Catholics, and to convince them that this is the established orthodoxy of their Church, I will here subjoin the original of all these passages from the Council of Trent, that, if they please, they may hand it to their priests, and verify both the fact of its genuineness, and the accuracy of the above translation. "De Transubstantiatione.—Quoniam autem Christus Redemptor Noster Corpus suum id, quod sub specie panis offerebat, vere esse dixit; ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesiâ Dei fuit, idque tunc denuo, Sancta hæc Synodus declarat, per consecrationem panis et vini conversionem fieri totius substantiæ panis in substantiam sanguinis ejus: quæ conversio convenienter et proprie à sanctâ Catholicâ Ecclesiâ Transubstantiatio est appellata."-(Con. Trid. Sess. XIII. cap. 4.) "Canon I.-Si quis negaverit in sanctissimo Eucharistiæ Sacramento contineri vere, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sanguinem una cum animâ et divinitate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, ac proinde totum Christum; sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo ut in signo, vel figurâ, aut virtute; Anathema sit." “Canon II.—Si quis dixerit in sacrosancto Eucharistiæ Sacramento remanere substantiam panis et vini una cum corpore et sanguine Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, negaveritque mirabilem illam et singularem conversionem totius substantiæ panis in corpus, et totius substantiæ vini in sanguinem, manentibus duntaxat speciebus panis et vini: quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissimè Transubstantiationem appellat; Anathema sit!" "Canon III.—Si quis negaverit in venerabile Sacramento Eucharistiæ, sub unaquâque specie, sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus, separatione factâ, totum Christi contineri ; Anathema sit."—(Concil. Trid. Sess. XIII. cap. 8.) Now, Sir, these are the decrees of a general Council; this is the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church-to this, every Popish Priest not only assents, but of it he solemnly swears his belief. To make my statement complete, and to shew that the doctrine of Trent is the accepted doctrine of the present Church of Rome, I shall now transcribe, as a very fair and moderate specimen of the instruction at present given to Catholics, the 8th Chapter from the "Catechism for the use of all the Churches in the French Empire;" published 1806, with the Bull of the Pope, and the Mandamus of the Archbishop of Paris-"Q. What is the Sacrament of the Eucharist? A. The Eucharist is a Sacrament that contains really and substantially, the body, blood, soul, and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and under the forms or appearance of bread and wine. Q. What is at first put on the Altar and in the Chalice-is it not bread and wine? A. Yes: and it continues to be bread and wine till the priest pronounces the words of consecration. Q. What influence have these words? A. The bread is changed into the body, and the wine into the blood of our A. All that he Q. Lord. Q. Does nothing of the bread and wine remain ? A. Nothing of them remains except the forms. Q. What do you call the forms of the bread and wine? A. That which appears to our senses, as colour, figure, and taste. Q. Is there nothing under the form of bread, except the body of our Lord? A. Besides his body, there is his blood, his soul, and divinity; because all these are inseparable. Q. And under the form of wine? A. Jesus Christ is there as entire as under the form of bread. Q. When the forms of the bread and wine are divided, is Jesus Christ divided? A. No: Jesus Christ remains entire under each part of the form divided. Q. Say, in a word, what Jesus Christ gives us under each form. is; that is, perfect God and perfect man. Christ leave heaven to come into the Eucharist ? always continues at the right hand of God, his father, till he shall come at the end of the world, with great glory, to judge the living and the dead. Q. How then can he be present at the altar? A. By the almighty power of God. Q. Then it is not man that works this miracle? A. No: it is Jesus Christ, whose word is employed in the Sacrament. Q. Then it is Jesus Christ who consecrates? A. It is Jesus Christ who consecrates; the priest is only his Minister. Q. Must we worship the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? A. Yes, undoubtedly, for this body and this blood are inseparably united to his divinity." The mode of celebrating the mass, with an infinity of genuflections, bowings, and other acts of adoration, both by priest and people, exactly comports with this doctrine, and would be infinitely absurd, but upon the belief of the miracle which the words of consecration-Hoc est corpus meum, are said to perform. Here, a man endowed with no divine authority-he may be, what Popish priests often have been, defiled with every vice, yet, by pronouncing a few Latin words, he works a miracle infinitely surpassing any that were ever wrought by Christ or any of his Apostles. But it is taught by this Church, not only that this awful miracle is really accomplished by the Priest-but that each bit of bread, each drop of wine, is corporeally turned into a whole Christ? Yet, no one pretends to see the body of Christ, which is there present, nor to feel it, nor to taste it. Throughout the Catholic Church, there are, therefore, made by its Priests, infinite Christs, all imperceptible-which are swallowed by the people-most of whom remain, after the ceremony, as bad sinners as they were before. Really, it is difficult to treat this subject with that gravity which our adversaries demand. The man who can believe in this standing miracle of Rome, as I may presume W. L. does, cannot deserve credit, nor is he entitled to be treated rationally. I must, however, say a few words more, before I dismiss the subject. The Church of Rome calls Transubstantiation a great miracle and a great mystery-but I can prove that it possesses none of the characters of a miracle, and therefore, every man living ought to pronounce it a lie against the laws of nature, and an infamous attempt to impose upon the credulity of mankind. Every Miracle must be an appeal to sense. They are supernatural signs wrought in proof of a divine authority. What the Apostle says of tongues (languages) is true of all Miracles, (1 Cor. xiv. 22,) they are "for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.” But Transubstantiation is no sign-no appeal to the sense either of believers or unbelievers; and is therefore no miracle. It is, to all intents and purposes, after Consecration, what it was before, neither more nor less than bread and wine. I can prove it such by every argument which proves a man to be a man, and a stone a stone. No Catholic can prove it to be any thing else. Every sense that proves it to be bread and not flesh, wine, and not blood, proves the Popish Church, and every priest that declares this dogma true, a liar. There is no one quality of the bread gone there is no new quality added-the wine retains all its qualities, and acquires no new ones. Where, then, is the miracle that has no appeal to our senses? The true definition of this miracle would be an invisible change that consists in no alteration. A contradiction to itself and to sense. If any Catholic can shew that there is any change, I will believe the doctrine-if he can prove to an unbeliever, that the bread becomes Christ's body, he can surely do so, by proving that the qualities of Christ's body are there, otherwise he cannot expect me to believe, what he cannot prove. If ten thousand Councils asserted, that an egg was a man, or a loaf of bread a God, or that a cup of wine was blood, they might not exactly deserve to be put into Bedlam, because their insanity would be harmless, but they would certainly deserve to be laughed at, and not reasoned with. Every Catholic who conforms to this ceremony of the mass, either believes in transubstantiation, or he does not. If he does not, what is his situation and character? He hears the priest pronounce "Hoc est corpus meum, &c." he hears that priest positively affirm that the consecrated wafer is "the Lamb of God who taketh' away the sin of the world." He sees him worship the host, and after this, the communicant himself is commanded by the Directory thus, "Having the towel raised above your breast, your eyes modestly closed, your head likewise raised up, and your mouth conveniently opened, receive 'the Holy Sacrament on your tongue, resting, on your under lip; then close your mouth, and say in your heart, Amen; I believe it to be the body of Christ-and I pray it may preserve my soul to eternal life." (Ordinary of the Mass, p. 33.) The man who can submit to this ceremony, without most fully believing Transubstantiation—that is, knowing that the priest and himself have a lie in their right hand, is not worthy of being believed on any other occasion. He that will give his countenance to a practical lie of so awful a description, will practice lies when ever they will serve his purpose. His conscience must have become callous, and he can have no just claim to the credit of mankind. But suppose the other case. The unsuspecting worshipper of the mass believes all he is told, and really takes that bread and wine for the person of Christ. Then that man gives up, upon the claim of his Church, the testimony of his own senses. Does not this undermine Revelation itself? The strongest appeals of inspired men were made to the senses. If these are fallacious, then Revelation subverts one of its own main pillars. If the Bible contradicted the senses of all mankind, its falsehood would be infinitely more certain than the fallacy of men's senses. If the Papist will not believe his senses which his Creator has given him, but calls a piece of bread a man, because the Priest says it is so, what security can he have, that the next man he sees may not be a piece of bread? If his senses give a false testimony in one case, and would attest to him that a thing possesses qualities quite different from his belief, then they may deceive him in other cases. His sight, taste, feeling, are contradicted by his faith. He denies that they are to be trusted by himself; how then can he expect any other person to trust his testimony of a fact, when he does not trust himself. Is he a credible witness to any fact in the world, who falsifies his own senses in obedience to a fellow man? His priest might persuade him, then, that murder is benevolence, and robbery an act of justice. It is only for the Church to affirm a man to be an elephant, as it has affirmed a morsel of bread to be his God, and he will believe it. I ask, then, is a man who thus sacrifices his own senses, and his reason, to the dogmas of his Church, deserving of credit in cases where his Church does not interfere? And does not this very doctrine originate that infidelity and contempt of Revelation which prevails more in Catholic countries than in any others? I really feel, Mr. Editor, that to the greater part of your readers an apology is due, for having engaged their attention so long in an examination of an imposture which I believe is not be equalled in the history of Paganism, or Mahommedanism, or any other ism that is or has been under the sun. And now, by way of relieving their weariness and disgust, I will entertain them with two short extracts from history, which, I hope, will not be deemed mal à propos to my argument. "When Cardinal Perron was asked by some of his friends, in his last sickness, what he thought of transubstantiation, he answered, that it was a MONSTER; and when they asked him, how then he had writ so copiously and learnedly about it, he replied, that he had done the utmost which his wit and parts had enabled him to colour over this abuse, and render it plausible; but that he had done like those who employ all their force to defend an ill cause." Drelincourt, Reponse á lettres de Monseig. le Prince Ernest, aux cinq Ministres de Paris. Geneve, 1664. F The next fact is "a passage of Archbishop Usher, a prodigy of learning and humility; who having been so happy as to convert several Roman Priests from their errors, and inquiring diligently of them, what they, who said Mass every day, and were not obliged to confess venial sins, could have to trouble their confessors with? They ingenuously acknowledged to him, that the chiefest part of their constant confession, was their INFIDELITY as to the point of Transubstantiation; and for which they mutually acquitted and absolved one another." Preface to Archbp. Wake's Discourse of the Holy Eucharist, &c. &c. 1688. In my next I shall attempt to prove that this dogma of Rome has as little foundation in Scripture and Antiquity, as I have now shown it has in Reason. In the mean time, (with due respects to the “ Pry" family, to whom my motto must still be, in spite of Paul's Epigram,* Stat Nominis Umbra,) I remain, Sir, your's, &c. HORACE BENTLEY. SIR, I [FROM THE JOURNAL OF MAY 10.] To the Editor of the Worcester Journal. [F TRANSUBSTANTIATION, as I endeavoured to show in my last letter, would subvert the evidence of miracles, and thus take from Revelation one of its strongest arguments, surely it ought not to be embraced without the most ample and indu This alludes to the following Letter, which appeared in the Journal of To Horace Bentley. Horatius Flaccus once in olden time (The date I name not for it will not rhyme) That the Pont. Max. and all great Rome's savans, Hast dar'd to touch his Holiness's beard, (Whether thy journey's made in Spring or Winter) + It is so long since I was at school, that I forget whether Wit is a woman, or whether the Romans" published the banns of matrimony." If in either of these particulars I err, I cry your mercy, gentle reader. P. P. |