love, shall pray for thine. "Thou wilt not.-Then I'll ask of Him, "Now, brother, rest, and thank His love, The moon was up, its lustre pale Was glistening on each dewey flower, His heart was melting in its love, And when he lifted up his eyes, Betwixt him and the azure skies. Far higher than his eye could soar And when he woke as from a dream, |