Id?
1*3
%
CARDINAL WISEMAN'S
LECTURES
on THB
PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES
OT TBB
CATHOLIC CHURCH.
rOL.IL
Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive
in 2010 witli funding from
University of Toronto
Iittp://www.arcliive.org/details/lecturesonprinc02wise
LECTURES
ON TRK
l^rinfijiiil Inrtriiifs nnii l^Mm
or THB
CATHOLIC CHURCH;
5SLITKRED AT ST. MARY'S, MOORFIELDS, DVPJXCi THK LENT OJ IKS.
By cardinal WISEMAN.
VOL. n.
NEW YORK:
F O'SHEA, PUBLTSHE2,
45 WAKUEN fc rilEET.
hi
SEP 20 1971
ADVERTISEMENT TO VOLUME U.
In the Lectures which compose the following volume, a
slight deviation has been made from the order in which they
were delivered. The tenth Lecture was upon the Reai
Presence, or Transubstantiation ; but, as this subject waa
treated on three successive Sundays, on account of the greater
numbers who could attend on that day, while other topics
were discussed on the Wednesdays and Fridays, it has been
thought expedient to proceed with these, and place the three
Lectures on the Real Presence together, at the close of the
series.
A Discourse has been added on Indulgences. This was not
delivered at jMoorfields, from want of time. It had, how
ever, been given at the Sardinian Chapel, in a short com.
delivered there during Advent, 1835; and a strong desiit
having been expressed, b}' many who heard it, that it should
bo published, the author has been induced to write it from
his notes, and add it as part of the present series.
54, Lincoln's Inn FieUU,
Eve of SS. Peter and Paul
CONTENTS OF VOLUME II.
LECTURE X.
On the Sacrament of Penance 7
LECTURE XL
On Satisfaction and Purgatory 32
LECTURE XIL
On Lidulgences 6^
LICTURE Xin.
Invocation of Saints: their Relics and Images 77
LECTCRE XIV.
Un Transubstantiation — Part I 112
LECTURE XV.
Same Subject— Part II 143
LECTURE XVI.
Bam© Subject— Part III 16fi
!•
LECTURE THE TENTH.
ON THE BACRAMENI OF PENANOB.
JOHN XX. 23.
* JZeonce ye the Bbly Ohost; whose sins ye shall forg'ivt, they are forgiven them, a$»i
wTiose sins ye shall retain, they are retained."
I SHALL this day endeavor to explain to you, in the simplest
manner, the doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding the for-
giveness of sins ; and the grounds "whereupon she maintains the
practice of confession to be an institution of our Lord. It would,
however, be necessarily unjust to the subject to enter into it
alone, and detached from those other important institutions,
which we consider an essential part of the remedy appointed by
Christ for the forgiveness of sins. It will, therefore, be neces-
sary for me to enter, perhaps at some length, into other con-
siderations connected with this subject, and endeavor rather to
lay before you the entire form and substance of that sacrament,
which the Catholic Church maintains to be one of the most
valuable institutions left by our Saviour to the ministration of
his Church — that is to say, the sacrament of penance, of which,
indeed, confession is to be considered but a part.
Nothing is more common than to separate our belief and our
practice ; and then, placing the latter before public notice, aa
though standing on independent grounds, and having no con-
nection with the former, to represent it as a mere human inven-
tion, devoid of authority in the word of God. In ord«r to remove
any impression of tnis nature, it will be proper to show you
this institution, prescribed in the Church of Christ, as in close
connection with other and still more important doctrines. I
shall, therefore, endeavor to go through all the parts of this
sacrament, comparing the institution believed by us to have been
. eft by our Saviour, and preserved in the Church of God, with the
method supposed by other religious to have been instituted, and
to be in operation there, for the attainment of the same objects
I have again and again iaculcaked; tha^ in the works of God^
7
8 LBCTPRE X.
or in all those institutions left by Him to mankind, there will
always be found a certain consistency or harmony of parts, — so
that whatever has been demonstrated regarding one portion of
the system which He left on eai-th, must be allowed to be of
considerable weight, towards influencing our belief, at least as ta
the probability of other similar institutions having been pro-
vided. For example, with regard to the present case, all arp
agreed, that among the most important objects of our Saviour's
coming among mankind, — I may say, indeed, the most important
of all, — was that of rescuing fallen man from sin. We must,
consequently, suoposo that He did not leave his work imperfect ;
and, while Ave all concur in common belief, that the work of re-
demption was quite perfect and C(jmplete, as to his giving of a full
equivalent to the divine justice, we must all likewise agree, that
a means was provided by Him whereby this full and general re-
demption was to be applied to each individual case. No one
can, for a moment, suppose, that because Christ died for our
sins, we are rescued from all co-operation on our parts ; that,
without a single act, I do not say external, but at least of our
minds, we shall have the full benefit of that redemption ; that
nothing was demanded from us, whereby that general redemption,
which would have cancelled the sins of ten thousand worlds,
was to be accepted by God in our particular case. Consequently,
80 far we may all be said to admit : first, that redemption was
perfected by Christ's death ; and, secondly, that some means or
other, whether an outward act or an inward movement, is re
quisite to make that redemption applicable to ourselves.
But, if we look into the institutions of Christ, we shall see,
that, in every other case at least. He was pleased to make use of
external agency. Is not the blood of Christ applied to the sanc-
tification of man in the waters of regeneration ? Is not baptism
a sacrament instituted by our Lord, for the purpose of cleansing
the soul frem original sin? Is not the sin there fo'-given, through
the only forgi-\nng power, that is, through the cancelling blood
of our Redeemer? — and yet, is not this applied by means of the
outward act and ministration of man ?
Was not the redemiition of Christ complete in itself, so far as
it was intended also for our greater sanctification ? Were not
His sufi'eriugs in themselves all-abundant, as directed to the end
of uniting us in love and affection with Him, by making us feel
what He suffered for our sakes? — and do not all agree, even
those who dififer from us in the real and essential character of
the sacrament of the Eu'Wuist — do tbev not all agree, that it is
LBCTURK X. 9
instituted for tho purpose of applying to onrselvcs those feelings
at least which He intended to excite by His sufferings and death?
And is not this again a visible institution ? Is it not applied
tlirough the agency of man, and is it not done by outward acts
and rites, both on the part of the minister, and of him who
receives it ?
Did not our Saviour come on earth to teach all mankind ? Did
He not establish a code of doctrines and morals, a system of
laws for our edification both in faith and conduct ? And has Ho
not left an outward instrument of this in His written word ?
And has he not appointed ministers, and constituted a hierarchy,
to whom was committed the care of His flock, with power and
authority to instruct ? And here, again, is not one of the most
signal and important benefits which our Saviour intended to
commimicate to man, communicated through outward means,
by an institution founded by IJimself for that purpose ?
Now, if the great end for which He came on earth was the
abolition of sin ; and that not merely considered as the cancelling
3f a general debt, but as » specific provision for each individual
who requires the benefit of His redemption ; if, at the same time,
every other benefit conferred on mankind was attached to the
outward observance of some given foi*ms, committed to a minis-
try destined for that purpose : can we conceive the system so
broken and unequal, that for this momentous object, no visible
or outward means should have been instituted ? On the con-
trary, if in the less important case — viewed with reference to the
character of tho guilt — of original sin, in which we have no per-
sonal participation, He was not contented that the child or adult
sliouid attain his end by any inward act of belief, or of any
other vii'tue, formed by himself or another, but exacted that ho
should appear as an offender, and one seeking forgiveness and
justification, that he should be inteiTOgated and give promise of
his fidelity in the face of the Church, and make confession of his
faith before mankind, and so come to that visible rite whei-eby
lie is cleansed ; can we believe that in the more important case,
wliere the greater end for which He came on earth is to be ful-
filled, in the wiping awaj^of deeper and more enormous offences,
actuall}' committed by us, whereby His majostj* and goodness
have been more cruellj' outraged. He should have left no out-
ward visible means for the attaining of this mercy, that Ho
should not, as in the other case, have required 1)y outward mani-
festations of sorrow, some compensation in th(» sight of man !
Now, on these grounds, over while approacliinf tlie subject from
Vol. II.— B
10 LECTURE X.
a distance, I am sure no one can consider it inconsisteat with
what we know of God's merciful dealings with us, of the natural
line of His providential conduct towards fiillen man, in the es-
•ablishmeut of Christianity, to suppose that Christ left in His
Church an express institution fur the cancelling of sins, through
the application of His all-redeeming and all-sufficient blood.
We now come to examine what is the Catholic doctrine re-
garding the existence of such an institution. The Catholic
Church teaches, that Christ did establish on earth a means
whereby forgiveness should be imparted to wretched sinners —
whereby, on the pei-formance of certain acts, all who have of-
fended God may obtain authoritative forgiveness. It is generally
said, — I mean bj" those who preach and write against our doc-
trines,— that the institution maintained by the Catholic Chm-ch
to have been so established by Christ, is Confession. This, at
the outset, is an error, — the Catholic Church believes that the
institution left by our Saviour was the sacrament of penance,
consisting of three parts, whereof confession is only one, and
that one not the most essential. Here, then, is a manifest mis-
statement or misrepresentation, however unintentional, of our
belief. For I will proceed to show you, that the Catholic Church
teaches and urges the necessity of every thing that any other
Church requires ; and that even in more complete perfection than
any. We believe, therefore, that the sacrament of penance ia
composed of three parts, — contrition, or sorrow — confession, or
its outward manifestation — and satisfaction, which, in some re-
spects, is also a guarantee of perseverance in that which we
promise.
I. With regard to the first, the Catholic Church teaches that
sorrow or contrition, which involves all that any other religion
means by repentance, of which it is only a part, has always been
necessary to obtain the forgiveness of God. It maintains, that,
without that sorrow, no forgiveness can possibly be obtained in
the new law any more than in the old ; that, without a deep and
earnest grief, and a determination not to sin again, no absolu-
tion of the priest has the slightest worth or avail iu the sight of
God; that, on the contrary, any one who asks or obtains absolu-
tion, without that sorrow, instead of thereby obtaining forgive-
ness of his sins, commits an enormous sacrilege, and adds to
the weight of his guilt, and giios away from tlx; feet of his con-
fessor, still more heavily laden than wln-n he approached him.
Such is the Catholic doctrine with resj)ect to this portion of tbfl
Sacrament.
LECTURE X. 11
But what is the contrition or sorrow which the Catholic Church
requires? I believe that, if any one will take the trouble to
analyze the doctrine of any reformed Church, on the exact mean-
ing of the word repentance, distinguishing its different steps
fi'oni the very act of forgiveness, — that is, examining closely the
means by which we arrive at that last act, which purges us from
sin, he wiU find it exceciii:gly dif&cult to resolve it into any tan-
gible system, or any clear series of feelings or acts which will
bear a strict examination. In the Articles, for instance, of the
Church of England, every thing is laid down in the vaguest
manner. We have it simply said, that "we are accounted right-
eous before God, only for the merits of Christ, by faith, and not
for our o^vn works ; wherefore, that we are justified by faith only,
is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort," and we
are referred to the homily on justification for farther explana-
tion.* Again, we are told that there is a place of forgiveness to
Buch as truly repeut.f If any one will read over that homily,
he wUl find it repeated, again and again, that men are to be jus-
tified by faith alone, without works. We find, indeed, that love
is spoken of as an ingredient in this faith. But we are never
told how the sinner is conducted to it. We are never informed
how his return, like that of the prodigal son, is to be accom-
plished, when he becomes sensible of his guilt: in what way he
is to be gradually conducted to that faith which justifies the
sinner. W"e are not even told in what that faith consists. Are
we simply to be satisfied with the firm persuasion or conviction,
that the merits of Christ are sufficient to purge us from all sin?
Or, are we to believe that His Blood has been applied to us all,
and that we are forgiven ? Or is there a more individual appli-
cation to each one, whenever sin is regretted? What are the
criterions of that faith, its tests, whereby the true may be dis-
cerned from the imaginary or false ? What is its process ? — is it
one of simple conviction ? What is to authorize you to feel that
conviction? What are tlie previous steps which make you
worthy of it, which can make you suppose that you have
obtained it? On all this we are left completely in the dark.
Each one gives us the opinions or devices of his own mind;
ind hence we find as many different ideas, when we come to
investigate the subject, as there are persons who have writteb
(m it.
But if we look into the works of the foreign reformers,— if w«
• Art xL *>rt. xft
IS LECTURE X.
examine the writings of those who maybe cnnsiiU'rod the fatheri!
and founders of the Reformation, although there is considovaljlo
contradiction and inconsistency, we yet have an attempt mad<!
to show the steps whereby the justification of the sinner is at-
tained. We are told constantly, both in the works of Lutlier,
and in the articles of faith of several Churches, that the tir,?i
step is the terror of conscience ; that the soul, contemplating tiie
dreadful abyss of misery whereby it is surrounded, seeing itself
necessarily on the brink of etei'nal destrucrion, is excited to a
deep sorrow for its sins, and returning, through the merits of
Christ and faith in Him, its sins are covered, and taken away in
the sight of God. The preliminary step is simplj' terror, or dread
of God's judgment, — the next and final step, is an act of faith in
the power of Christ, to redeem and save by the efficacy of His
Blood.* Now, not only does the Catholic Church require all
these dispositions, but it considers them as mere inchoative acts,
mere embryos, which must be farther matured before confession
can be valid. The Council of Trent lays down a most beautiful
and philosophical doctrine on the natui-e of this introductory
act; it traces the steps Avhereby the soul is brought to turn away
from sin by the desire of reconciliation with God. It does, in-
deed, represent the soul as terrified and struck with horror at
the awful stat* to which guilt has reduced it ; but this is iar
from immediately preceding justification, — it is but the imperfe<-t
germ which appears, before the full Christian virtue can come
into bloom. For the sinner, awe-struck by tiie sense of God's
judgment, is for a moment lost in fear and apprehension, till,
turning naturally to look round him for relief, he sees, on the
other hand, the immense mercy and goodness of Giid, and, ba-
lancing that with His more avrful attributes, is buoyed uji with
the hope of mercy, — that he yet may rise and return, like the
prodigal, to his father's house, with tlie prospect of being, at
least, one of the last and lowest of his servants. Yet, is even
this only another step towards the feelings of aftcction naturally
excited, at thinking that God is so good, — that His kindness tc
us extends so far as to receive such wretched beings into His
arms; and then love becomes mingled with our fear, which thus
becomes the fear of the child, not of ths slave; till, at last, the
soul, inflamed with an ardent love of God, and dctf^nnined never
more to oflfend Him, is brought into that stat<; which we find de-
scribed in the New Testament, as the immediate precursor and
* See \3ie admirable chapter on thb aulgect, In Mohler'6 Symbolik
LECTURE X. 13
cause of forgiveness. "Many sins arc I'or^^ivcn licr, because slm
hatli loved much."*
Thus, while faith is the principal rootof all justification, thcie
are yet othei- acts and other feelings of virtue, more conformable
to the attributes of God, and mores consistent with the order of
His institutions in the New Law, through which the soul passes,
up to that last act which seals its justification. St. Paul tells
lis, again and again, that, except through faith, no man can bo
justified, and that all justification is through Christ and through
faith in Him; ai»d so this progress of justification begins in that
faith, and ends in the application of the Blood of our Redeemer,
as the only means of salvation.
Thus far, therefore, we have everything included in the order,
progress, or purport of the acts of forgiveness required by any
other religion for the justification of the sinner. And I will
simply ask, before I come to treat of the other parts of the Sa-
"rament, can it he said that this is a system favorable to crime ?
'Jan it be said, that the Catholic hf)lds forgiveness or absolution
to Ijo so completely attached to an outward act, that he is reck-
less of the commission of olFences, because he believe^ thai
Ills soul can be as easily cleansed from sin, as his body froni
outward defilement? that his penance is a bath or laver, Avherein,
by a plain and easy application, ofi"euces are waslied away, and
the soul restored to its original purity'/
But we are not yet arrived at the close of this important sub-
ject: for it must be observed, that these are only the ingredients,
or, rather, the preparatory steps for that act of sorroAV or contri-
tion, which is the essential concomitant of confession ; and not
oTily its concomitant, but so much superior and more important,
that the Catholic Church l^elieves and teaches, — and, in her daily
practice manii'csts that belief, — that, if from circumstances a pei*-
siin have -no means of practising confession, if illness surprise
ihe sinner before the minister of repentance can ap})roach him, —
if accident place him out of the reach of fsuch a comforter, and
there be no one to apply the consolations of that institution, — an
act of contrition, including a Avillinguess, if in his power, to
practise confession, because it is an institution established by
Christ for the forgiveness of sins, will of itself procure their par-
dim, and reccnicih^ him ;us completely with his God, as if he had
confessed all his crimes, and received absolution. Tiiis, I say,
is the practice and feeling of every Catliolic, not only of th«
» Lake vii. 47 Cone. TriJ, t^esr,. vi- 1;. vi. Catecli. Kom. la. ii. o. ■».
14 LECTURE X.
instructed, but also of the ^ost illiterate and least educatee
that, in cases of sudden illness, or danger of being surprised b j
death, a fervent act of sorrow is equivalent to all that Chris!
instituted fur the forgiveness of sins.
And Avhat is that sorrow ? — I will read you its definitiun in the
words of the Council of Trent, of that council which has n'ost
clearly defined the Catholic doctrine on this subject. "Contri-
tion," that is, sorrow — such being the technical term used in the
Chur»h for it, "which holds the first place among the acts of
penance (or repentance,) is sorrow and detestation of sin com-
mitted, with a determination not to sin again. The holy synod
declares, that this contrition contains, not only the abandoning
of sin and a purpose of new life, but also a hatred of the old."*
Thus you see what is expected of every penitent, before absolu-
tion can be considered of any avail, or confession woi-th any thing
to his salvation.
II. And now we come to the second part of this Sacrament.
The Catholic Church teaches that the sinner, being thus sorry
for having offended God, and sorry upon the motive which I
have stated, — that is, on account, not of evil thence resu,lting to
himself, but of the graciousness and infinite goodness of the God
whom he has injured, — must next perform an outward act, which
would seem of itself the natural and spontaneous consequence
of this feeling. Catholic divines have again and again describcil
this sorrow for sin, when they say that it must be supernatural,
that is, that its motives must be exclusively drawn from the
attributes of God, from the consideration, not of what sin has
brought on us, but of the manifestations of love which we receive
from Him, and still more of His own essential goodness — that it
must be supreme — that is, detesting, abhorring, and hating sin
beyond every other evil on earth; and it must be universal —
embracing, without a single exception, every fault or transgres-
sion whereby we have offended so good a God. Now, these dis-
positions naturally dispose the soul to make any compensation
or atonement that may be required, for the offences it has com-
mitted. Not only so, l^ut it is the very nature of love itself to
make that manifestation — love, which was the last step in the
work of conversion. We find it thus in the case of Magdalen,
who did not rest saf!>ified with merely lieing sori-y for having
offended God, or witii only regretting the evil done, and retiring
from it, and, by a new life, proving her sorrow; but must brave
• Sess. liv i!iip. iy.y
LECTURE X.
contumely and insult, and ever}- other humiliation, to give public
evidence of lier feelings. She breaks through the crowd of at
tendants, penetrates into the house of the rich Pharisee, of one
belonging to the proudest and most conceited class of men — she
rushes forward and intrudes upon his solemn banquet, casts her-
eolf at the feet of her spiritual Physician, weeps bitter tears, and,
lavishing all her precicus things on his feet, shows by outward
deeds, that she really loved God, that she was overwhelmed witli
grief from having offended Him, and was ready to make any
reparation to His outraged majesty. Thus, the natural tendency
of repentant love is to make some outward manifestation, to tes-
tify itself in some way by an act of sorrow, and even of humilia-
tion before others, and so to seek that forgiveness Avhich it so
much desires. And therefore, even thus, we have a most perfect
consistency in this institution, linking it harmoniously with the
feelings that precede it; although, of course, this natural and
spontaneous ori^'in in no way forms the ground on which the
Catholic Church believes and enjoins it.
She maintains, then, that the sinner is bound to manifest his'
offences to the pastors of his Church, or, rather, to one deputed
and aicnorized by the Church fbr that purpose; to lay open t-n
him all the secret offences of his soul, to expose all its wounds,
and, in virtue of the authority vested by our Blessed Saviour in
jiim, to receive through his hands, on earth, the sentence which
Is ratified in heaven, of God's forgiveness. But, as the primary
o))ject of this institution is the salvation of the soul, and as there
may be cases where, by too easily receiving pardon, sufficient
impression would not be made on the sinner to lead him to
amendment of life ; as it may happen that the dispositions where-
with it is approached are not sufficiently manifest, or that the
sorrow is not sufficiently supreme; as also from constant relapse
into sin, after forgiveness, it may appear that there was not a
solid resolution of amendment, and consequently a sincere and
efficient sorrow for the crimes and offences committed, so it
aiay be prudent to deny that absolution. We believe that this
case also has been provided for by Christ, inasmuch as He gave
to the Church a power of retaining sins, that is, of withholding
forgiveness, or delaying it to a more seasonable time.
Before entering into proofs of this doctrine, illow me to ex-
amine how far it is tlie sort of institution which we should expect
our Saviour to have' made. I have shown you already, that, con-
sistently witli the plan followed Itv Him, in the establishment
•♦f His I'eligion, and according to the method of action -which He
16 LECTURE X.
has uni:''i)rmly chosen, we should have expected some outward
institution wherein the forgiveness of sins should he ccmniitted
to his Church, and His sacred Blood be applied to the soul, for
the cleansing of it from guilt. I did not, however, then enter
upon the nature of the institution.
AlloAv me now to premise a few remarks on the aptness of such
an institution as Confession, for the ends for which we bclievn
it appointed.
1. In the first place, it seems the institution most conformable
to the wants of human nature, whether we consider it in its
native constitution, or in its fallen state. As to the first, it seems
natural to the mind to seek relief from guilt, by manifestation:
we are not sui-prised when we hear of culprit*, who have been
guilty of some great crime, and have escaped the vengeance of
the law, leading a restless and unhappy life, until, of their own
accord, they confess their guilt, and meet the punishment which
the law awards. We are not astonished when we henv cf those
condemned to death, being most anxious to find some person to
whom they may disclose their guilt, and when we hear it de-
clared again and again, that they could not have died in peace,
unless they had manifested their transgressions. All this shows
that human nature finds herein the most natural an(J obvious
relief, that even in that confession some balm is applied to the
soul's inward suffering; because it is the only method left of
making compensation to that society against which such men
liave transgressed. Nay, this feeling goes much farther: for the
culprit, who at once humbly acknowledges his guilt, gains our
compassion, and we cannot in our minds consider him any longer
as the black and hardened villain, which before we were inclined
to suppose him. "We immediately trust that such a one is truly
iiovvj for what he has done ; and consoquently his iniquity, al-
though the crime may be equal, is not so great as his who dar-
ingly denies it. If the decl.aration of our Blessed Saviour had
not been made to the penitent thief, or if it had not been
recorded, Ave should in our minds have distinguished between
ths two companions of His sufferings, between him who humbly
confessed that lie died according to iiis deserts, and him who
persisted in hardened offi-ontery to the end. If, therefore, God
did establish any outward form, when-by the conscience might
be saved from sin, we cannot conceive one more adapted to that
purpose than the manifestation of sin.
It is, however, co-igi'u'al to onr nature, rot mei-ely in its geuo-
ral constitution, but still "arthor in its present fallen state. Foi
LECTURE X. 17
^hat, my brethren, is sin? It is arising up of the pride of raon
against the majesty of God. The sinner, full^- aware of the con-
sequences of his iniquity, instructed in the end to which sin
must lead him, seems to stand up before God's iudgment-seat,
and, looking his futui-e judge in the face, insults Him Ij}- the
commission of what he knows He will one day ^uUy avenge.
Xow, Avhat Avoald be the natural correctiA^e of this- he humilia-
tion before others of that proud spirit that hath raised itself up
against God, by its kneeling at the feet of man, and asking for-
giveness, and owning itself guilty of having insulted God on his
eternal throne. Pride is the very principle and root of all evil ;
and as the third portion of this sacrament, Satisfaction, which 1
shall reserve for another occasion, tends to correct that concvipi-
ecence and those passions which are the stimulants of sin, this
seems to be the most completely opposed to that pride Avhich is
its principle.
So true is this connection between the confession of our guiU
and the i-eparation made to the majesty of God, that His holy
word considers the two as almost identical. Fur thus Josue
spake to Achan: "My son, give glory to the Lord God of Israel,
and confess, and tell me what thou hast done : hide it not."*
There are some beautiful reflections of Pascal's on this sub
ject. He expresses himself astonished that any man could treat
the confession of sin to one individual, under such circumstances
as the Catholic Church prescribes, as any thing but the most
lenient mitigation of what ought naturally to be expected. You
have sinned before mankind, and outraged God by your oifences :
and you might naturally expect full compensation to be required,
you might reasonably suppose, that He would demand a repara-
tion as public and as open as the crime, — a humiliation as com-
plete as was the pride in which you sinned. To consider as a
hardship the manifestation of humility to one person deputed
and chosen to receive it — to one bound by every possible laAv not
CO reveal, or in any way betray aught that has passed between
you — to one who feels it his duty to receive you with compassion,
with sympathy, and affection, and to direct, counsel, and assist
you, — to consider this any thing but the most merciful mitiga-
tion of what is duo from you, is an idea that fills the mind with
pain and regret. t
2. But, in the second place, ray brethren, not only is such an
institution conformable to the Avants of man ; it is precisely in
* Jo. Tii. 19. t ■iP- MOhler, ubi tup.
TOL. 11.— C
18 LECTURE X.
accordance with the method always pursued by God, for the fo^
giveness of sins. "We find, in the old law, that there was an in-
stitution for this purpose, and that it was such as to make the
manifestation of transgression preliminary to its application.
God divided the sacrifices into difi'erent classes: there were some
for sins commit^ted through ignorance, and others for deliberate
•violations of tho law. Now, in the 5th chapter of Leviticus,
where the rules concerning such sacrifices are laid down, we find
it prescribed, that if any one transgressed, he should confess his
sin, and the priest should pray for him, and a particular sacrifice
should be ofi'ered, and so forgiveness be obtained. Hence it ap-
pears that the manifestation of sins to the Priests of the Temple
was a prel'jninary condition for their forgiveness, so far as legal
sacrifice could be considered a means of pardon ; that is to say,
as a means of exciting faith in that great sacrifice, through which
alone the forgiveness of sins could be obtained. I might go
farther, and, as I have done again and again, point out more
analogies between the systems established by God in the old law,
and that by our Saviour in the new. But it is not necessary to
dwell longer upon this point.
3. But, finally, such an institution is exactly consistent with
the entire system of religion established through the new law.
For we find, as I have taken some pains to show you, that our
Saviour established a kingdom, or species of dominion, in His
Church, consisting of an organized body, intended to minister to
the wants of the faithful, with authority coming directly from
Him, with a rule and command on the one side, and the obliga-
tion of learning and obeying on the other. Now, this system of
authoritative government, which I also showed you pervaded
even the minor department of the Church, as established by
Christ, seems to require for its completeness and perfection, that
there should be also tribunals within it, to take cognisance of
transgressions committed against its laws, that is to say, the laws
of God, to administer which, it was appointed. We should na-
turally expect, for the complete organization of such a Church,
an appointment of authority within it for the punishment of
ofiences against its fundamental laws and moral precepts ; so as
to be charged, not only to teach, but likewise to enforce, the prac-
tice of what is taught. Such an order, therefore, is consistent in
every way, with tho attributes of such a religious constitution.
Now, after these remarks, which I trust will have prepared tho
way, I proceed to the grounds of our doctrine, that there is a
power of forgiving sins in the Church such as necessarily re-
LECTURE X. 19
quirvs tho manifestation even of hidden transgressions, and that
it was so established by Christ himself.
The words of my text are the primary and principal founda-
tion on which we rest. I need hardly observe, that as, in the
old law, a confession or manifestation of sins was appointed
among the means of obtaining forgiveness, so there are allusions,
in the new, to a similar practice, sufficient to continue its recol-
lection with the early Christians, and make them conclude tliat
Providence had not completely broken up the system it had till
then pursued. They were told to confess their sins to one an-
other.* It is very true that this text is vague, — it does not say.
Confess your sins to the priest, nor to any private individual ;
although the mention of the priests of the Church, in the pre-
ceding verses, might naturally suggest the idea of their being a
special party to the act. Further, the words, "Confess your sins
one to another," seem to command more than a general declara-
tion of guilt, or the saying what even the most hardened sinner,
when all around him are joining in it, will not refuse to repeat,
"I have sinned before God." They seem to imply a more pecu-
liar communication between cue member of the Church and an-
other. At any rate, they serve to prove, that the manifestation of
sin is not of modern date; and to refute the objection that there
is nothing in the New Testament to show this natural, obvious,
method of obtaining relief, to exist in the law of Christ.
But in the text, which I have prefixed to this discourse, have
we not something far more specific? Christ was not addressing
his flock in general, but was giving a special charge to the apos-
tles ; in other words, to the pastors of the Church ; because 1 have
before shown you, that when a command was given to the apos-
tles, not of _ especial privilege, such as that of working miracles,
but one connected with the welfare and salvation of the flock, it
became a perpetual institution, to be continued in the Church.
What does he tell them? — "Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are
forgiven them; and whose sins ye retain, they are retained."
Here is a power, in the first place, truly to forgive sins. For
this expression, "to forgive sius," in the New Testament, always
signifies truly and really to clear tho sinner of guilt against God.
"Many sins are forgiven her," says our Saviour of Magdalen,
What does this mean? Surely that she was purged, cleansed
from sin. Those who heai-d the words so understood them. For
they said — "Who is this that forgivein sins al80?"t They con
20 LECTURE X.
eidered the privilege which our Saviour liere clainiod as superioi
t-o the power which He really possessed, though this embraced
the working of miracles. Such an idea could only have been
entertained of the right actually to remit or pardon an ofleuce
against God. That it was so, and moreover that they attributed
a correct meaning to His vfo/m*, appears not only from the pa-
rable of a debtor, which he applied to her case, but by the words
which He actually addressed to her. For, first He said, "thy
'•ins are forgiven thee;" and theu, "go in peace," — words of com-
fortable assurance, which must have led her to believe that she
was fuUy pai-doned. Again: Our Lord speaks to the paralytic
as foUows: "Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee."'^
Those who heard Eftm in this case went farther than in the
other, and "said within themselves. He blasphemeth :" — they
considered it an assumption of a privilege belonging to God alone ;
they understood His words in their primary, obvious meaning,
of remitting sins committed against the Almighty ; and our
Saviour confirms them in this interpretation, by the words that
follow: "Which is easier to say, thy sins are forgiven thee, or to
say, arise and walk? but that you may knoAV that the Son of maa
hath power on earth to forgive sins," &c. To "forgive sins,"
therefore, signifies in the Gospel to pardon, to absolve, or tc
cleanse the soul from sin. But all this reasoning is superfluous,
if we treat with those who adhere to the Anglican Church. For,
their service for the visitation of the sick, directs the clergyman
to say, in the very words which we use, "Hy his (Christ's) au-
thority, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen."
The apostles, then, and their successors, received this au-
thority ; consequently, to them was given a power to absolve, or
to cleanse the soul from its sins. There is another power also
given : that of retaining sins. What is the meaning of this ?
Clearly the power of refusing to forgive them. Now, all this
clearly implies — for the promise is annexed, that what sins
Christ's lawful ministers retained on earth, are retained in
Heaven — that there is no otht-r means of obtaining forgiveness,
save through them. For the forgiveness of Heaven is made tc
depend upon that which they give on earth ; and those are not
to be ])ardoned there, whose sins they retain. Now, were a judge
sent forth with tliis assurance, that whomever he should acquit,
that person should go free ; but that an}' one, to whom he should
» Hat. ix. 2.
LECTURE X. 21
retUsc pardon, shouM be considered as not forgiven ; would nut
tliis imply tliat no forgivonoss was to be obtained except througli
him? And would not the commis-sion otherwise be a nullity, an
insult, and a mockery ? For, would it not be an insult and a
mockerj' of his authority, if another commission, totally uncon-
nected with his tribunal, was at the very same time issued wit-Ii
equal power to pardon or punish delinquents, if there were other
means of forgiveness, over Avhich his award had no control?
Not merel}", therefore, a power to forgive sins is given in our
commission, but such a power as excludes every other instrument
or means of forgiveness in the new law. In fact, when Christ
appoints any institution, for objects solely dependent on His
will, that very fact excludes all other ordinary means. Wlien
He instituted baptism as a means of washing away original sin,
tliat very institution excluded any other way of obtaining that
benefit. In stiU stronger manner, then, does the commission
here given constitute the exclusive means of forgiveness, in the
ordinary course of God's dealings ; for not only does it leave
this to be deduced by inference, but, as we have seen, it posi-
tively so enacts, by limiting forgiveness in Heaven to the con-
cession of it here below, by those to whom it is intrusted.
But what must be the character of that power? Can jou
suppose that a judge would be sent out, with a commission to go
through the country, so that all whom he sentenced should be
j.unished accordinglj-, and those whom he acquitted should be
pardoned ; and understand that this discretionary power lodged
in his hands, could be properly discharged by his going into the
prisons, and saj'ing to one man, " You are acquitted," to another,
" You must be punished," to a third, " You I pronounce guilty,"
and to a fourth, " You I declare innocent ;" without investigation
into their respective cases, without having the slightest grouml
li>r passing sentence of hbsolution upon the one, or of condemna-
tion upon the other? Does not this tAT^)Sold autlioritj- imply tiu'
necessity of knowing the grounds of each individual case ? Does
it not suppose that the entire cause must be laid before the judge,
and that he must examine into it, and pronounce sentence con-
sistently with the evidence before him? And can we then believe,
that our Saviour gave this twofold office as the only means of
obtaining pardon, to tlie priests of His Church, and does not
h)ld them bound to decide according to the respective merit of
ich case? Docs He not uecessarilj- mean, that, if the Church
retain or forgive, it must have motives for so doing ? And huw
can we suppose these to be obtained, but by the case beiriic laid
22 LECTURE X.
before the judge? and who is ahle to do that but the offendei
alone? Therefore does the eomraissiou itself imply, that whoever
seeks, through this only channel, forgiveness, must manifest the
guilt which he has committed. He must bring the whole cause
under the notice of his judge, and only upon its complete hear-
ing can the proper sentence be pronounced.
This is the groundwork, in Scripture, of the Catholic docti-ine,
that sin is to be forgiven by the pastors of the Church, in conse-
(juence of the institution of Christ, who has herein appointed
them as His judges, vicegerents, and ministers ; and that, to ob-
tain this fiirgiveness, it is necessary to lay the case — in other
words, all our transgressions — before him w^ho is intrusted with
the responsibilitj' of the sentence pronounced.
But, my brethren, clear and simple as this reasoning may bo,
we perhaps might feel ourselves less secure in sanctioning it,
were we not so completely supported by the conduct and au-
thority of all antiquity. Many of you may, perhaps, have heard
it repeatedly said, that auricular confession, as it is called, was
not heard of in the iirst or second century of the Church. Let
it be so ; let us suppose it, or rather, allow it for a moment.
But do those who tell you so, (for the assertion is incorrect,) tell
you also the reason why it is not so much mentioned? The
reason is, that, instead of auricular confession, we read a great
deal more of public confession ; for, the sinner was obliged to
manifest his crimes in the presence of the whole Church, and
undergo a severe penance in consequence of them. And those
Avho are such sticklers for antiquity on this head, and dislike
auricular confession, should surely take antiquity to its extent ;
and if they reject ours, why not adopt the other practice, as
consistent with the usages of the ancient Church ? This is the
fact ; that the extent of manifestation of sins may be a matter
of secondary consideration ; whether the Church may direct pri-
vate or public confession, is altogether matter of discipline. It
is sufficient to establish that there is no forgiveness except by
the manifestation of crime ; that they who alone were empowered
to grant forgiveness, are the priests of the Church ; and that the
practice of confession is exactly the same, with this exception,
that in times of fervor, when crime was more rare, the Church
deem.ed it fit that offenders should not only declare their sins in
Secret, but stand before the entire congregation, and manifest
them publicly. Thus, instead of any argument arising against
this institution, from the supposed silence of the ancient fathers,
the only conclusion to which we must come, ia, that there has
LECTURE X. 23
been a mitigation or reduction of its rigor, but no change in \t%
essence.
I now proceed to read; you passages from these fathers, and I
will not come later than four hundred years after Christ ; be-
cause, after that time, the texts increase immensely. I will divide
them into two classes. I will first give you one or two where
confession in general, that is, public confession, is alluded to ;
for they will show the feeling of the Church, as to its being the
only means of obtaining forgiveness.
St. Irenasus, who flourished one hundred years after Christ,
mentions that some women came to the Church, and accused
themselves of secret crimes unknown to others. Again, of others
he thus writes : " Some, touched in conscience, publicly con-
fessed their sins ; while others, in despair, renounced their faith."*
Look at this alternative ; some confessed, and others renounced
the faith. If there had been any other means of forgiveness,
why should they have abandoned their faith ? Tertullian, who
is more generally known, as being the oldest Latin writer, says :
" Of this penitential disposition the proof is more laborious, as
the business is more pressing, in order that some public act, not
the voice of conscience alone, may show it. This act, which the
Greeks express by the word exomologesis, consists in the confes-
sion of our sin to the Lord ; not as if He knew it not ; but in as
much as confession leads to satisfaction : whence also penitence
flows, and by penitence God is moUified."t This is said with
reference, more or less, to the public practice. However, still
more clearly as to its necessity. "If still you draw back, let
your mind turn to that eternal fire which confession will extin-
guish ; and that you may not hesitate to adopt the remedy, weigh
the greatness of future punishment. And as you are not igno-
rant, that, against that fire, after the baptismal institution, the
aid of confession has been appointed, why are you an enemy to
your own salvation?" J
Proceeding to the other class of passages, — for, as I have been
ied to speak at greater length than I intended, I must pass over
several, much to the same purpose, and still speaking of the ne-
cessity of confession, — they treat of the manifestation of secret
or hidden sins in confession to the clergy, as the means of ob-
taining forgiveness. St. Cyprian thus vrrites : " God sees into
the hearts and breasts of all men, and He will judge, not theil
•Adr. Haer. c xiii. p. 63, 65. \ D» v^eaii. a. ix. p. 168.
Jlbid. :. xii. p. 170.
24 LECTURE X.
actions tn\y, but their -n'ords and thouglit-*, vimving tlie most
hidden conceptions of the mind. Hence, tlioiigh some of thopc
jjersons be remarked for their faith and tlio fear of God, and
bav(; not been guilty of the crime of sacrificing (to idols) nor
of surrendering the holy Scriptures, j'ct, if the ihnight of doinc)
it hav.3 ever entered their mind, this they confess, with grief and
without disguise, before the priests of God, unburdening the
conscience, and seeking a salutary remedy, however small and
pardonable their failing may have been. God, they know, will
not be mocked."* Again, speaking of smaller faults, he thus
expi-esses himself: " The fault is less, but the conscience is not
clear. Pardon may more easily be o1)tained; still there is guilt:
and let not the sinner cease from doing penance, lest what before
was small, be aggravated by neglect. I entreat you, my brethren,
let all confess their faults, while he that has offended enjo3'S life ;
while his confession can be received, and while the satisfaction
and pardon imparted by the priests are acceptable before God."t
Here we have two important points resolved : — first, that those
who were guilty of only petty or smaller offences, not of great
or deadly sins, went to the priest, and confessed their sins:--
and, in the second place, that the pardon which these penitents
received from the hands of the priest was considered valid
before God.
There are a great many other passages to the same effect in
this father, which I must pass over ; and I will take the next
from the Greek Church. Origen, after having spoken of bap-
tism, observes : " There is yet a more severe and arduous pardon
of sins by penance, when the sinner Avashes his couch with tears,
and when he blushes not to disclose his sin to the priest of tiio
Lord, and seek the remed3'. Thus is fulfilled what tlie apostle
says : Is any man sick among you, Jet him hriny in the priesiti oj
the Church, (James v. 14.)"J Again: "We have all power tu
pardon the faults committed against ourselves ; but he, on whom
Jesus breathed, as lie did on the apostles — he forgives, pruvidod
God forgive ; and retains those (sins) of Avhich the sinner repent.--
not, being His minister, Avho alone possesses the power of re-
mitting. So the prophets uttered things not their own, but Avliitt
it pleased God to communicate."^ Once more : " They who have
sinned, if they hide and retain their sin within their ))reaat, a,ro
grievously tormented ; but if the sinner becomes hi;* own >iy-
*De Lnpsis, p. 190. t Ibid. p. 190.
t Uomil. u. in Levit. T. ii. p. 191. j h. de Orat. T. i. p 22/
LKCTFRB X. 25
ousor, while he does this, he discharges the cause of all his
malady. Only let him carefully consider, to whom he should
confess his sin ; what is tlie character of the physician ; if he be
ene who will be weak with the weak, who will Aveep with the
sorrowful, and who understands the discipline of condolence and
fellow-feeling. So that, when his skill shall be known and hie
pity felt, you may follow what he shall advise. Should he think
your disease to be such, that it should be d<^clared in the assem-
bly of the faithful, whereby others may be edified, and yourself
easily reformed — this must be done with much deliberation and
the skilful advice of the physician."* This is an interesting
passage : we see an ornament of the early Church inculcating
the necessity of manifesting our sins, and speaking just as we
do now ; exhorting the foithful to be careful to seek out and se-
lect a prudent and charitable director, and lay before him their
hidden sins, and be guided by his counsel as to the propriety of
making or withholding a public confession. You see, then, that
the practice of public confession in the Church, so far from ex-
cluding private confession, supposes it ; and that it was only to
be made through the advice of a spiritual director, consulted for
that purpose. And Origen expressly says, too, that only the
priests have power to forgive, and that to them must our sins be
manifested. Once more : " They who are not holy, die in their
sins ; the holy do penance : they feel their wounds ; are sensible
of their failings ; look for the priest ; implore health ; and
through him seek to be purified."t " If we discover our sitis,
ivjf only to God, hut to those who may apply a remedy to our
wounds and iniquities, our sins will be effaced by Him who said :
I have blotted 07tf thj iniquities, as a cloud, and thy sins, as a
mist." Isa. xliv. 22. J
A little later, we have some very strong passages, — several in
the writings of St. Basil, who was cxceedinglj' zealous in keeping
up tlie penitential canons, and whose system of public pen.ince
prevailed through a great part of the Etist: — " In the confession
of sins," he wTites, "the same method, must be observed, as in
laying open the infirmities of the body. For, as these are not
lashly communicated to every one, but to those only who ui^der-
stand by what method they may be cured, so the confession of
sins must be made to such persons as have the power to apply a
remedy. "I lie tells us who those persons are: — "Necessarily,
* Uomil. ii. in P-Hal. xxx\ii. T. ii. p. G&S. t Iluniil. x. in Xunib. T. ii. ]>. 302.
; Horn. XTii. in Lucau. i In lU'giil l!rt-r. liiui'st. t<-x»ix. T. •-'. p. 492.
Vol. J I.— D
LECTURE X.
onr sins must be confessed to those to whom has been committal
the dispensation of the mysteries of God/'* In his canons, he
declares, that persons who had been guilty of secret crim^, and
had confessed them, are not to be obliged to confess them pub-
licly : — " That women, guilty of adultery, and who had confessed
it, should not be made public, agreeable to what the Fathers had
appointed."f Clearly, the same discipline as is observed now,
chat they who receive the confession should be careful not to
betray it. This is, again, auricular confession made to an in-
dividual. St. Gregory, of Nyssa, another eminent Father of the
Greek Church, thus writes : — " You whose soul is sick, why do
you not run to a physician ? TVTiy do you not confess, and dis-
cover your malady to Mm by confession ? Why do you suffer
your disease to increase till it be inflamed and deeply rooted in
you ? Re-enter into your own breasts ; reflect upon your own
ways. You have offended God, you have provoked your Creator,
who is the Lord and judge, not only of this life, but of the life
to come. — Inquire into the disease wherewith you are seized ;
be sorry ; afflict yourselves, and communicate your affliction to
your brethren, that they may be afflicted vrith you ; that so you
may obtain the pardon of your sins. Show me bitter tears, that
I may mingle mine with yours. Impart your trouble to the priest,
ae to your Father ; he will be touched with a sense of your
misery. Show to him what is concealed vrithout blushing ; open
the secrets of your soul, as if you were showing to a physician a
hidden disorder ; he will take care of your honor and of your
cure."J Again : — " "Whoever secretly steals another man's
goods, if he afterwards discover, by confession, his sin to the
priest, his heart being changed, he shall cure the wound : but
then he must give to the poor, and thereby clearly show that he
is free from the sin of avarice."? I pass over a great many
others, and quote one passage from St. Ambrose, the great light
'■f the Church at Milan : — " There are some who ask for penance,
that they may at once be restored to communion. These do not
80 much desire to be loosed, as to bind the priest ; for they do
not unburden their own conscience, but they burden his, who is
commanded not to give holy things to dogs ; that is, not easily
to admit impure souls to the holy communion." || So that the
persons who pretended to expect forgiveness, except by a com-
•In Regul. Brev. quasst. cclxxxTlii. p. 516.
t Ep. cxcix. ad Amphiloch. Can. 34. T. iii. p. 295.
JSerm. de Pcenit. p. 175, 176, in append, ad Op. St. BasUil, Paris, 1618.
|Ep. Canon, ad Letoium, Can. vi. T. i. p. 954. fib. c. Ix. p. 484.
LECTURE X. 27
pJete an'.l clear manifestation of their consciences, only doceiverl
themselves and their director. To this authority we may add
that of St. Pacianus : — " I address myself to you," he says,
" who, having committed crimes, refuse to do penance ; you, wh j
are so timid, after you have been so impudent ; you, who are
ftsliamed to confess, aft«r you have sinned without shame. — The
apostle says to the priest : Impose not hands lightly on any one;
neither he jyartakers of other men's sins. (1 Tim. v. 22.) What
then wilt thou do, who deceivest the minister ? Who either
leavest him in ignorance, or confoundest his jndyment hy haJJ
communications? I entreat you, brethren, by that Lord whom
no concealments can deceive, to cease from disguising a wounded
conscience. A diseased man, if possessed of sense, hides not
his wounds, however secret they may be, though the knife or fire
should be applied. — And shall a sinner be afraid to purchase,
by present shame, eternal life? Shall he dread to discover his
sins to God, which are ill-hidden from him, and at the time that
he holds out assistance to him?"* The confession, therefore, was
complete — it extended to all sins, and obliged the sinner to mani-
fest the whole state of his conscience to the minister of God.
These examples might be sufficient. I will, however, read one
or two more from the same century. St. Jerome, after alluding
:o the institution of God regarding leprosy, thus writes : — " In
like manner with us, the Bishop or Priest binds or looses ; not
them who are merely innocent or guilty; but having heard, as
his duty requires, the various qualities of sins, he understands
who should be bound and wlio loosed."! Here is precisely the
same reasoning which I drew from w\y text, that tlie priest must
not be content merely to give absolution on a vague impression
of the guilt or innocence of the party, but that, only on judging
of the different sins, can he know how to direct his sentence,
I will just step, for one moment, over the limits I prescribed
myself, and give you one decisive passage fi'om Pope Leo. Thus
ho writes to the Bishops of Campania: — "Haring lately under-
stt^od, that some of you, by an unlawful usurpntion, have adopted
t practice wliich Tradition does not allow, I am determined, by
ill means, to suppress it. I speak of penance, when applied for
hy the faithful. There shall he no declaration of all kinds of
sins, given in writing, and publicly read: for it is enough, that
the guilt of conscience be made known to the Priest alone, by a
*Paraen. ad Pienit. i)iiil. p. 3T6
t Comroent. in. C. iTi.;Mat. T. It. pars II. p. 75.
2J^ LECTUBE X.
|u'ivate confessiim. T'lat oonfidenco, iiulecd, may be thoiip«
deserving of praise, wliich, oa aecouut of the fear of Ood, hesi-
tates not to l)liisli befiire men; but there are sins, the public dis-
closure of whicli must excite fear; therefore, let this impropei
practice be put an cud to, lest many be kept from the remedies
of penance, being aj^hamed, or dreading trJ make known tu their
enemies such actions as may expose them to legal punishment.
That confession suffices, which is first made to God, and then tu
the priest, who will offer up prayers for the sins of penitents.
And then will more be induced to apply to this remedy, when
the secrets of the confessing sinner shall not be divulged in the
hearing of the people."-
I should think that these passages, although I had prepared
twice as many, must satisfy any unprejudiced person, that the
doctrine of confession is not modern, and was not, as is com-
monly stated, introduced by the Council of Lateran. If anyone
will peruse the canon of that Council, he will find that, so far
from establishing, it supposes tlie practice to exist over tlie entire
Church; for it simply says, that "all the faithful, men and
women, shall confess their sins, at least once a 3'e;ir, to a priest
approved by the Church." It sanctions a discipline already ol>
served in the Church, that all should confess their sins, at least
once a year to their pastors. It takes for granted, that all kncAv
this dut}- ; and surely it could hardly be conceived possible to
introduce a new institution of this nature into this or any other
country, by any act of convocation or of any other legislative
l)ody, enacting simply, that all the members of the Established
Church shall confess their sins once a j'ear to the clergy. I ask,
whether such a canon as this enacts? or whether such a doctrine
could be first introduced by it? An}- person. who should, three
or four hundred years hence, say that such a practice had been
80 introduced into this country, would 1)6 considered very foolish
and credulous. We must, thcrefiu'e, conclude that it did exist,
long before this canon, and that the canon only i-egulated the
times of its observance. If you look to the natui-e of this insti-
tution, which the early Reformers used to call the " butchery of
the soul," as being something too severe, too torturing, and cruel,
to be practised, I would ask, could any one bring himself to be-
lieve, that an institution, which could merit such a name and
character, could have Ijeen inti'oduced so silently and so easily
into any Church? Could it b;ive bciu so introduced as to extend
* Ep. cxiiv) al. IxK .". Kpiso. Compnni«e, p. 719.
LECTURE X. 29
Immediatoly to all ranks, beginning with the sovereign Pontiff
himself? Could it have be^n [lossible to induce all orders and
conditions of men, the most learned as ■well as the rude, the
noble as well as the plebeian, ecclesiastics as much as laymen, to
go before their felloAv-men, and cast themselves at their feet, and
lay open all their hidden transgressions? I ask, if any thing
but a conviction from the beginning, that it was an institution
necessary for obtaining of forgiveness, could have secured the
complete and constant exercise of this practice throughout the
Oliurch? The more difficult it is represented, the m /re it is
said to do violence to natural feelings, to tyrannize over the
human mind, the more difficult is it to suppose that it could have
been brought into the Church, in this simple way, in later times.
Or even, could it have been possible to find any other period at
which it could have been so introduced?
But, my brethren, it is also very common to speak of this in-
stitution as one which tends to disturb the peace of families ; —
;is one which causes great demoralization; and which leads, by
the facility of obtaining pardon, to the commission of sins, from
a conviction that the remedy is so easy. I have already said
sufficient regarding this latter observati(jn — I have already
shown, that we require, not only whatever is required by others
for the forgiveness of sin, but also a more perfect disposition,
and, besides confession, the performance of that satisfaction, oi
those works of penance, which will form the subject of anothei
discourse. Now, it is rather inconsistent to charge our sacra-
ment with two contradictory defects ; one of which makes it a
burden too heav}" to bear, and the other an incentive to sin, by
rendering forgiveness so easy. These are two irreconcilable
qualities, one only can belong to it ; only one, at least, should bo
imputed to it. But is this heavy charge of immorality grounded?
You will find quite the contrary expressed in tlieir writings who
caused this institution to be rejected in many parts of Europe.
Thus Luther expressly says, that, although, according to him,
the practice of confession, as used in the Catholic Church, can-
not be clearly proved from Scripture, yet he considers it a most
excellent institution ; and so far from wishing to see it abolished,
he rejoices at its existence, and exhorts all to use it. So that,
even as a human institution, he thinks it is to be approved. In
the articles of Smalkeld, we find that the practice of confession
in to be continued ; especially for the guidame and preservation
of youth, that they mj'.y be thus directed in tlie paths of vir
30 LECTURE X.
tue.* Doubtless, too, the practice of cuufessiun is? enjuiaed in the
Established Church, in the same terms as by us ; for wo find that
among the instructions laid down in the order for the visitation
cf the sick, it is thus prescribed : '' Here shall the sick person bo
jio i^ed to make a special confession of h.is sins, if he feel his con-
science troubled with any weighty matter. After which confes-
eion, the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily
desire it) after this sort." Then follows, word for word, the
absolution pronounced by the Catholic priest in confession. I
do not quote this, to reproacli the Church of England Avith incon-
sistency, nor to show how its practice and its commands are at
variance, nor to charge those with injustice who impute to us as
a gross perversion and corruption of the doctrines of Christianity,
that which even their own Church enjoins and accuses us of
usurping a power which is assumed and meant to be exercised,
in the same words, by the ministers of their own persuasion. It
is not for such purposes that I mention this rite; but only to
Y'rove that those who caused its abolition were convinced of its
utility ; and that, so far from considering it an instrument of
evil, they believed it the best method of relieving the conscience,
and, at the same time, of guiding men in virtue. They believed,
or aflfected to believe, that God had left a power to his ministers
to absolve from sin, and that a special confession of sins was
therefore necessary: so that the difference between us is, that
we practise what the others have pronounced expedient; that the
Catholic Church exacts that duty which they keep confined to
their books.
But I appeal to you, who know that the number of Catholics
is not small; and that, even in these islands, those who profess
the Catholic religion are more numerous than the followers of
any other particular creed. I appeal to you, if our practice were
mischievous and led to evil, would not some circumstances con-
nected with that mischievous operation have, ere this, come be-
fore the public ? Has any one ever complained of it? Has any
Catholic — and assuredly everyone can consult some consoientioua
and upright member of our Church — has any Catholic ever
found that it gave him a facility for the commission of sin? that
it was easier to hiui than the practice of other religions in this
regard? or that any advantage has been taken of it, which is not
Htrietl}' within the objects of the institution? Or lias any Ca-
tholic father of a family, having himself, by experience, know-
• See MOhler, ubi nf.
LECTURE X. 31
ledge of the tendencies and uses of confession, been ever kno"mi
to restrain the most delicate or timid portion of his family from
its practice, or discouraged it in his servants or his children?
This is surely an obvious test, when we consider the thousands
that, even in this metropolis, practise it within the year; that not
one case of abuse has ever been quoted, not one instance has
1 i^cn brought forward, of a Catholic's being led to abandon the
practice of confession, by finding it conducive to any thing but
good. On the contrary, if you inquire, you will find, that the
Catholic considers it the greatest corrective and preservative from
evil; that in his confessor he finds the most faithful, and sincere,
and useful ad™er, who, with the assistance of divine grace,
best preserves him in that path of virtue to which he has been
trained. On the other hand, one of the first symptoms of a
Catholic's declining from virtue and piety is his neglecting this
salutary practice : and those who have given themselves up to
vice, take care to avoid it. I have said that I reserve the subject
of Sati?faction for the next evening; not only because I have
already detained you so long, but because it is connected with
the doctrine of Purgatory, and praying for the dead, which will
form, in conjunction with it, the subject of my lecture on Wed-
nesday 'ivening. In conclusion, I have only to exhort those who
have the happiness to believe in the efficacy of the holy sacra-
ment which I have just endeavored to explain — and those who
are conscious that in it they find relief from their burthens, and
forgiveness of their sins, to reflect that the time is now approach-
ing which the Church has especially appointed for their partak-
ing of its benefits. It is particularly at Easter that this holy
Mother exhorts you to make use of this means of salvation.
Employ, therefore, diligently the short interval that still remains
before that holy season, as a time of more especial recollection
and more peculiar fervor ; retiring within yourselves, and prepar-
ing gradually for the solemn work which you have to do, not
merely by looking into your transgressions, but also by studying
the causes of jour fall"-, by stirring up in your hearts a true and
lively sorrow ; and thus study to make your coming confession
more efi"ectual and more serviceable to your spiritual improvo-
ment than any which have preceded it.
LECTURE THE ELEVENTH.
ON SATISFACTION AND PURGATORY.
JOHN XX. 23.
* Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven tJtein, a:i«
xohose sins ye shall retain, they arc retained."
I OBSERVED, my bretliren, iu my opening discourse, that no-
thing was less easy than to render our doctrines acceptable to
those who ditfer from our creed ; because difficulties of the most
contradictory character arc ever found on some point of each
doctrine. I may safely say that this remark is particularly true
with regard to that dogma ^yhich I considered in our interview of
Friday last, and which I shall continue to treat of this evening.
On the one hand, as I then observed, we are told that the practice
enjoined by the Catholic Church, as necessary to obtain remission
of sin, is so cruel, so much beyond the power of human endur-
ance, that it cannot be considered a means appointed by the
Almighty, as indispensable for the sinner's forgiveness. I re-
marked that it has been called the rack, the torture, the butchery
of the soul;* and it has been thought a sufficient reason for ex-
cluding it from the institutions of Christianity, that it Avas appa-
rently so opposite and contradictory to its mildness.
But then, on the other hand, we are told that the Catholic
theory of the forgiveness of sins leads to the commission of
crime, by the encouragement held out, in the facilities which it
presents of obtaining pardon. We are told that the Catholic,
who has offended God, believes that he has only to cast himself
at the feet of Christ's minister, and accuse himself of his offences,
and that in one moment, on the raising of the priest's hand, he
is perfectly restored to grace; and retui-ns, prepared and en-
couraged to recommence his career of crime. How can these
two objections be reconciled? How is confession so difficult a
practice, and how, at the same time, does it hold out an encour-
agement to that evil of which it is received as a remedy? And
if this answer hold with regard to that portion of the Sacrament
» "Carnificina animae."
32
-LECTTTRE XT.
of Penance whereof I have already treated, you will see tha'
the contradi.^tion becomes still stronger, when you take into con
8i<ieration the third part, with its accessories, which will forii
the subject of this evening's entertainment; that is, the doctrine
of satisfaction.
But even here we are once more assailed by the same contra-
dictory forms of I'easoning. We are told, and that by learned
diWnes of the present day, that this very principle, that man can
make satisfaction to God, is enough to reconcile Catholics, through
a corrupt sentiment of pride, to our doctrine of penance; that
we call in the aid of that pride which is always too near to every
man, by the idea that he can expiate his sins, or in any way
make satisfaction to the divine justice; which feeling insinuates
itself into his heart, and becomes more congenial to his spirit,
than that process or means which other religions suppose neces-
sary for justification. Assuredly they must know but little of
the human heart, who reason thus. For, take a system which
not merely exacts from the sinner all the sorroAV and regret for
Bin which others ever demand ; nay, which is not satisfied with
merely the same determination never again to oifend, and to re-
form his life, but, in addition to iliis, imposes a course of painful
humiliation, consisting, first, of a declaration of hidden sins to
another fellow-creature, and then of the persuasion that he must
punish himself, and crucify his flesh, tliat he must fast, and weep,
jind pray, and give alms accoi-diug to his ability ; and will you
for a moment imagine that all these difficulties become quite pa-
latable, only because joined to thp idea that an infinitely small
portion of them has some sort of connection with a power, on
the sinner's part, to please and satisfy God? For you will see,
that the whole merit, so called, of Catholic satisfaction reduces
itself to nothing more than this. Yes, I say, that they must
have taken a very superficial measure of the understanding, and
of tlie passions and feelings of men, who fancy that any other
system opposes a severer barrier to sin, and can act powerfully
on the ofi"ender, which does not demand from him the slightest
outward act that can be disagreeable, and which places the en-
tire difficulty in the consideration, that, by another excLusively,
and by the application of His merits, the sinner is to be justified.
Balance the two together, — ^^veigli the systems, one against the
other, — examine the internal structure of one, as I analyzed it
for you at our last meeting; view it in its outward circumstances,
calculate tlie painful sacrifices which it demands, — and, compar-
ing it with the uthe'-, tell me which system, supposing each to b«
Vol. n.— E
84 LECTURE XI.
equally eflScacious. the sinner would prefer, as most easy for
obtaining pardon of sins?
But Avhat a pit}- that this Protestant doctrine did not appear
much earlier in the Church — what a pity that some among her
Ecalous pastors in ancient times, holding a similar principle, did
not then come forward, and, standing in the vestibules and out-
ward courts of churches in great cities, cry out to the penitents
clothed in sackcloth and ashes, some of whom had been for
twenty and thirty years doing penance there, "Ye miserable, de-
luded men, what are you doing? You, that from a fond idea,
that by these painful acts you are satisfying divine justice, are,
in sooth, setting at nought the merits of the Son of God? You
are undergoing all this suffering to no purpose : you are not ac-
quiring the slightest favor or grace from God ; on the contrary,
you are only outraging his mercy and power, and denying the
efficacy of his Christ's saving blood! Why not raise up your
souls to God, and, laying hold of the merits of your Redeemer,
without all these penitential works, in one moment be justified?
and the time which you are now losing might be devoted to
other and more useful pursuits." Such, no doubt, had been the
preaching of a Protestant, had he existed in days of old. Think
you that those holy penitents would have- listened to it ? — think
you that, with the example of David and the saints before them,
who feared not to expiate their sins, in humiliation and affliction
before God and his people, they would, on the preaching of these
doctrines, have opened their ej-es, and discovered the principle
on which they acted to be errcgieous? Or can you believe, that,
60 soon after the establishment of Christianit}-, its vital principle
was already lost?
But, my brethren, let us examine a little more closely the two
principles of justification. It is said that the Catholic destroys
the efficacy of Christ's merits, because he believes that it is in
his power to satisfy the divine justice, in some respect, for sin :
in other words, that the intervention of anj' human act in the
work of justifi(;ation, or this inti'oduction of human merits, ia
radically opposed to simple justification, through the merits of
Christ. I would ask, is there not as much done by man, in any
other system, as there is here? How is it that, in the other sys-
tem, he lays hold of the merits of his Saviour, and, by their ap-
plication to himself, obtains justification ? Is not man a sinner,
and is not this a much more difficult act for one immersed in
sin? Does it not imply greater power and energy in the crimi-
nal, than our doctrine that God alunc can indeed forgive bido,
LECTURE XI. 86
bnt that He demands humiliation and painful sacrifices, to ftp-
pease, in some degree, His offended majesty? Surely this is not
giving very miioh to m:m. strongthoned by grace; for, as you will
see, the Catholic maintains gi-ace to be the chief instrument in
the work of satisfaction. But how much more do you attribute
to man, when you suppose that, in a moment, while wallowing
in his iniquities, he can ai>pniprlato to himself all the sublime
merits of Christ, and, by an effort of his will, so completely clothe
himself in them, as to stand justified and holy in the sight of
God? The latter attributes to man a valid, complete act of jus-
tification, the other imposes upon him painful conditions, subject
to a sacramental action, with the consoling thought that God
will accept them.
But, proceeding a little nearer stiU with the investigation —
what is the Catholic doctrine regarding satisfaction ? I have
proved to you,' in the first instance, that sin is forgiven by a
sacrament instituted by Christ for that purpose, for which the
T)Ower of pronouncing judicial sentence of remission was com-
municated to the pastors of the Church. Now, through the
whole of this process, which I showed you the Catholic doctrine
requires for the forgiveness of sin, the entire power of forgive-
ness is vested exclusively and entirely in God: inasmuch as the
minister no more acts in his own name, than he does in the
sacrament of baptism, whereby it is believed that sin is forgiven ;
but is simply God's representative in taking cognisance of the
case, and pronouncing thereon, with the assurance that ratification
of his sentence will necessarily and infallibly follow. We be-
lieve that sin is forgiven and can be forgiven by God alone, — we
believe, moreover, that in the interior justification of the sinner,
it is only God that has any part: for it is only through His grace
as the instrument, and through the redemption of Christ as the
origin of grace and forgiveness, that justification can be wrought.
And, in fact, no fasting, no prayers, no alms-deeds, no work
that we can conceive to be done by man, however protracted,
however extensive or rigorous they may be, can, according to
the Catholic doctrine, have the most infinitesimal weight for
obtaining the remission of sin, or of the eternal punishment
allotted to it. This constitutes the essence of forgiveness, of
justification, and in it we hold that man of himself has no
power.
Now, let us come to the remaining part of the sacrament. We
believe that upon this forgiveness of sins, that is, after the remis*
eion of that eternal debt, which God in His justice awards to
LECTURE XT.
transgressions against His law, He has lii'.:>n pleased to rpsorr?
a certain degree of inferior or temporary punishment, appropriato
to the guilt -which had been inevirred: and it is on this part of
the punishment alone, that, according to the Catholic doctrino,
satisfaction can be made, to God. AVhat the grounds of this
belief are, I will state just now. At present, I wish to lay down
the doctrine clearly and intelligibly; that it is only with regard
to the reserved degree of temporal punishment that we believe
the Christian can satisfy the justice of God. But is even this
satisfaction any thing of his own ? Certainly not ; it is not of
the slightest avail, except as united to the merits of Christ's pas-
sion, for it receives its entii-e efficacy from that complete and
abundant purchase made by our Blessed Saviour. Such is our
doctrine of satisfaction, and herein consists that self-sufficiency,
that power of self-justification, which has been considered suffi-
cient to account for the Catholic's subjecting himself to tlie
painful work of repentance, imposed upon him by his reli-
gion.
But, after all, the whole of the question necessarily rests on
this consideration. Is it God's ordinance, that when He has for-
given sin, and so justified the sinner as to place him once niorfj
in a state of grace, He still reserves the infliction of .some degn^t;
of punishment for his transgressions? We say, that undoubtedly
it is ; and I would appeal, in the first instance, to the feelings of
any individual; nor do I believe there is any one, howeTer he
may think himself in a state of grace before God — howe^ter he
may flatter himself that his sins are taken away — who Avill not
answer the appeal. Why is it that, when calamity falls upon
him, he receives it as a punishment for his sins ? Why di) our
natural feelings prompt us to consider our domestic and per.soiial
afflictions as sent In' God on account of our transgressions, al-
though, at the moment when they come, we may not be conscious
of lying under actual guilt? This is a feeling v hich pervades
every foi-m of religion, and more naturally that 3f Christ; be-
cause it is impossible to be familiar with the word of God, with-
out receiving an impression, that He does visit the sins of men
on their heads, although they may have endeavored, with rea-
sonable hope of success, to obtaiu their forgiveness. Xo doubt,
when we consider the trials of the just, we know they are sent
for their purification, to make them more single-hearted, and to
detach them from the world ; we know tliat thereby God wishes
to purge them from those lesser offences, which might otherwise
easily escppe their attention; but it is impossible not, more or
LECTURE XT. 37
less, to connect the idea of sufferinj; inHictcd with that of sin
committed.
This principle is to be found through the whole of the Chris
tian religion : because the very first principles of moral conduct,
whether in the Old or in the New Law, seem connected with the
nricssity of purifications, and of works painful or disagreeable,
or with sufferings sent by Divine Providence, as inflictions justly
deserved. Thus, we remark constantly in the Old Law, not only
risible demonstrations of repentance and sorrow, after sin has
been forgiven, but clear indications of an approval of such con-
duct by God himself. When, for instance. He forgives the sin
of David by the prophet Nathan, the man of God does not say,
" The Lord hath pardoned you ; arise, you have no further cause
of sorrow: you are fully justified before God." But, he tells
him that he still must atone for his crime ; and that, therefore,
his child, the fruit of his iniquity, shall be taken from him.* In
like manner did G^d punish his later sin, of numbering the peo-
ple of Israel, with a severity which extended over the whole na-
tion.! Indeed, in every case recorded in the Old Testament,
God, after forgiving the sins of His servants, fails not to rei?erve
some temporal and expiatory chastisement to be inflicted on
them, though they were His chosen and faithful friends. AVc
see Moses and Aaron, having slightly transgressed His com-
mands, still more sevei-ply punished by Him after He had given
assurance that their trifling sin was forgiven. For, although He
continuod His favor and countenance to them. He deprived them
of the sight of that promised land, after which they so earnestly
did sigh. J We see Job, after he had transgressed in words, or
rather exceeded in speech, therefore humbling himself, and de-
claring that he did penance in dust and ashes. § When the men
of Ninive had their destruction proclaimed to them by the pro-
.phet, the most obvious and natural expiation of their sins ap-
peared to them the observance of a general fast: and all, from
the king on his throne to the very animals in their stalls, were
Commanded to fast for three days, saying, "Who can tell if God
will turn and forgive, and will turn away from His fierce anger,
and we shall not perish." !|
But, my brethren, some will perhaps say, "All this happened
under the older dispensation, before the law of grace and com-
plete freedom li id been introduced." But, in the first place.
* 2 Kings xii. U. t Il>- "i^- U-
J Num. XX. 12, 24. Deut. xxxiv. 4. ^ Job xlii. 6.
[ Jonas Sii. 0.
88 ■ LECTURE XI.
alljvr me to observe, that this order, observed by God's servants,
belongs essentially to the natural manifestation of His attributes.
It is nowhere instituted in the Old Law, it begins in the very
first instance in Paradise, when our first parents' sin was for-
given, and yet the most bitter consequences were entailed on
them and their posterity on this account. We never observe this
practice inculcated in the form of a covenant in the Old Law,
that they who so repent and aflSict themselves shall be pardoned;
but we see it followed by all, whether in the patriarchal times,
or under the law, from a natural feeling that God required it for
the forgiveness of sin. This being the case, we have every rea-
son to conclude, that, like other iustitutions, which rest upon a
similar basis, this is continued in the law of grace. For, even
had not God said, in the New Testament, that the sinner must
repent and abandon sin, to obtain forgiveness, we never should
have supposed, that because all this was prescribed in the old
law, it was not to be continued in the new ; for the very reason
which I have stated, that it does not belong to legal institutions,
but essentially springs from the knowledge of God's attributes,
and from an instinctive conviction on the part of man. In like
manner, therefore, if we find God, from the beginning, forgi-sang
sin with the reservation of some smaller punishment, and, at the
same time. His chosen servants, instructed by Him, acting under
the conviction, that, by penitential acts, that punishment could
be averted or mitigated, we have equal reason to maintain, so
long as there is nothing positively defined to the contrary, that the
punishment, and its expiation, are continued in the New Law.
But, in the second place, is it not really and positively con-
tinned there? Consider the economy of the two Testaments,
and compare them together. Will you discover in the New such
words, as that the outward practice of penance, for the satisfac-
tion of sin, is thenceforth abolished?
The objection to human satisfaction arises from its being con-
sidered essentially derogatory to Christ's infinite merits. For
St. Paul tells us, that we are justified freely by God'i grace,
through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.* And to such
free redemption all work of man is pronounced vitally opposed.
But permit me to ask, were not they who lived under the law,
justified as freely through the same redemption? Was not
Christ's passion and purchase the source of all grace, and the
only root of righteousness, to them us much as it is to us? If.
*Rom. iiL 2L
LECTURE XI. 39
then, no injury was done to their infinite worth, by the repent-
ance of the sinner being followed by expiatory deeds of penance,
considered available towards averting God's anger, even upon
ein committed; how can a similar practice now be pronounced
essentially at variance with the very same merits? It is mani-
fest that this parallel excludes the idea of any essential inherent
opposition between Christ's mei'its and man's co-operation, be-
tween the freedom and completeness of the purchase, and its
application by human acts. We require, therefore, positive tes-
timony to demonstrate such an opposition ; and it must be such,
as not merely excludes the dead works of the law, abolished by
the new, but as positively declares all work of man destructive
of our Saviour's redemption.
It is often said^ that the works of penance performed by the
Saints of old, as well as the punishments directly inflicted on
them by God's hand, after their transgressions had been par-
doned, were intended only as corrections, to prevent future falls,
and not as expiatory of past transgressions. But surely, my
l.irethren, we find no traces of such a distinction in Scripture.
When Nathan addresses David, he says not to him — "That thou
mayest not in future cause my name to be blasphemed among
the nations, the child that is born to thee shall surely die ;" but,
" Because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord
to blaspheme, for this thing the child that is born to thee shall
surely die." Nor does the roj'al prophet himself hint, that when
he eat ashes like bread, and mingled his drink with weeping,
and watered his couch with tears, and had his sin ever before
him, and held himself ready for scourges, all this was a.s a pre-
ventive against future failings, and not rather an expiation for
his double sin. In fact, examine every instaaice of penitential
conduct, and you will find that sin committed, and not sin pos-
sible and future, is its manifest cause and motive.
But, in the third place, so far from our discovering a single
passage in the New Testament, which can prove the abolition
of penitential works, we shall see, that whatever w^as believed on
this head in the former dispensation, is confii'med in the later.
Docs our Saviour ever tell us, that fiisting, one of the most usual
methods for afilicting the soul for sin committed, shall cease under
His law ? Does he not, on tlie contrary, assure us, that the mo-
ment He, the bridegroom, should be taken away, Uis children
should fast?^ Does He reprove those who had believed that
• Matt ix. 16
40 tECTtlRB XI.
ponanco in sackcloth and ashes was efficacious for the forglveawt
of sin; and not rather propose them as an example, and say that
the men of Ninive shall arise in judgment against that gonei'a-
tion, Ijecause, at the preaching of Jonas, they did penance iD
that way?* And does He, on any single occasion, limit the
efficacy of these practices, and tell Ilis disciples, that, if hitherto
they have been considered of value towards the remission of sin,
they have, from that moment, lost that worth, and were to be
emploj^ed in future upon different principles, and for different
motives? And if not, when he merely corrects the Pharisaic
abuses in the performance of them, and gives instructions for
their better observance in privacy and humility, and yet touches
not once upon their intrinsic value, but leaves all as He fuund
it,t jnust not they have concluded, and must, not we conclude,
tliat lie tacitly approved of the doctrine then held regarding
them ?
But what shall we say of the language of St, Paul, when ho
declares, writing to the Colossians, " I now rejoice in my suffer-
ings for you, and fill up those things Avhich are wanting of the
sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for Ilis body, which is the
Church." J What is wanting of Christ's sufferings! And this
to be supplied by man, and in his flesli ! What sort of doctrine
call we this? Is it in favor of the comjdeteness (jf Christ's suf-
ferings, as to their application? Or rather does it not suppose
that much is to }»e done by man, towards possessing himself of
tlie treasures laid up in our Saviour's redemption ? And that
suffering is the means whereby this application is made?
The doctrine which is thus collected from the word of God is
reducible to these heads: — 1. That God, after the remission of
sin, retains a lesser chastisement in His power, to ])0 inflicted
on the sinner. 2. That penitential works, fasting, alms-deeds,
contrite weeping, and fervent prayer, have the power of averting
that punishment. 3. That this scheme of God's justice was not
a part of the imperfect law, but the unvarying ordinance of
his dispensation, anterior to the Mosaic ritual, and amply eon-
tirmed by Christ in the gospel. 4. That it consequently becomes
a part of all true repentance to try to satisfy ti^is divine justice,
by the voluntai-y assumption of such penitential works as His
revealed truth assures us have efficacy before Him.
These propositi<jns contain the Catliolic doctrine concerning
satisfaction. And I think I may safely ask you, whether, inde-
* Mat. xii. 41. f lb. ri. 16 T Coloss. i. 34.
LECTURE XI. 41
pendeut./ of tiicir oLa- manifestation in Scripture, they are nut
in tJiemselves reasonable, and consonant to justice, such as vrc
oan best conceive it. An oiFence may seem to require a heavy
reparation ; but, if friends interpose, a rccoiiciliation is procured,
on the condition tliat the utfender make a respectful apcdogy
The law would inflict the severest punishment, mercy steps in
and pardons, but some slight and passing chastisement is im-
posed, as a satisfaction to public justice. Even su, when Gi>d
remits a weight of eternal punislnnent, it seems but fair that
the outrage done to His divine Majesty shouhl lie repaired by
outward acts, expressive of sorrow, and directed to apiiease His
wrath and avert those scourges which he still reserves in His
hand.
Hence, in the sacrament of penance, that third part, wliicli
we call satisfaction; and in confession, the injunctioji of some
penitential work as a portion of this satisfactiuii, and an ear-
nest on the part of the sinner, of his willingness to make full
reparation to God. Besides this species of satisfaction, I must
not omit another very important one, and of tlic greatest prac-
tical benefit in the sacrament of penance. The satisfaction
which I have described may be called prospecli\r, inasmucli as
it seeks to avert that temporal punishment which God has re-
served for the sinner. But there is another and still more
essential retrospective satisfaction, without Avhich we cannot
receive the forgiveness of our sins in this sacrament, and
without which the absolution of the priest has not the slightest
power; and that is, reparation to men for anj- injury inflietcd
on them hy our transgression of the law, human or divine.
The theft is not remitted until what has been stolen is restored,
or, where this is not possible, an equivalent reparation pro-
mised, so far as possible, or even so secured, as to make us
sure of its being made. Reparation must be made to any
whose character may have been injured, by unjust defamation,
or by any exposure of secret fixults; or by any expression lead-
ing to dishonor or discredit to them, where they had before lived
with honc<r and been considered honest and respectal^le. Sa-
tisfaction must be made to the wounded feelings of those who
have been injured; — wherever offences have been committed
against cliarity, all nnist lie done once more to build up the
lu'cach and restoi-e. Iiarmony and good leeling between the con-
victing parties.
Now, my ln"'thron, if what I Iuivh stated be the doctrine of
Ihe gospel, we must naturally t'xpiiit to find 80me institution in
Vet. u.— f
42 LECTURE XI.
the Church, from its earliest times, for the faithful piactice of so
essential a part of God's dispensations. And accordingly from
the beginning, we find nothing so prominently inculcated, either
in the wi-itings of the early fathers, or in the discipline of the
universal Church, as this necessity of doing penance and making
satisfaction to God. It is the basis of the system, known by the
name of the penitential canons, in which those who had trans-
gressed were condemned to different punishments, according to
the measure of their offences, — some being obliged to lay pros-
trate for a certain term of months or years before the doors of
the Church, after which they were admitted to different portions
of the divine service ; while others were often excluded through
their Avhole lives from the liturgical exercises of the faithful, and
were not admitted to absolution until they were at the point of
death. This system surely must have had its root in the strong
conviction of the early Church, that such practices were merito-
rious in the sight of God ; that they brought down his mercy on
the sinner and propitiated his wrath. And what is all this but
the belief of the doctrine of satisfaction ? The belief in the
power of man to make some reparation or atonement to God, by
his own voluntary sufferings ? The existence of this system is
so certain and beyond dispute, that no one has affected to call it
in question. There may be differences of opinion regarding its
exact application, or the principle under which it may have been
sometimes modified ; but all must agree that there was an inti-
mate persuasion or conviction in the Church, that such practices
were pleasing and mei-itorious in the sight of God. And accord-
ingly, we find that some modern writers, who have treated of
the practice of the Catholic Church upon this point, as learnt
from the fathers, fairly gave it up, and assert, that, as a doctrine
of Satisfaction is not to be found in the Scripture, and yet ex-
isted in the Church in the first, second, and third centuries, we
may thence deduce how completely Christianity had been al-
ready corrupted. By this concession, however, the testimony
of the early Cliurcli is freelj' given up to us; and I will, vhere-
fore, content myself with reading one or two, out of innumerable
passages, to show how its feelings accorded with ours on this Lead.
St. Cyprian writes thus in one of his later works, to those who
had fallen from the faith: "Do entire penance; evince the con-
trition of a sorrowing and grieving mind. That penance, which
may satisfy, remains alone to be done; but they shut the door to
satisfaction, who deny the necessity of penance." He is alluding
to the disciolLne which allowed to the faithful that had denied
LBCTURB XI. 43
the faith in the time of persecution, to be received again to par-
don and the communion of the Church, without going through
a full course of penance; and from his words it is plain, that he
considers the doctrine of satisfaction so certain, as to condemn
those who reject public penance. He continues: "Whoso shall
thus have made satisfaction to God, and,' by penance for his sin,
have acquired more courage and confidence from the very cir-
cumstance of his fall, he, whom the Lord has heard and aided,
shall give joy to the Church; he shall deserve, not pardon only,
but a crown."* Whoever, then, does this penance, can merit,
not only pai-don, but a crown of eternal reward.
In the following and in succeeding centuries, we have innu-
merable passages from the fathers who wrote regarding the peni-
tential canons; we have them laying it down as the principle of
those laws, that satisfaction was necessary to expiate offences
committed. I will read you one or two from St. Augustine, and
we cannot have a more illustrious witness to the doctrines of the
Church : "It is not enough that the sinner change his ways, and
depart from his evil works, unless, by penitential sorrow, by
humble tears, by the sacrifice of a contrite heart, and by alms-
deeds, he make satisfaction to God for what he has committed."t
In the following words we have our doctrine clearly expressed,
that God, after He has pardoned sin, still punishes it in His jus-
tice. "'Wash me from my sin,' said David, (Psal. 1.) — Implore
mercy, but lose not sight of justice. In his mercy God pardons
6in: he punishes it in his justice. But what? dost thou seek for
mercy, and shall sin remain unpunished ? Let David, let other
sinners answer ; let them answer with David, that with him they
may find mercy, and say : ' Lord, my -sin shall not remain un-
punished; I know His justice, whose mercy I seek. It shall not
remain unpunished : but tliat Thou mayest not punish it, I my-
self will.' "X Is not that precisely, word for word, the Catholic
doctrine at this time? — that sin is forgiven, but punishment still
inflicted ; that God will chastise in His justice, but that the sin-
ner may, by punishing himself, by performing certain works
propitiatory befoi'e God, avert His anger, and obtain a remission
of even this lesser chastisement ?
I will content myself with these two or three passages, and
conclude this portion of my subject, by reading to you the de-
eree of the Council of Trent regarding Satisfaction, to ajjiow you
• De Lapils, pp. 192, 193. f HomU. I T. x. p. aO&
t linftrrftt in Psal. 1. T. rlii. p. 197.
44 LECTURE XI.
how far the council was from excluding the merits of Christ, or
inspiring the sinner with any self-sufficiency on this head. "But
the satisfaction which we make for sin is not so ours, as if it
wci-e not through Jesus Christ ; for we, who can do nothing of
ourvselves, as of ourselves, (2 Cor. iii. 5,) can do all things in Ilim
that strengthens us. Man then has nothing wherein to glory -.
)mt all our glory is in Christ; in whom we lire — in whom w«
merit — in whom we make satisfaction, bringing forth fruits
worthy of penance. (Luke iii. 8.) These fruits have efficacy from
Hun ; by Him they are offered to the Father ; and throuj^h Him
thoy are accepted by the Father. It is, therefore, the duty of
the ministers of the Church, as far as prudence shall suggest,
Aveighing the character of sins and the dispositions of the sinner,
to enjoin salutary and proper penitential satisfactions; lest, by
conniving at sins, and, hj a criminsil indulgence, imposing the.
performance of the slightest penances for great crimes, the}' be
made partakers of other's sins. Lot them ever consider, that
what they enjoin must tend, not only to the maintenance of bet-
ter conduct, and the cure of past infirmity, )jut also to the punish-
ment of the sins that have been confessed.""^'
From this subject of satisfaction, I naturally proceed to the
consideration of another topic, intimately connected with it, the
Catholic doctrine of Purgatorj-. I have often had occasion to
remark how every portion of the Catholic doctrine is in accord-
anec with the rest, and what comjilete harmony reigns between
one dogma and another: and this position seems here well illus-
trated. On the other hand, no doctrine has been s<j often held
up to public dislike — altlnnigh it is difficult to say why — than
the doctrine of Purgatory, Avliich follows, as a consequence or
i.-orollary, from that of which I have just treated ; so much so,
tliat the Catholic doctrine of satisfaction would be incomplete
witliout it. The idea that God requires satisfaction, and will
punish sin, would not go to its furthest and necessary con-
sequence, if we did not believe tliat the sinner may be S3 punished
in another world, as not to be wholly and eternally cast away
from God.
I have said that I know not wliy this doctrine is so often held
U]) to public odium, ftn- it is difficult to see what there is in it to
make it so apt and popular n liamlle for abuse against the Ca-
tholic rtjigion. I am at a loss to conceive what can le considered
in it repugniint to tin* justice of God, or to tlie oriliuary way;*
♦ Sess. xiv. c. TuL
LECTURE XI. 45
of Provideuoo : what can In' fnund thon-in oppDsod lo tlsi' mural
law, in the roruoto^t dojrn'iv Tlio idea that God, besides coi;-
demninj; some to etei-nal uunishineiit, and receivinir others into
eternal jrlory, should have been pleased to appoint a middle and
temporary state, in which those who are not sufficiently guilty for
the severer condemnation, nor sufficiently pure to enjoy the
vision of his fiice, are for a time punished and purged, so as to
be qualified for this blessing, assui'edly contains nothing but
what is most accordant with ail we can conceive of his justice.
Xo one will venture to assert that all sins are equal before God
— that there is no difference between those cold-blooded and de-
liberate acts of crime which the hardened villain perpetrates,
and those smaller and daily transgressions into which we habitu-
ally, aud almost inadvertantly, fall. At the same time, we know
that God cannot bear to look on iniquity, however small : that
He requires whatever comes into His presence to be perfectly
pure and worthy of Him : and we might rationally conclude that
there should be some means, Avhereby they who are in the middle
state of offence, between deep and deadly transgressions on the
one hand, and a state of perfect purity and holiness on the other,
may be dealt with accordiuu; to the just measure of His justice.
What, then, in God's name, is there in this doctrine, viewed
simply in itself, that can make it so popular a theme of decla-
jnntion against the Catholics ? The anti-sciiptijral doctrine, of
Purgator}-, as it is termed, is more frequently than almost an}
■ither of our less important dogmas, the theme of obloquy and
misrepresentation I It seems to be foncied, in some way or other,
that it is an instrument either for benefiting the clergy, or for
enabling them to work on the fears of the people; that the terro-
of Purgatory is somehow a means of strengthening the arm of
the Church over its subjects ; but in what way, it is impossible
for any Catholic, who knows our practice and belief, possildy to
fc;>nceive.
I have more than once commented on the incorrectness (jf that
inethiid of arguing, which demands that we prove every one of
our doctrines individually from the Scriptures. I occui>ied my-
self, during my first course of lectures, in demonstratini;- ihe
Catholic principle of faith, that the Chitrch of Christ was con-
stituted by Him the depositary of His truths, and that, although
nianjMvere recorded in His holy word, still many were vonnnitted
to traditional. keeping, ami that Cljri'^f himself has faithfully
promised to teach in His Church, and *vis thus secured her fruia
error. It is on this authority thf>t th(> Catholic grounds his belief
46 LECTURE XI,
in the doctrine of purgatory; jet, not so but that its princi[.'lf
is laid down, indirectly at least, in the word of God. To examine
fully the proofs of this doctrine, it is necessary to connect it with
another Catholic practice, that of praying for the dead. For this
practice, as Ave shall see, is essentially based on the belief in pui*-
gatory ; and, consequent!}-, the principles of 1 oth are intimately
connected together. Why does the Catholic pray for his departed
friend, but that he fears, lest, not having died in so pure a state
as to have been immediately admitted to the sjght of God, he
may be enduring that punishment which God has awarded after
the forgiveness of his sins ; and believes that, through the inter-
cession of his brethren, he may be released from that distressing
situation? I have no hesitation in saying, that the two doctrines
go so completely together, that if we succeed in demonstrating
the one, the other necessarily follows. For, if we prove that it
has always been the belief in the Church of Christ, that they
who are departed may be benefited by our prayers, and brought
to the sight of God, while at the same time it has no less been
its universal belief that they who had incurred eternal punish-
ment could not be released from it, assuredly we have the same
system as ours, — that there was a middle state, wherein the face
of God was not enjoyed, and yet eternal punishment was not
suffered. And, in fact, we shall see how the two are spoken of
in common, in those passages of the oldest writers, on praying
for the departed, wherein reasons are given for the practice ; for
they assure us that, by such prayers, we are able to release them
from a state of suffering.
But, to begin with the word of God, — there is a passage with
which, probably, most who have looked into this subject are well
acquainted. It is in the 2d Book of Maccabees, (chapter xii.)
Avliere we are told how Judas, the valiant commander, made a
collection, and " sent 12,000 drachmas of silver to Jerusalem
fur sacrifice, to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking wcl;
and religiously concerning the resurrection. For if he had not
hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have
seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. It is, there-
fore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead. tha\
they may be loosed from their sins." [v. 4.3-46.) Many will say
that the second Book of Maccabees is not part of the Scripture;
that it is not imluded in its canon. I will waive that question
for the present, although it would not be difficult to proTe that it
has the same right to be in the canon as many books in the Old,
and still more in the New Testament : for it is quoted by th«
LECTURE XI. 47
hchers nfl Scnphire, and enumorated in its canon by counjilg
which have drawn up catalogues of its books. But let us ab-
stract from this consideration, which would lead us into too long
a discussion. It is allowed, at any rate, by all, to contain sound,
edifying doctrine ; for even the Church of England allows, and
even directs it to be read for instruction ; whence one may con-
clude that she does not suppose it to contain doctrines opposed
to the religion of Christ. But, my brethren, no one will pretend
to deny that this is an historical work of considerable value ;
that it represents faithfully what the Jews believed and practised
at that time. It proves, therefore, that, at the time of the Mac-
cabees, the conviction existed, that, when prayers were offered
for the dead, they were beneficial to them, and that it was " a
holy and wholesome thought to pray for them." "We have,
therefore, the practice and belief of the Jewish Church in testi-
mony of our doctrine. Does our Saviour ever once reprove thia
custom of the Jews ? Does He place it among the false tradi-
tions of the Pharisees ? Does He hint that this was one of the
corruptions that had crept by time into the institutions of God ?
But 3'ou will ask, are there any other testimonies for this practice
among the Jews? Most undoubtedly, for the Jews have con-
tinued the practice up to this moment, although it will hardly
be suspected that they have drawn any thing from the Christian
religion. In their prayer-books a form of daily prayer is ap-
pointed for the departed ; and in their synagogues there is a
tablet, whereon the names of the deceased are inscribed, that
khey may be prayed for in succession so many Sabbaths, accord-
ing to a varying formula. Nor must these practices be reputed
modern ; for Lightfoot acknowledges that some of their oldest
writers agree with vis in opinion, so far as to charge them with
hv.'ing borrowed from us. But surely, it would have been only
fair and honest to tell how and when this doctrine was received
hy the Jews from the Catholic Church. On the contrary, as we
have found it held by Judas Maccabseus, before the time of our
Saviour, we have a right to consider its existence among the
Jews as anterior to His coming ; and as it was never once re-
proved or blamed by Him, and is a point which depends not
upon merely legal institution, we may justly consider it as still
unchanged. It is only on this principle that the Sabbath, or
Sunday, is observed with such rigor in this country ; for we
might ask those who are zealous for its obsen-ance with such
Holemn severity, whence they derive that practice, except from
*at prescribed by God in *ho old lavr f.-.i- Us ?abbath ? On what
48 LECTURE XI.
jfn"<^"ind do tlioj euntiiiuo it? Because it is not ;i inons legal in-
stitution, and its discontinuauee not having ])een nmjinanded,
tli'\v think that not only itself, but the nieth()(l of obs('rving it,
must be kept as it formerly was. And so it is liere ; if tlic iloctrino
was held by the Jews, and liy the best and holiest among them
— by the writer of this buok, as well as by .Judas MaouabiBus,
who sent the 12,000 drachmas for a sacrifice for the dead, — if l>y
such men it was believed that they could assist the dead, by
supplication, and loose thom from their sins, and that, conse-
quently, these were not necessarily in a state of final or eternal
condemnation, — if thei-e be nothing in the New Law to reproljat'3
this belief, based on the consideration of common justice, and
jn the ordinary providence of God, Ave have a right to consider
it a true belief at the present time, and we must expect it to be
still continued, with its practical consequences, in the Churcli.
F(jr, if prayers would benefit the dead of old, and sacrifices too,
tliey must continue to benefit them as much now. Naj', why not
more ? Is not the communion between the members of Christ's
Church infinitely stronger than it was then ? Are not the merits
(if Christ now more powerful to assist? and are they not more
at the disposal of His servants than formerly', through their
]irayers and intercession ? ^Vnd what reason have we to believe
that this beautiful and consoling communion, whereby they who
remain were able to relieve those who were departed, hath been
weakened and broken, and nut rather strengthened and drawn
closer ?
But let us look for a moment into the New Testament, and see
whether, so far from any thing being taught that should seem
calculated to have undeceived the Jews, had they been mistaken
in their notions concerning the dead, there be not much likely
to have confirmed them. Our blessed Saviour, on one occasion,
listinguishes two kinds of sin, and calls one a sin against tlie
Holy Ghost, saying, " whosoever shall speak a word against tin-
Son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but he that sliall speak
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, either in
this world or in the next."* Here is a species of sin, the aggra-
vated nature of which is described by its not being forgiven in
the next world. Should we not thence conclude, that some other
sins may be forgiven there? Why give this peculiar chapjeter-
istic to one, if no sin is ever pardoned in the next world :f
Surely, we have a I'ight to conclude, that there is some I'emission
LECTURH XI. 49
of ein there , • .md yet it cannot be either in Heaven, or in the
place uf eternal punishment. AVe must, therefore, admit some
other st^ite in which this may he.
Thus the Jews, so far from seeing their former opinions and
belief rejected, must have thought them strongly confirmed by
Christ's express words. Moreover, we are assured in the New
Law, that " nothing defiled shall enter" into the heavenly Jeru-
salem.* Suppose, then, that a Christian dies, who had com-
mitted some slight transgression ; he cannot enter Heaven in
tliis state, and yet we cannot suppose that he is to be condemned
for ever. What alternative, then, are we to admit? Why, that
there is some place in which the soul will be purged of the sin,
and qualified to enter into the glory of God. Will you say that
God forgives all sin at the moment of death ? Where is the
warrant for that assertion ? This is an important point of doc-
trine ; and if you maintain that God at once, forgives sins, on
any occasion, you must allege strong authority- for it. If you
find nothing of such a doctrine in His revelation, but if, on the
contrary, yon are told, first, that no defilement can enter the
kingdom of Heaven, and, secondly, that some sins are forgiven
in the next world, you must admit some means of purgation,
whereby the sinner, who has not incurred eternal punishment,
is qualified for the enjoyment of God's glory.
I pass over two or three other passages, that might be brought
in favor of purgatory, upon one of which I shall probably have
U) couuuent a little later. All these texts, you will say, are,
after all, obscure, and do not lead to any certain results. True ;
but we have enough said in them to guide us to some striking
probabilities ; these require further elucidation, and where shall
we look for it, but in the Church, especially in ancient times ?
Take, as a similar instance, tlie sacrament of baptism, as now
practised in the Church. The apostles were simply told to bap-
x\w all nations ; but how do you prove from this that baptism is
to be administered to infants? And yet the English Church ar-
ticles prei^cribe inftint baptism. Or Avheuce comes the warrant
fur departing from the literal meaning of the word, which means
iinmeision, and the adoption of mere efl'usion or sprinkling of
tlie water? There may have been infi\nts in the fiimilies or
houses spoken of as baptized — probably so; but this is only con-
iecture, and not proof; surel}' not enough to base an important
practice on, which, without better authority, should seem to con*
*Apoc. xxi.27.
ToL. U.— G
50 LECTURE XL
taradict our Saviour's command, tliat. faith she uld precede or wq-
company baptism: — " He that believeth, and in baptized, shall be
saved." For, in a positive institution, vrholly depending on the
will of the legislator, positive authority is requisite for any
modification of the prescribed act. "Where is the security foj
these modifications, if not in the explanation of the Church,
conveyed to us by her ancient practices ? And thus, in like
manner, if there be not clearly mentioned in Scripture a placo
of purgation, but still if "\ve find forgiveness of sins in the next
world spoken of, — if we find that prayers are beneficial for those
that have died, — that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of
Heaven, — and that it is incompatible with God's justice, that
every sin should consign the ofiender to eternal punishment, —
we have the germs of a doctrine which only require to be un-
folded ; we have the members and component parts of a complete
system, which, as in baptism, require only further explanation
and combination from the Church of God. Now, nothing can
be more simple than to establish the belief of the universal
Church on this point. The only difficulty is to select such pas-
sages as may appear the clearest.
I will begin with the very oldest Father of the Latin Church,
Tertullian, who advises a widow " to pray for the soul of her
departed husband, entreating repose to him, and participation in
the first resurrection, and making oblations for him on the an-
niversary day of his death, which, if she neglect, it may be truly
said that she has divorced her husband."* To make an oblation
on the anniversary day of his death ; to pray that he may have
rest, — is not this more like our language and practice than those
of any other religion in England ? And does not Tertullian sup-
pose that good is done to the faithful departed by such prayer ?
And, moreover, does he not prescribe it as a solemn duty, rather
than recommend it as a lawful practice ?
St. Cyprian thus writes : — " Our predecessors prudently ad-
vised, that* no brother, departing this life, should nominate any
churchman his executor ; and should he do it, that no oblation
should be made for him, nor sacrifice ofiered for his repose ; of
which we have had a late example, when no oblation was made, nor
prayer, in his name, offered in the Church."f It was considered,
therefore, a severe punishment, that prayers and sacrifices should
not be ofiered up for those who had violated any of the ecclesias-
tical laws. There are many other passages in this father ; but
•De Monogamla, e. 10. 1 Dp. zlvi. p. 114.
LECTURE XI. 61
I proceed to Orij^en, who wrote in the same century, and (li:iii
whom no one can bo clearer regarding this doctrine: — ""When
we depart this life, if Ave take with us virtues or vices, shall we
receive reward for our virtues, and shall those trespasses be foi--
given to us which Ave knowingly committed ? or shall we be pu-
nished for our faults, and not receive the reward of our virtues ?"
That is, if there be in our account a mixture of good and evil,
shall we be rewarded for the good without any account being
taken of the evil, or punis/ied for the evil Avithout the good being
taken into consideration? This query he thus ansAvers : — "Nei-
ther is true : because we shall suffer for our sins, and receive the
rewards of our good actions. For if on the foundation of Christ
you shall have built, not only gold and silver, and precious
stones, but also wood, and hay, and stubble, what do you expect,
when the soul shall be separated from the body ? Would you
enter into Heaven with your wood, and hay, and stubble, to defile
the kingdom of our God ? or, on account of those encumbrances,
remain Avithout, and receive no reward for your gold and silver
and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains, then,
that you be committed to the fire, Avhich shall consume the light
materials ; for our God, to those avIio can comprehend heavenly
things, is called iv consuming Jire. But this fire consumes nut
the creature, but what the creature has himself l)uilt, — Avood,
and hay, and stubble. It is manifest that, in the first place, the
tire destroys the wood of our transgressions, and then returns to
us the reward of our good Avorks."* Therefore, according to
this most learned Father, (two hundred years after Christ,) Avhen
the soul is separated from the body, if there be smaller trans-
gressions, it is condemned to fire, Avhich purges away those
lighter materials, and thus prepares the soul for entering into
Heaven.
St. Basil, or a contemporary author, writing on the words of
Isaiah, " Through the Avrath of tlie Lord is the land burned,"
nays, that " tlie things Avhich are earthly shall ])e made the food
of a punishing fire ; to the end that the soul may receive favor
and be benefited." He then proceeds: — "And the people .shnll
be as thefiiel of the fire. (Ibid.) This is not a threat of exter-
mination ; but it denotes expurgation, according to the exj^res-
sion of the apostle : If any man's works burn, he shall suffer loss;
fml he himself shall be saveil, yet so as by fire. (1 Cor. iii. 15.)"-f
» Homil. svi. al. xii. in Jerem. T. iii. p. 231, 232.
I' Com. iu c. ix. Isai. 1'. i. p. .'>ol.
52 LECTPRE XI.
Nnw, mark Avell tlic -winxl piirf/a/i'nr hero used. Fur li ]ir.-vr3
that our voit tfMui purgatory is nut nioderu in the C'hureh. St.
Ejihrem of Edessa writes thus in his Testament: — '"My ijrethren,
come to me, and prepare me for my departure, for my strength
is wholly gone. Go along with me in psalms and in your prayers:
and please constantly to make ohlations for me. When the
thirtieth day shall Ite completed, then remember me : for the
dead are helped Ijy the offerings of the living:" — the very day
observed by the Catholic Church with peculiar solemnity, in
pi'aying and oifering mass for the dead. — " If, also, the sons of
Mathathias," (he alludes to the very passage which I quoted from
Maccabees, 2 Maccab. xii.) " who celebrated their feasts in figure
only, could cleanse those from guilt, by their offerings, who fell
in ]>attle, how much more shall the priests of Christ aid the dead
by their oblations aud prayer I"t
In the same century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem thus expresses
himself: "Then (in the liturgy of the Church) we pray for the
holy Fathers and the Bishops that are dead ; and, in short, for
all those who are departed this life in our communion : believing
that the souls of those, for whom the praj-ers are offered, receive,
very great relief while this lioly aud tremendous victim lies upon
the altar.'":?: St. Gregory of Nyssa thus contrasts the course of
God's providence in this world with that in the next. In the
present life, "God allows man to remain subject to what himself
lias chosen ; that, having tasted of the evil which he desired, and
learned by experience how bad an exchange has been made, he
might again feel an ardent wish to lay down the load of those
vices and inclinations, which are contrary to reason: and thus,
in this life, being renovated 1)V prayers and the pursuit of wis-
dom, or, in the next, being expiated by the purging fire, he might
recover the state of hapjnness Avhich lie had lost.. ..When he has
quitted his bodj', and the difference between virtue and vice i.s
known, he cannot Ije admitted to approach the Divinity till the
purging fire shall have expiated the stains with which liis soul
was infected. — That same fire, in others will cancel the corrujv
tion of matter and the propensity to evil."| St. Amlirose,
tliroughout his Avorks, has innumerable passages on this subject,
and quotes St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, (iii. 15,)
which you ha^e heard already cited by our Fathers: — "If any
* KaOapt^iv. i In Testament. T. ii. p. 234, p. 371. Edit OxoH.
X Cateoh. Myslag. v. n. ix. x. p. 32S.
} Orat. de nefunetis. T. ii. p. 1006, 1007 ncs.
LECTURE XI. 51}
man's works bum, lio shall suffer loss: but he himself shall h«
saved, yet so as by fire." I will quote one passage out of many:
"But he shall be saved, >/ef .v as by fre. He will l:)e saved, the
apostle said, because his substance shall' remain, while his bad
doctrine shall perish. Therefore he said, yet so as by Jirc; in
order that his salvation be not understood to be without puin.
He shows, that he shall be saved indeed, l)ut he shall undergo
the pain of fire, and be thus purified ; not like the unbelieving
and wicked man, who shall be punished in everlasting fire."*
And in his funeral oration on the Emperor Theodosius, he thua
speaks: — "Lately we deplored together his death, and now,
while Prince Honorius is present before our altars, we celebrate
the fortieth day. Some observe the third and the thirtieth,
others the seventh and the fortieth. — Give, 0 Lord, rest to thy
servant Theodosius, that rest which thou hast prepared for thy
saints. May his soul thither tend, Avhence it came, where it
cannot feel the sting of death, where it will learn that death is
the termination, not of nature, but of sin. I loved him^ therofuro
will I follow him to the land of the living; I will not leave him,
till, by my prayers and lamentation, he shall be admitted to the
lioly mount of the Lord, to which his deserts call him."t
St. Epiphanius, in the same century: — "There is nothing
more opportune, nothing more to be admired, than the rite which
directs the names of the dead to be mentioned. They are aided
by the prayer that is offered for them ; though it may not cancel
all their faults. — ^^Ve mention both the just and sinners, in orde>'
that for the lattei- we may obtain mercy."X St. Jerome: — "As we
believe the torments of the devil, and of those wicked men, who
said in their hearts, there is no God, to be eternal ; so, in regard
to those sinners, who have not denied their faith, and whoso
works will be proved and purged by fire, we conclude, that the
sentence of the judge will be tempered by merc.y."| Not to 1)0
tedious, I will quote only one Father more, the gi*eat St. Augus-
tine:— " The prayers of the Church," he writes, "or of good per
sons, are heard in favor of those Christians, who departed this
life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good
as to be entitled to immediate happiness. So also, at the resur-
rootiou of the dead, there will some be found, to whom mercy
will bo imparted, having gone through those pains to which the
■• Comment, in 1 Kp. ad. Cor. T. ii. in App. p. 122.
t D« ol.itii Theodosii. ll.ia. p. IIOT-S, T207-S.
; Hfpr. Iv. >:!ve. Ixxv. T. i. p. Oil.
'i Comnieut. in v. I\v. Isai. T. ii. p. ilhi
54 LECTURE Xi.
spirits of the dead are liable. Otherwise it would nr>t bav« been
Baidof some with truth, that their sin i/u/// not befnri/icen. neither
in this iforld, nor in the icorld to come, (Matt. xii. 32,) unless some
sins were remitted in the next world."* St. Augustine's reason-
ing is here precisely the same as I have used, and as every Ca-
tholic now uses. In another passage, he quotes the words of St.
Paul, as follows: — "If they had hm\t f/oM and silcer and precious
stones, they would be secure from both tires ; not only from that
in which the wicked shall be punished for ever, but likewise
from that fire which will purify those wlio shall be saved by fire.
But because it is said, he shall be saved, that fire is thought lightly
of; though the sufi"ering will be more grievous than any thing
man can undergo in this life."
These passages contain precisely the same doctrine as the Ca-
tholic Church teaches ; and had I introduced them into my dis-
course, -without telling you from whom they are taken, no one
would have supposed that I was swerving from the doctrine
taught by our Churcli. It is impossible to imagine that the sen-
timents of these writers agreed, on this point, with that of any
other religion.
I observed that there was one text which I had passed over,
and on which I might be led to make a few remarks a little later ;
and I advert to it now, not so much for the purpose of discussing
whether it applies to Purgatory or not, as to show how misstate-
ments may be made regarding the grounds of a docti'ine. 1
alluded to the passage of St. Paul, regarding building, upon the
true foundation, a superstructure of gold, silver, and precious
stones, or wood, hay, and stubble ; where he says, that the fire
shall try every man's works, and ihat whatever is frail will be
necessarily destroyed, while the foundation shall remain. Seve-
ral Fathers, as you have heai'd, apply this text to the doctrine
of Purgatory. Yet, very lately, a writer, commenting upon the
Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, quotes this verj- text as an ex-
ample of how the Church uf Rome, as he calls us, perverts Scrip-
ture to prove her doctrine ; for, he says, we have erected our
doctrine of the fire of Purgatory ob this text, which has nothing
to do with punishment hereafter, but only refers to the tribula-
tions endured on earth. f This is manifestly an incorrect state-
ment, and it places the author in this dilemma; either the Church
of Rome was not the first to turn this text to prove the existence
* De Civit. Dei, Lib. xsi. c. x.\iv. p. M2.
t Home, Tol ii. p. 'I'SS, Tth ed.
LECTURE XI. 65
of Purgatory, anrl thpn his assertion is grossly inaccurate, or else
those Fathers whom I have quoted are to be included in the
"Church of'Eome," and are to be considered as holding the Ca-
tholic doctrine. It is not essential to our belief, that this text
should refer to the doctrine of Purgatory ; it is a very important
one, as showing St. Paul's doctrine regarding God's conduct in
punishing sin, and in distinguishing grievous transgressions and
errors from those of lesser moment; and even more directly
proving, that there is a place of temporary probation, which has
the power of cancelling imperfections not so completely in oppo-
sition to God's law.
In addition, I need hardly observe, that there is not a single
liturgy existing, whether we consider the most ancient period
of the Church, or the most distant part of the world, in which
this doctrine is not laid down. In all the oriental liturgies, we
find parts appointed, in which the Priest or Bishop is ordered
to pray for the souls of the faithful departed ; and tables were
anciently kept in the churches, called the DypticJis, on which
the names of the deceased were enrolled, that they might be
remembered in the sacrifice of the mass and the prayers of the
faithful.
The name of Purgatory scarcely requires a passing comment.
It has, indeed, been made a topic of abuse, on the ground that
it is not to be found in Scripture. But where is the word Trinity
to be met with ? "Where is the word Incarnation to be read in
Scripture ? Where are many other terms, held most sacred and
important in the Christian religion? The doctrines are indeed
found there ; but these names were not given, until circumstances
had rendered them necessary. We see that the Fathers of the
Church have called it a purging fire — a place of expiation or
purgation. The idea is precisely, the name almost, the same.
It has been said by divines of the English Church, that the
two doctrines which I have joined together, of prayers for the
dead and Purgatory, have no necessary connection, and that, in
fact, they were not united in the ancient Church. The answer to
this assertion I leave to your memories, after the passages which
I have read you from the Fathers. They surely speak of pur-
gation by fire after death, whereby the imperfections of this life
are washed out, and satisfaction made to God lor sins not suffi-
ciently expiated; they speak, at the same time, of our prayers
being beneficial to those who have departed this life in a state
of sin; and these propositions contain our entire doctrine on
Purgatory. It has also been urged, that the established religic<n.
56 LECTURE XL
or Protetitautism, does not deny or discourage prayers for th«
dead, so long as tliej- are independent of a belief in Purgatory:
and, in this respect, it is stated to agree ■vvitli the primitive Chris-
tian Church. But, my brethren, this distinction is exceedingly
fallacious. Keligion is a lively, practical profession ; it is to bo
ascertained and judged by its sanctioned practices and outward
demonstration, rather than by the mere opinions of a few. I
would at once fairly appeal to the judgment of any Protestant
here, ■whether he has been taught, and has understood, that such
is the doctrine of his Church? If, from the services which he
has attended, or the catechism which he has learnt, or the dis-
courses which he has heard, he has been led to suppose that
praying, in terms however general, for the souls departed, was
noways a peculiarity of Catholieism, but as much a permitted
practice of Protestantism ; if, among his many acquaintances
who profess hi.s creed, he has found men wl- 1 perform such acts
of devotion ;- and if not, nay, if on the contrary, he has always
understood that this rite of praying for the dead is essentially a
distinctive of the Catholic religion, what matters it that Bishop
Bull, and one or two other divines, should have asserted it to be
allowed in the English Church? Or, how can conformity between
the English and the primitive Church be proved from this tacit
permission, — if such can be admitted on considering that prayers
for the dead were allowed to remain in the first Anglican liturgy,
and were formally withdrawn on revision, — when the ancient
Church not merely allowed, but enjoined the practice as a duty
— ^you will remember TertuUian's words — not merely opposed not
its private exercise, but made it a Y)rominent part of its solemn
liturgy?*
* Dr. Pusey has lately written as follows : — " Since Rome has blended the cruel
ivention of Purj^atory with the primitive custom of praying for the dead, it is not
m communion with her that any can seek comfort from this rite." An earnest
rei>io)utra7ice tu lite aiUlior a/ the Pope's Pastoral Letter. (1S30, \). "Jo.) Vr. Pusey".«i
opinion is, l.^t, that, in the ancient Church, prayers were offered for all the departed,
including apostles and martyr.^ in the same m;tnner: 2dly. that such prayers had
reference, not to the alleviation of pain, but to the augmentation of happiness, or the
hastening of perfect joy, not pos^esstnl by them till the end of time ; odly, that the
cruel invention of Purgatory is nnxleni : 4thly, th.it the Kuglisli Church allows
prayers for the dead, in that more compreliensive and general form. As to the first,
there is no doubt, that in the ancient liturgiis, the sainti are mentioned in the same
prayer as the other departed faithful : from the simple circumstance, that tliey were
BO united before the public suftragi! of the Church proclaimed them to Ijelong to ii
happier order. It is also tnii'. that th^' Church then, us now. prayeil for the con
Bummation of their happiness at'cer thi' resurrection. But it is no less true, that
the ancients drew aline of di.-.tiiKtioii Iietwoeu the slate of the two, and that the
fame m we. St. Epiphanius, <^uoted in the text, makes the distinction, Mying : *' Wt
tECTXTRE XT. 57
As a practical doctrine in th>^ Catholic Church, it has an in-
fluence highly consoling to humanity, and eminently worthy of
a religion that came do'mi from heaven to second all the purest
feelings of the heart. Nature herself seems to revolt at the idea
that the chain of attachment which binds us together in life, can
1 >o rudely snapped in sunder by the hand of death, conquered and
deprived of its sting since the victory of the cross. But it is
not to the spoil of mortality, cold and disfigured, that she clings
with afiection. It is but an earthly and almost unchristian grief,
which sobs when the grave closes over the bier of a departed
loved one ; but the soul flies upward to a more spiritual affection,
and refuses to surrender the hold which it had upon the love
and interest of the spirit that hath fled. Cold and dark as the
sepulchral vault is the belief that sympathy is at an end when
the body is shrouded in decay ; and that no further interchange
of friendly offices may take place between those who have laid
them down to sleep in peace, and us, who for a while strew fading
mention both the just and sinners, that far the latter, we may obtain mercy." St.
Augustine also writes as follows : " When, therefore, the sacrifice of the altar, or
alms, are offered for the dead, in regard to those whose lives were Tery good, such
offices may be deemed acts of thnnks^iving: for the imperfect, act= f-f propitiation;
and, though to the wicked they brin^ no aid. they may give some comfort to the
living." (Enchirid. cap. cs.) Here the three cla.'-ses of departed souls ai-e mentioned,
with the effects of the sacrifice of the mass ou each. Dr. I'usey, too, is doubtless
well acquainted with the saying of the same father, that "be does injury to a mar-
tyr who prays for a martyr." '• lujviriam facit martyri, qui orat pro marfyre."
With regard to the second and third points, I refer to the texts given in the body
of this lecture: St. Augustine uses the term purgotfnrial punishment (purgatorias
P'cnas) in the next world. (De Civit. Dei. lib. xxi. c. 16.) The passages which I have
quoted are sufficient to prove a state of actual suffering in souls less perfect. There
is another important reflection. The fathers speak of their prayers granting imme-
diate relief to those for whom they offer them, and such i-elief a.** to take them from
<ine state into another. St. Ambrose expresses this effect of prayer, when he says
of Theodosius : '•! will not leave him, till by my prayers and lamentations he shall
bo admitte<l to Go-I's holy mount." This does not surely look to £ distant effect, or
to a mere perfection of happiness.
Ou the fourth, in addition to the remarks preceding this note in the text, I can
only say, I wish it were better known that the Church of England considers praj'-
ers for the dead lawful and beneficial to them; for .a judicial decision has lately au
aulled a bequest to Catholic chapels, bcca.use of there being annexed to it a condi-
tion of saying aiass for the te.statrix. Ap. 16, 18.35. This was in the case of West
and Shuttleworth. wherein the Master of the Rolls decided that, as the testatrix
could not be bcnefite<l by such praitice--, they were to be held superstitious and not
charitable ; and declared the legacy null and void. Xow, if liis Honor had been
aware, that the English Church admits prayers to be beneficial to the dead, aad
approves of them, and if ln' had judged, that our Eucharist (the oblation spoken
of by the fathers) mu.-t be udmitti d by that Chuich to contain all that its own
does at least, he surely would not have based a legal judgment, which, to say th«
least, savors much of old religious prejudices, upon so hollow a theological basil.—
Mylnt and Keen. vol. ii. p. 697.
Vol. II.— H
58 LECTTTRE XI.
flowers upon their tomb. But sweet is the consolation to tht
dying man, who, conscious- of imperfection, believes that even
after bis own time of merit is expired, there are others to make
intercession on his behalf: soothing to the afflicted survivors the
thought, that, instead of unavailing tears, they possess more
powerful means of actively relieving their friend, and testifying
their affectionate regret, by prayer and supplication. In the first
moments of grief, this sentiment will often overpower religious
prejudice, cast down the unbeliever on his knees, beside the re-
mains of his friend, and snatch from him an unconscious prayer
for rest ; it is an impulse of nature, which for the moment, aided
by the analogies of revealed truth, seizes at once upon this con-
soling belief. But it is only like the flitting and melancholy light
which sometimes plays as a meteor over the corpses of the dead ;
while the Catholic feeling, cheering, though with solemn dim-
ness, resembles the unfailing lamp which the piety of the an-
cients is said to have hung before the sepulchres of their dead. It
prolongs the tenderest affections beyond the gloom of the grave,
and it infuses the inspiring hope, that the assistance which we
on earth can afford to our suffering brethren will be amply re-
paid when they have reached their place of rest, and make of
them friends, who, when we in our turns fail, shall receive ua
into sverlasting mansioDH.
LECTURE THE TWELFTH.
(SUPPLEMENTABT.)
ON INDULQENOBS.
2 COR. U. 10.
• lb wAom yt have forgiven any thing, I also. Far what I forgive, iflhavt
any thing, for your sokes have I done it in the person of Ohriit."
Akong the innumerable misrepresentations to which our re*
ligion is constantly subjected, there are some which a Catholic
clergyman feels a peculiar reluctance in exposing, from the per-
sonal feelings which must be connected with their refutation.
When our doctrine on the blessed Eucharist, or the Church, or
the saints of God, is attacked, and we rise in its defence, we fed
within ourselves a pride and a spirit resulting from the very
cause ; there is an inspiring ardor infused by the very theme ;
we hold in our hand the standard of God Himself, and fight Hin
own battle ; we gather strength from the altar which is blas-
phemed, and are reminded of our dignity and power, by the very
robe which we wear ; or we are refreshed by the consciousness
that they whose cause we defend, are our brethren, who look down
with sympathy upon our struggle.
But when the petty and insidious warfare begins, which
professes to aim at the man, and not at the cause, when, from
principles of faith, or great matters of practice, the attack is
changed into crimination of our ministry, and insinuation against
our character ; when the Catholic priest stands before his people,
to answer the charge of having turned religion into a traffic, and
corrupted her doctrines to purchase influence over their con
science and their purse, he must surely recoil from meeting even
as a calummy, that, against which his heart revolts, and finds
his very feelings, as a member of the society wherein he lives
with respect, almost too strong for that office of meekness and
charity which duty imposes for the undeceiving of the beguiled,
and the maintenance of truth.
These sentiments are spontaneously excited in my breast, by
the recollection of the very severe attacks and bitter sarcasms
which the topic of this evening's dipcourse has for ages excited.
•0 LECTURE Xir.
Indulgences — pardon for sins, past and futurp, the sale of for-
giveness for the grossest crimes, at stipulator! sums ; these, mixed
up with invectives against the rapacity of the Church, and tlic
venality of its ministers and agents, have been fruitful thenuM
of ridicule and reproof, of sarcasm and declamation, against us,
from the days of Luther, to the irreconcilable hostility of our
modern adversaries.
That abuses have existed regarding the practice of Indulgences;
no one will deny ; and I shall say sufficient regarding them be-
fore the close of my lecture; that they Avcre made the ground
for the dreadful separation of the sixteenth century, nuvst bo
deeply regretted ; for no such abuses could justify the schism
that ensued. But, my lirethren, here, as in almost OA'cry other
instance, the misrepresentation which has been made of our
doctrine chiefly proceeds from misapprehension, from the mis-
understanding of our real belief. I shall, therefore, pursun
in its regard the same method as I have invaria!)ly follnwcd :
that is, state in the simplest terms the Catholic doctrine, and
explain its connection with other points ; and after that, pnjci^cd
to lay before you its proofs, and meet such few objections as
their very exposition does not anticipate. In fact, Uiy discourse
this evening will be little more than a rapid sketch uf the history
of Indulgences.
In treating of Satisfaction, I endeavored tn cdudense the proofs
of our belief, that God resei-ves some temporal chastisement fur
Bin, after its guilt and eternal punishment have been remitti-il :
and that b}'' the voluntary performance of expiatory Avorks, wo
may disarm the anger of God, and mitigate the inflictions Avhich
his justice had prepared. This doctrine I must beg of you to
bear in mind, as essential for understanding Avhat we mean liy
an Indulgence.
Many of you have probably heard, that this word signifies a
license to sin, given even beforehand for sins to be perpetrated ;
at any rate, a free pardon for past sins. This is, in fact, tlio
most lenient form in wliich our doctrine is popularly represoited.
And yet, mitigated as it is, it is far from correct. For I feai
many here present will be inclined to incredulity, when I tell
them that it is no pardun for sin of any sort, past, present, or
future ! What, then, is an Indulgence ? It is no more than a
remission by the Church, in virtue of the keys, or the judicial
authority committed to her, of a portion, or the entire, of the
temporal punishment due to sin. The infinite merits of Christ
form the fund whence this remission is derived : but. besides.
LECTURE Xn. 61
the Church holds that, by the conmiuuion of saints, penitential
works performed by the just, beyond what their own sins might
exact, are available to other members of Christ's mystical body •,
that, for instance, the sufferings of the spotless 3Iother of God,
afflictions such as prnhably no other human being ever felt in
the soul, — the austerities and persecutions of tlv; Baptist, tho
friend of the Bridegroom, who was sanctified in his mother's
womb, and chosen to be an angol before the face uf the Christ, —
the tortures endured by numberless martyrs, whose lives had
been pure from vice and sin, — the prolonged rigors of holy an-
chorites, who, flying from the temptations and dangers of the
world, passed many years in penance and contemplation, all
these made consecrated and valid through their union with the
merits of Christ's passion, — were not thrown away, but formed
a store of meritorious blessing, applicable to the satisfaction of
other sinners.
It is evident that, if the temporal punishment reserved to sin,
was anciently believed to be remitted through . the penitential
acts which the sinner assumed, any other substitute for them,
tliat the authority imposing or rocommeudiug them receiveil as
an equivalent, must have been considered by it truly of equal
value, and as acceptable before God. And so it must be now.
If the duty of exacting such satisftxction devolves upon tho
Church, — and it must be the same now as it formerly was, — she
necessarily possesses, at present, the same power of substitution,
with the same efficacy, and, consequently, with tlie same effects.
And such a substitution is what cunstitutes all that Catholics
understand by the name of an Lirhdf/ence.
The inquiry into the grounds of this belief and practice will
ni'cessarily assume an historical form. For it is an investigation
into the limitations or the extent of a power, which can only be
lundui^ted by examining precedents, on its exercise by those in
wliom it first was vested, and by those who received it from them.
For the power itself is included in the commission given by
Christ to his apostles, to forgive or to retain sins. If the au-
thority here deputed be of a judicial form, and if part of the
weight imposed by sin be the obligation to satisfy the divine
justice, the extent of this obligation necessarily comes under the
cognisance of the trilmnal. No one will, I think, deny that this
application of the jiower i-onitnitted Avas nuide in the primitive
Church. Xo one will contend, that satisfaction was not enacted,
and that the pastors of the Church did not think themselves, I
will not say alloAA ed, but ubiiged, to impose a long train of peni
62 LECTURE xn.
tential inflictions, in punishment of sin. Something of this
matter I have already touched upon ; more I shall have occasion
to say to-day. For the present, I am only stating my case.
Well, then, the Church having, in ancient times, considered her-
self competent to superintend the discharge of satisfaction due
for sin, and having claimed and exercised the right of exacting,
in her presence, full and severe expiation, in virtue of the com-
mission above cited ; and we having thus proved its extension to
the imposition of penance, it remains for us to see whether she
went one step further, and claimed and exercised the right and
power of relaxing the rigor of those inflictions, without a diminu-
tion of their value, and ascertain on what ground this relaxation
was made. For, if we discover that the substitution of a lesser
punishment, or the total discharge of the weight imposed, was
made in consideration of the merits and sufferings of God's holy
servants, and that such commutation or remission was considered
valid, we shall have sufficient proof that Indulgences were in use,
upon the same grounds whereon we admit them now. The
scholastic precision of the middle ages may have prescribed for
them more definite terms, and may have classified tlioni, the
source and eflTects, imder distincter and clearer forms. But the
doctrine as to substance is the same, and has only shared the
fate, or rather the advantage, of every other doctrine, of passing
through the refinement of judgment, which sifted the dogma till
it was cleared of all tlie incumbrance of indefinite opinion, and
stript of the husk of an ill-defined terminology. And for this
purpose does divine Providence seem to have interposed that
school of searching theology, between the simplicity of faith in
ancient days, and the doubting latitude of opinion in modern
times.
Now, therefore, let us at once enter upon the proofs of this
doctrine, which forms but the completion of that already ex-
pounded, regarding the power of the Church in the remission oi
sin. For, a tribunal which has the power of forgiviuii- guilt, and
substituting a smaller satisfaction to tho majesty of the otfended,
must surely have the comparatively insignificant authority still
further to modify, or even to commute, the satisfaction which it
has imposed.
The New Testament seems to furnish a clear instance of such
a power beiug exercis^ed. In his fir.st epistle to the Corinthians
St. Paul not only severely reproved, but manifestly punished
grievously, a member of that Church, who had fiillen into a scan-
dalous sin. These are his words: — "I indeed, absent in body,
LECTURE XII. 68
but present in spirit, have alroady judged, as though I were pre-
sent, him that hath so done. In the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, you being gathered together; and my spirit with the
power of our Lord Jesus; to d'Miver such a one to Satan, for the
destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day
of our Lord Jesus Christ."*
Several remarks present themselves naturally upon the perusal
of this text. First, a punishment is here inflicted of a severe
character. We do not, indeed, precisely know what is meant
hy the delivery of the sinner to Satan. According to Bome, it
signifies literally his condemnation to possession, like the in-
stance of the swine in the Gospel ;t others suppose it to mean
the infliction of a painful sickness ; a third party understands
by it excommunication from the Church. Secondly, this punish-
ment, whatever it may have been, was remedial, intended to re-
claim the sinner, and, by the injury of the body, to rescue the
soul from eternal loss. Thirdly, the act here described was
not within the terms, strictly so called, of remission or retention
of actual guilt ; inasmuch as it was performed, and the punish-
ment inflicted, by the whole congregation, with St. Paul at their
head, but only in spirit, that is, sanctioning by his authority and
concurrence all their acts. But the sacramental forgiveness, or
retention of sin, has never been considered a congregational act,
or one to be performed by the body of the faithful, nor even by
any pastor of the Church, however dignified, at a distance.
Hence, we must conclude, that a penauco of s<:)me sort was im-
posed upon the incestuous Corinthian, intended for his amendment,
and for reparation of the scandal and diseditication committed
before the Church. For this, also, is clearly intimated by the
apostle, in the verses preceeding and subsequent to the passage
which I have read.
Well, the consequences of this heavy infliction were such as
St. Paul probably foresaw, and certainly such as he must have
desired. The unfortunate sinner was plunged into a grief so
excessive as to appear dangerous to his welfare. The sentence
which had been pronounced is revoked, and under circumstances
eoftiewhat varied, though on that account more interesting. It
appears from the second Epistle of St. Paul to the same Church,
that the Corinthians did not wait for his answer upon this sub-
ject, or, even if they did, that he remitted the whole conduct and
decision of the matter to their charitable discretion. For he thus
1 Cor. V. 3-£ t Mat. viil.
64 LECTURE XII.
writes: — "To him that is such a ouo, tliis rebuke is sufficicnl
that is given by many. So that, contrariwise, you should rathor
pardon and comfort him, lest, perhaps, such a one be swallowed
up with over-much sorrow. For which cause I beseech you that
you would confirm your charity towards him. For to this end
also did I write, that I may know the experimentof you, whether
Tou be obedient in all things. And to Avhom you have pardoned
any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned
any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ."*
Here, again, St. Paul alludes to the severity of the chastisement
inflicted, owing to its being conveyed in a public reproof of the
entire congregation. He then entreats them to forgive him and
cnmfort him; and adds, that he has already confirmed the
sentence which they have passed, or were going to pass. Evi-
dently, therefore, the entire transaction is not a ministerial one,
atfi'cting the forgiveness of the crime, for that could not be in
the hands of the flock.
But no less is it evident that the term of punishment is
abridged, and the sentence reversed, before the completion of the
awarded retribution is arrived; and this was in consequence of
tlic very great sorrow manifested by the penitent, which was
considered an equivalent for the remaining p(n'tion. This is pre-
cisely what we should call an Indulgence ; or a remission of that
penance enjoined by the Church, in satisfaction of God's jus-
tice. But it is likewise manifest, that such a relaxation must
have been considered perfectly valid before Heaven. For, as
tlie punishment was inflicted that his soul might be saved, it
would have been an endangering of that salvation to remove the
punishment, unless the same saving effects would ensue after its
relaxation.
After this striking example in the Avord of God, we shall not
be surprised at finding the Church, in the earliest times, claim-
ing and exercising a power similar in everj- respect. We must
naturally expect to see it imitate the apostle, first in imposing,
and then in remitting or modifying, such teinpoi-ary chastise-
ments. To understand its practice clearly, it may be necessary
to pi'emise a few words on the subject of canonical penance.
From the age of the apostles, it was usual for those who ifad
fallen into grievous offences tn make a public confession of them,
'whe>'eof I gave one or two examples in treating of confession,)
and then to subject themselves to a course of public penance
« 2 Cor. ji. 5-10.
LECTURE xn. 66
MiIiA received the name of canonical, from the canons or rules
vrhereby it was regulated. Such i.ienitents, as we learn from
TertuUian and other early writers?, put on a black and coarso
habit, and, if men, closely shaved their heads. '^ They pre;<eati"d
them.?elves before the assembly of the faithful on the first day
of Lent, when the presiding bishop or priest placed ashes or
their heads, a custom still preserved in the Catholic Church ;
whence the name of Ash-Wednesday given to that day. The
term of this penance was various, according to the grievousness
of the offence. It lasted sometimes only fortj' days ; at others,
three, seven, and ten years : for some enormous crimes, its dura-
tion was the natural life of the penitent. During this coursi,
every amusement was forbidden, the sinner's time was occupied
in prayer and good works, he practised rigorous fasting, au'l
came only on festivals to the Church, where he remained witli
the penitents of his class; first lying prostrate before the door,
dieu admitted at stated intervals within, but still for a time (Ex-
cluded fi'om attendance on the liturgy, till he had accomplished
his prescribed term of satisfaction.
There are the strongest reasons to believe, that, in most cases,
absohitiou preceded the allotment of this penance, or at least
that it was granted during the time of its performance ; so that
all or much of it followed sacramental absolution. The custom
of the Roman Church, and of others, was, that the peniti^nts
should be yearly admitted to communion on Holy Tluirsdav, a
circumstance incompatible with the idea of their receiving nc
pardon till the conclusion of their penance. Innocent I., the
Council of Agde in 506, St. Jei'ome, and others, mention this
usage.f
But while these penitential observances were considered of the
greatest value and importance, the Church reserved to itself the
right of mitigation under various circumstances, which I will
now explain.
1. The extraordinar\' sorrow and fervor manifested )iy the
penitent, during the performance of his task, was always con-
sidered a justification of a proportionate relaxation. Thus, the
Council of Nicea prescribes on this subject: — "In all cases, the
disposition and character of repentance must be considered. For
they who by fi-ar, by tears, by patience, and bj' good works,
manifest a sincere couversiDu, when they shall have passed over
* TertuU. ' Lib. de P.tnit." St. Pacian, '• Pai-cBues. ad Poenlt." lib. li. Ac
t Bm Bellarmiiie, torn. iii. p. 960, r<n: 1613.
TobIL— I
66 LECTURE XII.
a certain time, and begun to communicate in prayer with the
faithful, to these the bishop may shoAv more indulgence: but not
to those who manifest indifference, and think it enough that tfie''
are allowed to enter the Churcli. These must complete the whole
period of penance."* St. Basil says, in like manner, that "he
who has the power of binding and loosing can lessen the time
of penance to the truly contritc."t The Council of Lerida says,
— " Let it remain in the power of the Bishop either to shorten
the-separation of the truly contrite, or to separate the negligent
a longer time from the body of the Church." That of Ancyra,
in 314, decrees as follows: — "We decree, that the Bishops, hav-
ing considered the conduct of their lives, be empowered to show
mercy, or to lengthen the time of penance. But chiefly let their
former and subsequent life be examined, and thus lenity be
shown them."J
2. Another motive of relaxation was the approach of a perse-
cution, when the penitents would have an opportunity of testify-
ing their sorrow by patient endurance, and where it was thought
inexpedient to leave them unfortified by the blessed Eucharist,
and the particijiation in the prayers of the Church. This, St.
Cyprian informs us, in the following words, was the practice of
the Church. "He that gave the law, has promised, that what
we bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and what we loose
on earth shall be loosed also in heaven. But now, not to those
that are infirm, but to the healthy the peace of reconciliation is
necessary ; not to the dying, but to the living it must be ex-
tended ; in order that those whom we incite to battle be not left
without arms, but be fortified by the body and blood of Christ.
For since the design of the holy Eucharist is to give strength to
those that receive it, they must not be deprived of its support
whom we would guard against the enemy."^
3. A similar indulgence was granted to penitents in danger
of death, as was decreed by the Council of Carthage. "When
a sinner implores to be admitted to penance, let the priest, with-
out any distinction of persons, enjoin what the canons enact.
They who show negligence, must be less readily admitted. If
any one, after having, by the testimony of others, implored for-
giveness, be in imminent danger of death, let him be reconciled
by the imposition of hands, and receive the Eucharist. If he
survive, let him be informed that his petition has been complied
* Can. xii. Cone. Gen. T. ii. p. .35. , £p. Can. ad Amphiloch.
X Cono Gen. T. i. can. v. p. 1458. ' g Ep. Ivii. p. 116, 1X7.
LECTURE xn 67
with and then be subject to the appointed rules of penance, eo
long as it shall seem good to the priest Avho jirescribed the pe-
nance.""^ Whence it appears that the canonical penance was tc
be continued after absolution and admission to the Eucharist,
consequently that it was meant for satisfaction after sin re-
mitted ; and likewise that the Church held itself competent to
give a mitigation or indulgence in it. For the penance after re-
covery was not to be the full term, but such a modification as
the priest should think proper. And Pope Innocent I., in the
epistle to which I have before referred, confirms this discipline.
Thus he writes: "In estimating the grievousne§s of sins, it is
the duty of the priest to judge; attending to the confession of
the penitent, and the signs of his repentance ; and then to order
him to be loosed, when he shall see due satisfaction made. But
if there be danger of death, he must be absolved before Easter,
lest he die without communion."!
4. St. Augustine gives us another ground whereon mitigation
of penance was sometimes granted ; that is, when intercession
was made in favor of the i-epenting sinner by persons justly
possessing influence with the pastors of the Church. In tho
samn manner, he tells us, as the clergy sometimes interceded
for mercy with the civil magistrate in favor of a condemned
criminal, and were successful, so did they, in their turn, admit
the interposition of good oflBces from the magistrates in favor of
sinners undergoing penance. J
5. But the chief ground of indulgence or mitigation, and the
one which most exactly includes all the principles of a modern
indulgence, was the earliest, perhaps, admitted in the Church.
When the martyi-s, or those who were on the point of receiving
the crown, and who had already attested their love of Christ by
Bufiering, were confined in prison, those unfortunate Christians
wlio had fallen, and were condemned to penance, had recourse
to their mediation ; and, upon returning to the pastors of the
Church, with a written recommendation to mercy from one of
those chosen servants of God and witnesses of Christ, were r^
ceived at once to reconciliation, and absolved from the remaindaj
of their penance.
TertuUian, the oldest Latin Father, is the first to mention this
practice, and that under such different circumstances as render
bis testimony painfully interesting. First, when in communion
* Cone. Qen. T. ii. can. Ixxiv. Ixxv. Izzvi. p. 1206.
t Ep. ad Decent. Cone. Gen. T. ii. p. 1247.
X "£pi8t. ad Uaced." 54.
68 ^ LECTURE XTI.
with the Church, he approves uf the practice. For, after exhort
ing the confesssors of Chrif^t to preserve tliemselvcs in a state oi
peace and communion with His Cliurch, he thus continues :—
" AV^hich peace some not having in the ( Jhurch, are accustomet]
to beg from the martyrs in prison ; and therefore ye should p'.»s-
scss and cherish, and preserve it in you. that so ye may, per-
haps, be able to grant it to others."* Here, then, Tertullian
speaks of the custom without reprehending it ; and, indeed, even
builds his exhortation to the martyrs upon its propriety. But
after he had, unfortunately, abandoned the faith, aiul professed
the fanatical austerity of the Montanists, he rudely reproaches
the Church with this as an abuse ; at the same time that he more
clearly reveals the principle whereon it was founded. For tlui?
he now speaks: " Let it suffice for a martyr to have purged his
own sin; it is the part of a proud, ungrateful man, to lavish upon
others that which he hath himself obtained at a great price."
He then addresses the martyr himself, in these words : " If thou
art thyself a sinner, how can the oil uf thy lamp suffice for thee
and me ?"t From these expressions it is clear, that, accor<ling
to the belief of the Church, which he blamed, the martyrs were
held to communicate some efficacy of their sufferings in place of
the penance to be discharged, and some communion in their good
deserts was admitted to be made.
St. Cyprian, in the following century, coalirms the same prac-
tice and its grounds. For he expressly says, speaking of it:
" We believe that the merits of the martyrs, and the works of
the just, can do much with the just Judge."! In an epistle t<j
the martyrs, he writes to them as follows: "But to this you
should diligently attend, that you designate by name those to
whom you wish peace to be given."§ And writing to his clergy,
he thus prescribes the use to be uuide of such recommenda-
tions : " As I have it not yet in my power to return, aid, I
think, should not be withheld from our brethren ; so that they
who have received letters of recommendation from tlie martyrs,
and can thereby be benefited before God, should any danger
from sickness threaten, may, in our absence, having confessed
their crime before the minister of the Church, receive abso-
lution, and appear in the presence of God in that peace, whicli
the martyrs in their letters requested should be imparted to
them." II
* "All. Martyr." cup. i. f ''^^ Pmlifit." cap. Mil.
X " D« lapsi-s." g Epist. xv.
" Ep. xviii. p. 40.
LECTURE XII. 69
Hence, thorcfurf, it appoars, that in tlio aiioloiit Cliuiih, re-
laxation from tlio ri;^ur of tlio penitf-ntial institutiniis was ;:;i-auteil
in considoratiun ut" the ijitcrpusition of the martyrs of Christ, Avho
seemed to take on themselves the punishment due to the penitents
ac^-ording to the canonical institutions. The practice, doubtless,
led to abuses ; St. Cyprian complains of them repeatedly ; tiie
works from Avhich I have quoted are expressl}" directed to correct
its evils and check its exercise, but the principle he never for a
moment calls in question ; he admits, on the contrary, that it
should be acted on, a]ji)arently iu every instance.
There appears but one wily point further, requisite to complete
the resemblance between ancient and modern indulgences. The
instances hitherto given, apply chiefly to a diminution of punish-
ment, not to a commutation, which seems the specific charac-
teristic of indulgences at the present daj'. But, although the
abridgment of a punishment and the substitution of a lighter one,
are in substance the same thing, being only different forms of
mitigation, yet, even in this respect, we can illustrate our practice
from antiquity. For the Council of Ancyra, already referred to,
expressly sanctions the commutation of public penance in the case
of deacons who have once fallen, and afterwards stood firm.
Later, another allows some other good work to be substituted for
fasting, one of the essential parts of the old penance, in the ease
of persons with whose health it is incompatiljle ; and Yen. Bfde
mentions the same form of indulgence by commutation.
Coming, then, to the indulgences of modern times, they are no-
thing more than what we have seen were granted in the first ages,
with one difference. The public penance has disappeared from
the Church, not in consequence of any formal abolition, but from
the relaxation of discipline, and fi'om the change of habits, parti-
cularly in theAVest, caused by the invasion of the northern tribes.
Theodore of Canterbury was the first who introduced the practice
of secret penance, and," in the eighth century, the custom bec;\ine
general, of suljstituting prayer, alms, or other works of charity, for
ilie rigorous course of expiation prescribed in the ancient Church .
It was not till the thirteenth, tiiat the practice of public ].e-
nauce completeh' ceased. Now, the Church has never furmally
given up the wish, however hopeless it may appear, that the ier-
vor and discipline of primitive times could be restored ; and
consequently, instead of abolishing their injunctions, and specifi-
cally substituting other practices in their ]ilace, slie has preferred
ever considering these as mitigations of wliat sh(> still holds her-
■elf entitled to enforce. The only ditierence, therefore, between
70 LECTURE XII.
her former and lit>r ])rpsont pra<"ti<i^ is, that the mitigfttion o»
commutation has become tlie unlinary form of satisfaction, which,
however unwillinir, she ileems it prndent to exact. Indeed, so
completely is this the spirit and meaning of the Church, that, aa
we learn from Pope Alexander III., writing to the Archbishop
of Canterbui-y, it was the custom of the Church, in granting in-
dulgences, to add to the word the phrase " from the penance en-
joined ;" to intimate that primarily the indulgence regarded the
canonical penance. Several general councils and Popes, down
to Leo X., confirm this formula;
From all that I have said, you will easilv conclude, that our
indulgence, and that of the ancient Church, rest upon the follow-
ing common grounds. First, that satisfaction has to be made to
God for siu remitted, under the authority and regulation of the
Church. 2dl3', That the Church has always considered herself pos-
sessed of the authority to mitigate, ]jy diminution or commutation,
the penance which she enjoins ; and that she has always reckoned
such a mitigation valid before God, who sanctions and accepts it.
odly, That the sufferings of the saints, in union with, and by
virtue of Christ's merits, are considered available towards the
granting this mitigation. 4thly, That such mitigations, when
prudently and justly granted, are conducive towai'ds the spiritual
weal and profit of Christians.
These considerations at once give us a key to the right under-
standing of much that is connected with the practice of indul-
gences. For instance, they explain the terms employed.
First, the periods for which indulgences are usually granted
are apparently ai-bitrary, such as in an indulgence for forty days,
jf seven, thirty, or forty years, or plenary. Xow, these were
precisely the usual periods allotted to public penance, so that the
signification of these terms is, that the indulgence granted is
accepted by the Church as a substitution for a penance of that
duration : a plenary indulgence being a substitute for any entire
term of awarded penitential inflictions.
Secondly, the phrase, forgiveness of sin, which occurs in the
.ordinary forms of granting an indulgence, applies in the same
manner. There was in ancient times a twofold forgiveness ; one
sacramental, which generally preceded or interrupted the course
of public penance, as I have shown you was the case in the Ro-
man Church: this Avas the absolution from the interior guilt, in
the secret tribunal of penance. But absolution or forgiveness,
in the face of the Church, did -at take place till the complption
of the public s;i.*vsfactiun, for .as the act wherebv an end wm
LECTURE XII. 71
Crm< to its duration. Now, a\ inrlulgcnces, as we have all Along
Reeu, the Church has no reference to the inward guilt, or to the
weight of eternal punishment incurred by sin, but only to the
temporal chastisement and its necessary expiation. When, there-
fore, an indulgence is said to be a remission or forgiveness of sin.
the phrase applies only to the outward Gjuilt, or that portion of
the evil whereof the ancient penitential canons took cognisance.
This is still further evinced by the practice of the Church, which
always makes, and has made, confession and communion, and
consequently exemption from the guilt of sin, an indispensable
condition for receiving an indulgence. So that forgiveness of sin
must precede the participation of any such favor.
Thirdly, the ver'y name Indulgence becomes clear and appro-
priate. More errors are committed in judging of our doctrines
from a misunderstanding of our terms, than from any other cause.
The word indulgence is supposed to refer to something now ex-
isting: and, as there is nothing visible of which it is a relaxation,
it is assumed to mean an indulgence in reference to the commis-
sion of sin. But when considered in connection with its origin,
when viewed as a mitigation of that rigor with which the Church
of God, in its days of primitive fervor, visited sin, it becomes a
name full of awful warning, and powerful encouragement; it
brings back to our recollection, how much we fall short of that
severe judgment which the saints passed on transgressions of
the divine law; it acts as a protest on the part of the Church
against the degeneracy of our modern virtue, and animates us
to comply with the substitution conceded to us, up to the spirit
of the original institution, and to supply its imperfection by
private charity, mortification, and prayer.
It is argued, that the works enjoined for the acquisition of an
indulgence have been sometimes even irreligious or profane: at
others, have had no object save to fill the cofiers of the clergy;
and. in modern times, are habitually light and frivolous.
I, Such charges, my brethren, proceed from ignorance; they
arise from what I have just adverted to, a misunderstanding of
the name. In the middle ages, Europe saw its princes and em-
perors, its knights and nobles, abandon country and home, and
devote themselves to the cruel task of war in a distant clime, to
regain the sepulchre of Christ from the hands of infidels. And
what reward did the Church propose ? Nothing more than an
indulgence ! But the form wherein it was granted proves all
that I have said, that such a commutation was considered to
ntand in place of canonical ].ionanfa, and that, far from its being
72 LECTURE XII.
compatible with siii ami vico, it roi^uiicil a dovotedness of pur
pose and a purity of motive which shovT how complotely the
Church only bestowed it for the saiu-titieatiun of her children,
through a work deemed most honorable and glorious. "Who
ever," decrees the celebrated Council of Clermont, "shall go to
Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, out of pure devotion,
and not for the purpose of obtaining Imnor or money, let the
journey be counted in lieu of all penance."-'" It may be said
that many took the cross from sordid or profligate motives. Be
it so : but they did not partake in the spiritual benefit of this in-
dulgence. They were men like Godfrey- and St. Lewis, whom
the Church Avished to encourage to the battle of Christ; and ha<l
none gone save those, who, with them, valued her gifts beyond
their earthly diadems or the repose of home, they would indeed
have been in numbers few, like Gideon's host, but, like it, they
Would have conquered in the strength of the Most High. And
who will say that this earliest public substitution or commutation
was a relaxation from former inflictions? It was true that the
iron minds and frames of the Xorthmon could not easily be bent
t(i the prostrations, and tears, and fasts of the canonical penance,
and that their restless passions could not easily be subdued into
a long unvaried course of such severe virtue ; but well and wisely
did the Church, conscious of this, and called upon to repress ag-
gression that had snatched from her vei'v bosom a treasure by
her dearly loved, and exterminated religion in one of her choicest
provinces, — dreading, too, with reason, the persevering determi-
nation of the foe to push his conquest to- her very heart and
centre, — well did she to arouse the courage of her children, and
to arm them with the badge of salvation, and to send them forth
unto conquest ; turning that ver^' rudeness of character, which
refused humiliation, into the instrument of a penance which re-
quired energy, strength, and ardor. And who that contemplates
the strength of mind and the patience with which every human
evil was endured, — perils on land, and perils at sea, and perils
from lalse brethren, war, famine, captivity, and pestilence, — from
an entlmsiastic devotion to a religious cause, from a chivalrou.-:
atfection fur the records of redemption, will venture to say that
the indulgence deserved that name, or imposed but a liglit and
pleasant task? Whether the object justified the grant, some men
will, perhaps, permit themselves to doubt ; for there are always
* "Qiiicunque pro sola dPTOtione, non pro honoris vi'l pecuniie it<l<»|itione a-l libe-
randara ecclesiam I)ei .Jerusalem profectiis fuerit, iter illiul pro omiii iKviiifeDti*
. »j.iicttur." Can ii. Tliis w«e A D. 1095.
LECTTTRE XIT. 73
some colli hearts that measure others' ardor by their o^vn frozen
temperament, and refer the feelings of distant ages, and of men
whose minds were cast in a nobler mould, to the conventional
codes of modern theories. To such, the- enthusiasm of the ci-u-
sader will appear a frenzy, and the soil which was watered by
our Saviour's blood, no possession worth reconquering. But, for
our purpose, it is sufficient to know that thev who imparted spi-
ritual blessings to the warriors that placed the cross upon their
shoulders judged otherwise, and believed it an undertaking of
value and glory for every Christian.
II. Such is the charge of indulgences granted for profane or
evil purposes ; what shall we say of the avarice which has so
multiplied them? For what other object was the Jubillee in-
stituted, save to fill the coffers of the sovereign Pontiff with the
contributions of thousands of pilgrims, eager to gain its special
indulgences ? Ay, my brethren, I have witnessed one of these
lucrative institutions ; for I was in Rome when the venerable
Pontiff, Leo XII., opened and closed the -Jubilee, or Holy
Year. I saw the myriads of pilgrims who crowded every por-
tion of the city. I noted their tattered raiment and wearied
frames ; I saw the convents and hospitals filled with them at
night, reposing on beds furnished by the charity of the citizens;
I saw them at their meals served by princes and prelates, and
by the sovereign Pontiff himself; — but wealth poured into the
Roman coffers I saw not. I heard of blessings abundant, and
tears of gratitude, which thej" poured upon our charity as they
departed ; — but of jewels offered by them to shrines, or gold cast
into the bosoms of priests, I heard not. I learnt that the funds
of charitable institutions had been exhausted, and heavy debts
incurred by giving them hospitality; and if, after all this, the
gain and profit Avas in favor of our city, it is, that she must have
a large treasure of benediction to her account in Heaven ; for
there alone hath she wished her deeds on that occasion to be
recorded. Will you say that tlip undertaking and the hopes of
these men were fond and vain? Or, that they thought to gain
forgiveness by a pleasant excursion to the Holy City, and by the
neglect of their domestic duties ? Then I wish you could have
«een not merelj- the churches filled, but the public places and
squares crowded, to hear the word of God — for Churches would
not contain the audience: I wish you could have seen the throng
at every conft'ssiunal, and the multitutes that pressed round the
altar of God. to partake of its heaveuly gift. I wish you could
know the restitution of ill-gotten property which was made, the
Vol. 1 1.— K
74 LECTURE XII.
destruction of immoral and irreligious books -which took place,
the amendments of hardened sinners vrhich date from that time ;
and then you would understand why men and women undertook
the toilsome pilgrimage, and judge whether it was indulgence in
crime, and facility to commit sin, that is profifered and accepted
in such an institution.
And what I have feebly sketched of the last Jubilee is the
description of all. So far was the very first of these holy seasons,
in 1300, from bringing crowds of wealthy people to lavish their
riches in the purchase of pardon, as it is generally expressed,
that I have evidence, in which I am particularly interested, to
the contrary. The number of English who flocked to Rome on
that occasion was very great. But such was the state of destitu-
tion in which they appeared, and so unable were they even to
obtain a shelter, that their condition moved the compassion of a
respectable couple who had no children ;* and they resolved to
settle in the Eternal City, and devote their property to the en-
tertainment of English pilgrims. They accordingly bought a
house for that purpose, and spent the remainder of their lives in
the exercise of that virtue which St. Paul so much commends,
"harboring strangers, and washing the feet of the saints."t
To this humble beginning additions were soon made; the es-
tablishment for the reception of English pilgrims became an
object of national charity ; a church, dedicated to the blessed
Trinity, was erected beside it : and it was in latter times con-
sidered of sufficient consequence to merit royal protection. When
the unhappy separation of this country from the Church took
place, the stream of pilgrims ceased to flow ; but the charitable
bequest was not alienated. A cruel law forbade the education
of a Catholic clergy in this country ; and it was wisely and
piously determined by Pope Gregory XIII., that, if men came
no longer from our island to renew their piety and fidelity at the
tomb of the apostles, the institution intended for their comfort
should be employed in sending to them that which they could no
longer come in person to take, through zealous and learned
priests, who should imbibe the faith, or catch new fervor, from
those sacred ashes. The hospital of English pilgrims was con-
verted into a college for the education of ecclesiastics; many
therein brought up have sealed the faith with their blood, on the
scaffolds of this city ; and now, in peaceful times, it remains a
monument of English charity, dear to many, — to none more than
* Th«lr names wore Johe and Alice Shepherd. 1 1 Tim. v. 18
LECTURE XII. 76
k) me, — and, at the same time, a record of the poverty and des-
titution of those for whuse reception and relief it was originally
erected.
Do I then mean to say, that during the middle ages, and later,
no abuse took place in the practice of indulgences ? Most cer-
tainly not. Flagrant and too fi-f^quent abuses, doubtless, oc«
curred through the avarice, and rapacity, and impiety of men ;
especially when indulgence was granted to the contributors
towards charitable or religious foundations, in the erection of
which private motives too often mingle. But this I say, that the
Church felt and ever tried to remedj- the evil. These abuses were
most strongly condemned by Innocent III. in the Council of
Lateran in 1139, by Innocent IV. in that of Lyons in 1245, and
still more pointedly and energetically by Clement V. in the
Council of Vienna, in 1311. The Council of Trent, by an ample
decree, completely reformed the abuses which had subsequently
crept in, and had been unfoi-tunately used ias a ground for
Luther's separation from the Church.*
But even in those ages the real force, and th©-requisite condi-
tions of indulgences, were well understood, and by none better
than by that most calumniated of all Pontiffs, Gregory VII. In
a letter to the Bishop of Lincoln, he amply explains what are
the dispositions with which alone participation can be hoped for
in the indulgence offered by the Church.
We may, indeed, be asked, why we retain a name so often
misunderstood and misrepresented, and not rather substitute
another that has no reference to practices now in desuetude?
My brethren, to this I answer, that we are a people that love
antiquity even in words. We are like the ancient Romans, who
repaired and kept ever from destruction the cottage of Romulus,
though it might appear useless and mean to the stranger that
looked upon it. We call the offices of Holy Week Tenebrce, or
darkness, because the word reminds us of the times when the
night was spent in mournful offices before God's altar ; we retain
the name of Baptism, which means immersion, though the rite
is no longer performed by it. We cling to names that have their
rise in the fervor and glory of the past ; we are not easilj' driven
from the recollections which hang even npon syllables ; still less
do we allow ourselves to be driven from them by the taunts and
wishes of others, who seize upon them to attack and destroy the
dogma which they convey. No other word could so completely
*Ses*- xsT. Decret. de Indulg.
76 LECTURE xn.
express tur doctrine, as this "' distin^uitihoil name," to use the
trords of the Council of Trent.
III. After all that I have said, I need hardly revert to th*.
common method of throwing ridicule on indulgences, by depre-
ciating the works of piety or devotion to which they are attached.
Surely, did this accusation, even in its substance, hold good, the
true inquiry would be, Do Catholics, in consequence of such in-
dulgences, perform less fur God than their accusers, or than they
themselves would perform, if such indulgences were not granted ?
I answer, unhesitatingly — No. From what good work does an
indulgence, granted at any festival, hinder us? What prayer
less is said tlian by Protestants, or even than by Catholics at
other times? On the contrary, small as the work may be, while
the desire is hopeless of restoring a more rigorous discipline, is
it not better to exact that, which, if in no other way, by its ne-
cessary conditions, leads to what is valuable and salutary ? For
you, my Catholic brethren, know, that without a penitent con-
fession of your sins, and the worthy participation of the blessed
Eucharist, no indulgence is any thing worth. You know that
the return of each season, when the Church holds out to you an
indulgence, is a summons to your conscience to free itself from
the burthen of its transgressions, and return to God by sincere
repentance. You know, that, were not this inducement presented
to you, you might run on from month to month in thoughtless
neglect, or unable to rouse your courage for the performance of
such arduous duties. The alms which you then give, and the
prayers which you recite, are thus sanctified by a purer con-
science, and by the hopes of their being doubly acceptable to
God, through the ordinances of his Church. And let me add,
that one of these times of mercy is now approaching, and. 1 en-
treat you, allow it not to pass by unheeded. Prepare for it with
fervor — enter upon it with contrite devotion, and profit bv the
liberality with which the Spouse of Christ unlocks the treasure
of His mercies to her faithful children. And thus shall thu in-
dulgence be, as it is intended, for your greater perfectio* 'P'
Tirtuc, and the advancement of your eternal salvation.
LECTURE THE THIRTEENTH.
INVOCATION OF SAINTS: THEIR RELICS AND IMAUES.
'And the Angd being comt in, said. Hail, full of grace, ffie Lord is with ihee: bUtied
art tliou amongst -women."
The words which I have quoted to you, my brethren, are taken
from the Gospel read in the festival of this day ;* — a festival
which, as its very name imports, commemorates the great dig-
nity bestowed on the mother of our blessed Eedeemer, through
a message communicated to her by an angel from God : — a festival
which stands registered in the calendar of every religious de-
nomination, as a record and a monument of that belief which
was once held by the forefathers of all, but which now has be-
come the exclusive property of one, and for which that division
of Christians is, more than for any other reason, most frequently
and most solemnly condemned. For I am minded, this evening,
to treat of that honor and veneration which is paid by the Ca-
tholic Church to the Saints of God, — and, beyond all others, to
her whom we call the Queen of Saints, and venerate as the mo-
ther of the God of the Saints. I intend, then, to lay before you
the grounds of our doctrine and practice in regard to this mat-
ter, as also with regard to some others which naturally spring
from it.
Nothing, my brethren, seems so congenial to human nature,
as to look with veneration and respect on those who have gone
before us, holding up to us distinguished examples of any quali-
ties which we venerate and esteem. Every nation has its heroea
and its sages, whose conduct or teaching is proposed to succeed-
ing generations as models for imitation. The human race itself,
according to Holy Writ, had, in olden times, its giants, men of
renown ; — those who had made greater strides than their succes-
sors in the paths of distinctien, whether in things earthly, or in
those of a superior order ; men wliosc fame seems the property
of entire humanity, and wIkjso memory it lias become a duty,
* Jllarch 25. Tbf Annunciatiou of tlio Blessed Tirgiu Mary.
77
78 LECTURE XIII.
discharged -with affection, to cherish and preserve, as a pubhs
and common good, at once honorable and cheering to our
nature.
But, alas ! only in religion is it otherwise the case. It would
seem as though many thought that the religion of Christ may be
best exalted by depreciating their glory who were its highest
ornaments ; — by decrying their merits who were the brightest
examples of virtue to the world ; yea, and even by depressing
below the level or standard of ordinary goodness those great
men who, preceding us here below in our belief, not only have
left us the most perfect demonstration of its worth, but insured
us its inheritance by their sufferings, by their conduct, or by
their writings. It jars most cruelly with all our natural affec-
tions, to see hoAV such true heroes of the Church of God are
not merely stripped of the extraordinary honors which we
irc inclined to pay them, but are actually treated with dis-
respect and contumely: how some should seem to think that
the cause of religion can be advanced by representing them
as frailer and more liable to sin than others, and ever descant,
with a certain sort of gloating pleasure, on their falls and human
imperfections.
Nay, it has been even assumed, that the cause of the Son of
God was to be promoted, and Ilis mediatorship and honor ex-
alted, by deci'ying the worth and dignity of her whom He chose
to be His mother, and by striving to prove that sometimes He
had been undutiful and unkind to her ; for it has been asserted,
that we ought not to show any affection or reverence for her, —
on the blasphemous ground that in the exercise of even filial love
towards her our Saviour Himself was wanting !* Nor yet, my
brethren, is this the worst feature of the ease ; for a graver and
most awful charge is made against us, in consequence of our
belief. We are even denounced as idolators, because we pay a
certain reverence, and, if you please, worship, to the Saints of
God, and because Ave honor their outward emblems and repre-
sentations. Idolators! Know ye, my brethren, the import of
this name ? That it is the most frightful charge that can be
laid to the score of any Christian ? For, throughout God'a
Word, the crime of idolatry is spoken of as the most henious,
the most odious, and the most detestable in His eyes, even in
* It is the reason ,?iven by more sei-mons than one, against our devoticn to the
BIf.ised Virijiu, that (Uir Savioiii- trcatftl her harshl)', esppcially on two o<xa8ions:
Johu ii. 4; Mat. xii. 4S. Tbij< is not the place t» enter into the argument on thest
paMagus, especially the fir^t : for which I hope sooB to find a fitting opportuuit/
LECTURE xni. 79
*n individual; what, then, if committed in a mass, by millions
of men ?
Then, gracious God ! what must it be, when flung as an ac-
cusation upon those who have been baptized in the name of
Christ, who have tasted the sacred gift of His Body, and re-
ceived the Holy Ghost ; and of whom, therefore, St. Paul tells
us, that it is impossible that they be renewed unto penance?*
for this is what St. John calls a sin even unto death, for which
men are not to pray If Assuredly, they know not what they
say, who deliberately and directly make this enormous charge ;
and they have to answer for misrepresentation, — yea, for ca-
lumny of the blackest dye, — who hesitate not again and again to
repeat, with heartless earnestness and perseverance, this most
odious of accusations, without being fully assured — which they
cannot be — in their consciences, and before God, that it really
can be proved.
For, my brethren, what is~ idolatry? It is the giving to man,
or to any thing created, that homage, that adoration, and that
worship, which God h'ath reserved unto Himself; and to sub-
stantiate such a charge against us, it must be proved that such
honor and worship is alienated by us from God, and given to a
creature.
Now, what is the Catholic belief on the subject of giving wor-
ship or showing veneration to the saints, or their emblems?
Why, it is comprised in a definition exactly contradictory of the
one I have just given of idolatry! You will not open a single
Catholic work, from the folio decrees of Councils, down to the
smallest catechism placed in the hands of the youngest children,
in which you will not find it expressly taught, that it is sinful
to pay the same homage or worship to the saints, or to the
greatest of the saints, or the highest of the angels in Heaven, as
we pay to God : that supreme honor and worship are reserved
CT-olusively to Him, that from Him alone can any blessing pos-
uibly come, that He is the sole fountain of salvation, and grace,
and of all spiritual, or even earthly, gifts, — and that no one
created being can have any power, energy, or influence of its
own, in carrying into effect our wishes or desires. No one, surely,
will say, that there is no distinction between one species of ho-
mage or reverence, and another ; no one will assert, that when
we honor the king, or his representatives, or our parents, or
others in lawful authority over us, we are thereby derogating
Heb. tL 0. 1 1 John t. 16.
80 LECTURE xin.
from the eupremo honor due to God. Would not any one smile,
if he did not give way to a harsher feeling, were he taxed with
defrauding God of His true honor, because he paid reverence oi
esteem to others, or sought their intercession or assistance ? It
is wasting time to prove that there may be honor and worship,
— for, as I will show j-ou presently, this word is ambiguous, —
that thci'e may be reverence or esteem demonstrated, so sub-
servient to God, as in no way to interfere with what is due
to Him.
What I have cursorily stated, is precisely the Catholic belief
regarding the saints: that they have no power of themselves,
and that they are not to be honored and respected as though
they possessed it ; but, at the same time, that they are interces-
sors for us with God, praying for us to Him, and that it is righl
to address ourselves to them, and obtain the co-operation of this,
their powerful intercession, in our behalf. The very distinction
here made, excludes the odious charge, to which I have alluded
with considerable pain. For the very idea, that you call on any
being to jiray to God, is surely making an abyss, a gulf, between
him and God ; — it is making him a suppliant, a dependant on
the will of the Almighty; and surely these terms and these ideas
are in exact contradiction to all we can possibly conceive of tho
attributes and qualities of God.
But f go further still. Instead of taking any thing from God,
it is Adding immensely to His glory: by thus calling on tho
Sairts to pray for us, instead of robbing Him of a particle of tho
honor Avhich belongs to Him, we believe Him to be served in a
much nobler way than in any other. For we thereby raise our-
selves in imagination to Heaven ; we see the Saints prostrate
before Him in our behalf, offering their golden crowns and palms
before His footstool, pouring out befbi-e Him the odors of their
golden vials, which are the prayers of their brethren on earth,*
and interceding through the death and the passion of His Son.
And surely, if this be so, we are paying to God the highest ho-
mage, which his apostle describes as paid in heaven ; for we give
occasion, by every pi-ayer, for this prostration of His Saints, and
this outpouring of the fragrance of their supplications. Such
being the Catholic belief regarding tiie Saints, we must be fur-
ther convinced that it is, and can be, no ways displeasing to
God, that we should show a respect and honor to their remains
on earth, or to those images and representations which recall
*Rev. iT. 10,T.8.
LECTUKE Xin. 81
them to our remembrance. Nay, -we believe more than this;
for wo believe that God is pleased with this respect which we
show tl.em, ina.smuch as it is all ultimately directed to honor
Ilim in them. We doubt not, that He may be pleased to make
use of such outward and visible instruments, to excite the faith
of His people, and to bring them to a disposition of fervor, which
may produce salutary effects.
This is the sum of our belief on this subject, which I intend
to explain and support this evening. Before leaving this intro-
ductorv portion of it, allow me to make one or two remarks, on
the ambiguity of terms employed in the explanation, and still
more in the rejection, of this doctrine. The words "to worship,"
for instance, are constantly quoted ; it is said, that we speak of
worshipping the Saints as we do of worshipping God, and that
so we necessarily pay the same honor to both. This conclusion
only arises from the poverty of language, and from the diiEculty
of substituting another word. We all know perfectly well, that
the word "worship" is used on many occasions, when it does
not mean any thing more than respect and honor; and such was
its ancient and primary signification in our language. For in-
stance, in the marriage service, no one attaches to it the signifi-
cation of giving supreme or divine honor to the person said to
be worshipped. "With my body I thee worship." We know
that it is also a title of civil honor ; and no one imagines, that
when a person is called " worshipful," he is put on a level with
the Almighty. Why then, if Catholics use the term in speaking
of the Saints, — when they tell you again and again that they
mean a different honor from what they pay to God, — why shall
they be charged with paying an equal honor, merely because
they make use of the same term? It would not be difficult to
find many words and phrases, applied to the most dissimilar
acts, and used in the most varied circumstances, where no mis-
understanding is occasioned, simply for the reason that I have
stated ; because mankind have agreed to use them for different
purposes ; and no one will call his neighbor to account for so
using them, and taking them in any one of their various senses.
It is the same with the Latin word, "to adore," of which the
primary meaning was to place the hand to the mouth ; it simply
signified to show a mark of respect by outward salutation. The
t*rm was later applied peculiarly to supreme worship, yet so as
to be extended in the Oliurch to other objects of respect ; still,
in ordinary language, we no longer use it, except when speak-'
ing of God. It would be very unjust to hold us accountable foi
82 LECTURE XITI.
the word's being found in those formulas of devotion, which were
instituted before these controversies arose, and when its meaning
was so well understood, that no ambiguity could occur. And
certainly they are not consistent, who quote against us those
services in which we are said to adore the Cross, for they
are taken from liturgies used in the very earliest ages of the
Church.
There is another point, on which I shall not be able to deal at
length ; although, if time allow me, I may touch upon it later: I
mean the abuses said to follow from the Catholic doctrine. We
are made responsible for all its abuses. Why so? We have
only to demonstrate our doctrines; and supposing — granting,
that abuses have £.t times and in some places crept in, I would
ask is that any reason why what is in itself lawful should bo
abolished ? Are men to be deprived of that which is wholesome,
because some make an improi:er use of it? Is there any thing
more abused than the Bible, the word of God ? — is there any
thing more misapplied ? — has it not been employed for purposes
and in circumstances which may not be named ? Is there any
thing which has been more frequently called in to the aid of
fanatical proceedings than this sacred word of God, or which
has been more repeatedly quoted in such a way, by the thought-
less and ignorant, as to expose it even to ridicule ? And are
others to be charged with these abuses ? Shall we say that the
word of God is to be abolished ? The same must be said here :
— when we have laid down the Catholic doctrin-o, with its rea-
sons, I leave it to any one's judgment how far the Church can
be expected to abolish it, if received from Christ, on the gi-ound
that it has given rise to abuse. But, as I before observed, if I
have time, I may touch upon these supposed abuses, and inquire
how far they exisi.
The Catholic doctrine regarding the Saints is therefore two-
fold ; — in the first place, that the Saints of God make intercession
befoi'e Him for their brethren on earth ; — in the second place,
jhat it is lawful to invoke their intercession. Knowing that they
do pray for us, we say it must be lawful to turn to them, and
ask and entreat of them to use that influence which they possess,
in interceding on our behalf.
There is a doctrine inculcated in every creed, known by the
name of the Communion of Saints. Perhaps many who have
repeated the apostles' creed again and again, may not have
thought it necessary to examine what is the meaning of these
words, or what is the doctrine they inculcate. It is a pro-
LECTURE xni. 88
feseion of belief ia a certain communion with the Saints. How
does this communion exist between us and them ? May any
friendly ofi&ces pass between us? Or, if no such intercourse be
permitted, in what can this communion consist ? For, commu-
nion among the faithful, among the members of a family, or
among the subjects of a state, implies that there is among thea
an interchange of mutual good offices, and that one is, in some
way, ready to assist the other. If, therefore, we believe in a
communion between us and the Saints, assuredly there must be
acts, reciprocal acts, which form the bond of union between them
and us. How, then, is this kept up ? The Catholic Church has
always been consistent in its doctrines. It does not fear ex-
amining to the quick any proposition which it lays down, or
any dogma to which it exacts submission from all its subjects ;
it is not afraid of pushing to the farthest scrutiny all the conse-
quences that flow from its doctrines. Consequently, if you ask
a Catholic what he means by the communion of saints, he has
no hesitation on the subject ; his ideas are clear and defined — ^he
tells you at once that he understands by it an interchange of
good offices between the saints in heaven and those who are
fighting here below for their crown ; whereby they intercede •
on our behalf, look down upon us with sympathy, take an
interest in aU that we do and suffer, and make use of the
influence which they necessarily possess with God, towards
assisting their frail and tempted brethren on earth. And, to
balance all this, we have our offices towards them, inasmuch as
we repay them in respect, admiration, and love ; with the feeling
that they, who were once our brethren, having nin their course,
and being in possession of their reward, we may turn to them
in the confidence of brethren, and ask them to use that influence
with their Lord and ours, which their charity and goodness
move them to exert.
This is a portion of the doctrine, and seems to enter so natu-
rally and fitly jnto all our ideas of Christianity, as to recommend
itself at once to any unprejudiced mind. For, what is the idea
which the Gospel gives us of the Christian religion t I showed
you, on another occasion, how the very expressions and terras
applied to religion in the Old Law were continued in the New ;
whence I deduced, that the religion of Christ was the perfection,
the completion, but still the continuation, of that which preceded
it. Well, in like manner do we find that the very terms and ex-
pressions whi^li are applied to the Church of Christ on earth,
are constantly adopted into allusion to the Church in Heaven,
$4 LECTURE Xm.
the reign of the saints Avitli God. This likewise is spjken of a?
the kingdom of God, the kingdom of the Father and of Christ,
precisely as is the Church on earth ; as though it formed with us
but one Church and community of brethren — they in a glorified
and happy, and we in a suffering and tempted state — still having
a certain connection implied, and being considered, in the same
manner, under the government of God. It is spoken of in these
terms by St. Paul. Instead of representing the Blessed in Heaven
as removed immeasurablj' from us, as Lazarus in Abraham's
bosom was from the rich man in hell, he speaks as if we already
enjoyed society with them — as if we had already come to the
heavenly Jerusalem, and to the company of many thousands of
angels,* and to the spirits of the just made perfect; thus show-
ing that the death of Christ had actually broken down the bar-
rier or partition wall, made all extremes one, and joined the Holy
of Holies to the outward precients of the Tabernacle.
We are told, likewise, by St. Paul, that those virtues which ex-
isted on earth are annihilated in heaven — all except one, and
that is Charity or Love. Faith and Hope are there extinguished,
but Charity, affection, remains unimpaired, and even is become
the essence of that blessed existence. Who will for a moment
'imagine — who can for an instant entertain the thought, that the
child which has been snatched from its parent by having been
taken from a world of suffering, does not continue to love her
whom it has left on earth, and sympathize with her sorrows over
its grave ? Who can believe that, when friend is separated from
friend, and when one expires in the prayer of hope, their friend-
ship is not continued, and that the two are not united in the-
same warm affection which they enjoyed here below? And if it
was the privilege of love on earth — if it was one of its holiest
duties, to pray to the Almighty for him who was so perfectly
beloved, and if it never was surmised that injury was tliereby
inflicted on God, or on the honor and mediatorship of Christ, can
we suppose that this holiest, most beautiful, and most perfect
duty of charity hath ceased in heaven ? Is it not, on the con-
trary, natural to suppose, that, as that charity is infinitely more
vivid and glowing there than it was here, in its exercise, also, it
must be infinitely more powerful? and that the same impulse that
led the spirit, clogged and fettered with the body, to venture to
raise its supplications to the clouded throne of God for its friend,
will now, after its release, act with tenfold energy, when it sees
* H«b. xii iX
LECTtmE xni. 85
the inrmmcrable pitfalls and daugcrs, the immense risks, and
the thousands of temptations, to -which he is exposed, and the
infinite joy he is destined to possess? 'whioh experience now
teaches it are thousands and millicms of times more than earth
can possibly give or take awny. Seeing clearly in vision the
fa?- of God, enjoying the fulness of His glory and splendor,
having the willingness and power to assist- — can we believe that
it will not with infinitely more effect raise its pure and faultless
prayers in a tone of confident supplication, in favor of him to
whom it was linked in affection here below? Can we believe
that God ivould deprive charity of its highest prerogative, when
He has given it its brightest crown? Triily then, my brethren,
tliere is nothing repugnant to our ideas of God or of His attri
bates or institutions in all this, — on the contrary, it seems abso-
lately necessary to fill up the measure of His mercy, and to com-
plete the picture of His Church here, as connected to that above,
which He has exhibited to us in His word.
But have we not something much more positive than what I
have stated, in this word of God ? Yes ; for we have the plainest
and strongest assurances that God does receive the prayers of the
saints and angels, and that they are constantly employed in sup-
plications in our behalf; and this is the chief fundamental prin-
ciple of our lielief. Of this we have all the proof we can desire.
For we have the belief of the universal Jewish Churcli, confirmed
in the New Law. The belief of the Old Law is clear ; for we
find thiit, in tlie later books particularly', the angels are spoken
of constantly, as in a state of ministration to the wants and ne-
cessities of mankind. In the book of Daniel, for instance, wc
read of angels sent to instruct him, and we haA'e mention made
of the princes, meaning the angels of different kingdoms.* In
the book of To])ias, — which, whatever any one present may think
of its canonicity, as I said on a former occasion of the book of
Maccabees, must be consider ,J, at least, as a strong testimonial
of the belief of the Jcavs, — we find these words expressly put
iiito the mouth of an angel : — "When thou didst pray with tears,
and didst bury the dead, and didst leave thy dinner and hide
the dead by day in thy house, and bury them by night, I offered
thy prayers to the Lord."t In the book of Maccabees, we have
the same doctrine repeated. It is there said, that Onias, who
had been High Priest, appeared to Judas Maccabeus, "holding
up his arms and praying for the people of the Jews. After this,
•Dmi. viii. 16;ii. 21; x. 13; xii. 1. fTob.xil. 12.
86 LECTURE XIII.
there appeared also another man, admirable for age and g^ory
and environed ■with great beauty and majesty. Then Onias said,
' This is a lover of his brethren, and of the people of Israel : this
is he that prayeth much for the people, and for all the holy city,
Jereniias the prophet of God.'"* Such, then, was the belief of
the Jews, and such it is at the present day.
But is there any thing in the New Testament to contradict it,
and give reason to suspect for a moment, that our blessed Saviour
rejected and reprobated this conviction? Does he not, on the
contrary, speak of it as a thing well undei'stood, and in terms
which, so far from reproving, must have gone so far to confirm
his hearers in this belief? "Even so," says our Saviour, "there
shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more
than upon ninety-nine just that need not penance."! What is
here signified, but that communion of which I spoke, whereby a
sinner's repenting here below is matter of joy and gladness to
the angels? And we are elsewhere taught that the saints of
God shall be like His angels. J We have also the angels of indi-
viduals spoken of; and we ai-e told not to offend any of Christ's
little ones, or make them fall, because their angels always see
the face of their Father, who is in Heaven.^ Why, this to all
appearance goes as much as the Catholic belief, and more, to
affect the superintendence and guidance, and general providence
of God. We are to take care to avoid sin, because it offends the
angels ! we are to avoid being the cause of these little ones' fall,
because their angels see the face of God ! What does this mean,
but that they have an influence with God, and will use it to
bring down judgment on the offender ? For, in fact, wherefore
is the connection between the angels and men alluded to, except
to show that the former, ei^joying the divine presence, have a
powerful advantage over us, which they will employ in visiting
with severe vengeance transgressions against those entrusted to
their care ? And what is that but establishing a communion
and connection between them and their little charge, in the way
jf intercession ?
But, in the Apocalypse, we have still stronger authority ; for
we there read of our prayers being as perfumes in the hands of
angels and saints. One blessed spirit was seen by St. John to
stand before a mystical altar in heaven, "having a golden censer,
and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer
the prayers of all saints upon the gi )lden altai', which is before
•aM»cx*.12, t I-Bke XV. 7. 10. IMat. xxu.30 JMatxTui. 20.
LECTURE xnr. 87
the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prajors
of the saints ascended up before God, from the hands of the
angels."* And not only the angels, but the twenty-four elders,
cast themselves before the throne of God, and, as I before re-
marked, pour out vials of sweet odors, which are the prayers of
the saints. What does all this signif}^ but that they do present
our prayers to God, and become our intercessors with Ilim?
From all this it is proved, that the saints and angels know
what passes on earth — that they are aware of what we du and
suffer ; otherwise they could not rejoice in any good that we do,
nor resent any misfortune that befals us. In the second place,
we have it sufficiently proved, that the saints do more than
barely know and interest themselves about us ; for they actually
present our prayers to God, and intercede in our behalf with
Him. Here, then, is a basis, and a sufficient one, for the Catholic
belief, — such a basis as surely should give rise to some doctrine
or other in the true religion. But where is this doctrine to be
found in those religious systems which reject and exclude all
intei'cessiou of the saints, all intercourse between those on earth
and their brethren already in bliss ? Assuredly these texts prove
something. For if all contained in the word of God is true, and
must form a rule of faith, such clear testimony as this, regarding
the connection between mankind and the blessed, must form the
subject of a doctrine. Where, then, is this found ? Nowhere
but in the Catholic belief — that prayers are offered for us by
the saints, and that, therefore, we may apply to them for their
supplications.
To establish this more fully, it is necessary to look into the
doctrine of the Church in the earliest ages ; and I can have only
one fear, one motive of hesitation, in laying before you passages
on this subject. It is not that I may weary you by the number
of my quotations ; for that, I fear, may have been the case with
regard to almost every doctrine that I have supported by tradi-
tion and the testimony of the Fathers ; yet, in every case, though
I have read a great number of texts, I have in reality given you
only a selection from many more. But my i-eason for apprehen-
sion at present is, that, in the authorities from the Fathers on
this subject, their expressions are so much stronger than those
used by the Catholics at the present day, that there is danger,
if I may so say, of proving too much. They go far beyond us ;
and consequently, if we are to be considered idolaters, God knows
* Rev. viu. 3,,4.
88 LECTURE XIIL
what terms must be found to qualify their iMpressions. Iiet lis
begin with the very first ages of the Church, and let us not take
ambiguous words, but the simplest and most natural expression?
of the feelings of the earliest Christians.
Every part of Rome is undermined with catacombs, in which
. *he bodies of saints and martyrs were deposited after their deaths.
The tombs are even some of them as yet sealed up and unbroken ;
some with inscriptions on them, or perhaps a palm-branch rudely
sculptured, to show that there repose the martyrs of Christ.
We have phials, adhering and fastened to the covers of the tombs,
in the walls of the catacombs, in which are sponges, or sediment,
still tinged with the color of blood ; indeed, the very instruments
;if martyrdom are constantly found in tombs. Certainly, these
were men who knew Christianity, who fully appreciated Avhat
was due to Christ, for whom they died, who were fully convinced
that nothing on earth Avas to be preferred before Him, and that
no creature could pretend to one particle of the honor reserved
by Ilim to Himself! Surely we cannot want purer or more satis-
factory witnesses to what Christ instituted, than they who shoil
their blood to seal its truth ; we cannot want teachers better im-
bued with the spirit of His religion, than those who were ready
to lay down their lives to defend it ! Let us see what was their
Ijelief regarding their brethren, when they deposited them in
these tombs, and sealed them up, and inscribed on them their
regrets or their hopes. Nothing is more common than to find on
them a supplication, a prayer to the saints or martyrs, to inter-
cede for the survivors with God. In the year 1694, was dis-
covered a remarkable tomb of the martyr Sabbatius, in the
cemetery of Gordian and Epimachus. On the one side, was the
palm-branch, the emblem of martyrdom, and on the other, the
wreath or crown given to conquerors, with this inscription, in a
rude latinity : —
SABBATI • DVLCIS * ANIMA ' PETE ' ET ' ROGA
PRO • FRATRES " ET ' SODALES ' TVOS
" SabV>atius, sweet soul, pray aud entreat for thy brethren and comrad'S."
These early Christians, then, jray to the martyr to intercede foi
his brethren on earth.
In the cemetery of Callixtus, is another inscription of the same
antiquity, which runs thus : —
ATTICE • SPIRITVS ' TVVS
IX • BOXV • ORA • PRO * PAREN^
TIBVS ■ TVIS
« Atticiu, thy epirit is in bliss : pray for thy pureatf."
LECTURE XIII. 89
[n that of Cyriaca, we have an inscription in much the same
(«rms • —
lOVIANE • VIVAS • IN " DEO ' ET
ROG •
" JoTianug, may you live in God and pray."
In that of Prieilla, we have another, very touching and beai»
tiful in the original : —
ANATOLINVS ' FILIO " BENEMERENTI * FECIT
QVI • VIXIT • ANNIS • VII
SPIRITVS • TVVS • BEN'E " REQVIES
CAT • IN • DEO • PETAS " PRO * SORORE ' TVA
" Anatolinus made this monument to his well-deserving son,
who lived seven years. May thy spirit rest well in
God, and thou pray for thy sister."
Marini gives us another old Christian inscription, to this
effect : —
ROGES • PRO • NOBIS " QVIA * SCI.MVS ' TE * IN " CHRISTO
" 1 ray for us, because we know that thou art in Christ."
These are most of them inscriptions on the tombs of martyrs,
whose bodies were deposited therein during the very first centu-
ries of Christianity, when men were ready to die for the faith
uf Christ.* They were inscribed by those who saw them suft'er,
and who were, perhaps, themselves to be the next to lay down
their lives ; and yet did they not think, that by entreating their
prayers, they wei'e derogating from the glory of God, or the me-
diatorship of Christ.
If from these monuments, which are of the greatest interest,
because they exist as they did when first erected, and cannot
have been subject to the slightest change, we descend to the re-
corded opinions of the Fathers, we have precisely the same sen-
timents. And I beg particularly to direct your attention to the
following circumstances in these authorities. In the first place,
they directly ask the saints to pray for them ; secondly, in speak-
ing of the saints, they mention the way in which they are to be
assisted by them, througli intercession ; and thirdly, thc}'^ make
use of expressions apparently requesting from the saints them-
selves those blessings whieli were to come from God. They do
not simply say, "Pray for us, intercede for us:" but "Deliver
as, grant us :" not because they believed the saints could do so
dF themselves, l)iit because, in comnKni parlance, it is usual to ask
*See my learned ti-iend Dr. Koek's IIievur{;ia, where these inscriptions have be«n
»>!lccted. Vol. ii. [A more striking inscription than any of those given lu the text
bae been lately found in the Oem^tef of St. Agues, and wiU soon be published.
Vol. U — M
90 LECTURE xin.
directly from an intercessor, the favor which we believe his in-
fluence can obtain. I insist on this point, because it is charged
against Catholics, that they ask of the blessed Virgin " deliver-
ance ;" saying, in the introduction to her Litany, " deliver us
from all danger ;" that they beg of the saints to help them :
although this is nothing more than the same form of speech as
the Fathers use. And in the fourth place, I request you to ob-
8crve how they distinguished, as Catholics do, between worship
due to God, and the homage due to His saints, using the selfsame
terms as we.
In the second century, we have St. Irenseus telling us, that,
" as Eve was seduced to fly from God, so was the Virgin Mary
induced to obey Him, that she might become the advocate of her
that had fallen."* In the third century, we have the testimony
of several Fathers ; but I will select two, one from the Greek
and one from the Latin Church. Origen says : " And of all the
holy men who have quitted this life, retaining their charity
towards those whom they left behind, we may be allowed to say,
that they are anxious for their salvation, and that they assist
them by their prayers and their mediation with God, For it is
written in the books of the Maccabees: This is Jeremiah the
prophet of God, who always prays for the people."^ Again, he
thus writes, on the Lamentations : " I will fall down on my
knees, and not presuming, on account of my crimes, to present
my prayer to God, I will invoke all the saints to my assistance.
0 ye saints of heaven, I beseech you, with sorrow full of sighs
and tears, fall - at the feet of the Lord of mercies for me, a
miserable sinner,"| St. Cyprian, in the same century: "Let us
be mindful of one another in our prayers ; with one mind and
with one heart, in this world and in the next, let us always pray,
with mutual chanty relieving our sufferings and afflictions. And
may the charity of him, who, by the divine favor, shall first de-
part hence, still persevere before the Lord ; may his prayer, for
our brethren and sisters, not cease."| Therefore, after our de-
parture from this life, the same offices of charity are to continue,
by our praying for those who remain on earth.
In the fourth century, Eusebius of Csesarea thus writes:
' May we be found worthy by the prayers and intercession of
all the saints." II In the same century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem
speaking of the Liturgy, thus expresses himself: "We nex>
* Adver. H.t>res. L. v. c. six. p. 3(51.
t Lib. iii. in Cant. Cantic. T. iii. p. 75. Lib. 11. de Job.
i £p. iTii. p. 96. IQom. in l£ai. x. xi. p. 593. £d. Par. 1700.
LECTURE XIII. 91
commemorate those who are gone before us ; the patriarchs,
prophets, apostles, and martyrs ; begging that, through their
prayers, Uod would receive our supplications. We then pray
for the holy fathers and bishops that are dead, and for all the
faithful departed, believing that their souls receive very great re-
lief by the prayers that are offered for them while this holy and
tremendous victim lies upon the altar."* St. Basil, one of the
most eloquent and learned writers of tliat century, expresses
himself in much wai-mer and enthusiastic terms, in his panegyric
on forty martyrs, in these words : " These are they, who, having
taken possession of our country, stand as towers against the in-
cursions of the enemy. Here is a ready aid to Christians. Often
have you endeavored, often have you toiled, to gain one intercessor.
You have now forty, all emitting one common prayer. Whoever
is oppressed by care, has recourse to their aid, as he has that
prospers : the first, to seek deliverance ; the second, that his good
fortune may continue. The pious mother is found praying for
her children ; and the wife for the return and the health of her
husband. 0 ye common guardians of the human race, co-
operators in our prayers, most powerful messengers, stars of
the world, and flowers of Churches, let us join our prayers with
yours. "t
Another saint of this age, St. Ephrem, is remai-kable as the
oldest father and writer of the oriental Church. His expressions
are really so exceedingly strong, that I am sure some Catholics
of the present day would feel a certain difficulty in using some
of them in their prayers, for fear of offending persons of another
religion ; they go so much beyond those which we use. " I en-
treat you," he says, " holy martyrs, who have suffered so much
for the Lord, that you would intercede for us with Him, that He
bestow His grace on us. "J Here he simply prays to the saints,
asking their intercession, just as Catholics do. But now listen
to the following: "We fly to thy patronage. Holy Mother of
God ; protect and guard us under the wings of thy mercy and
kindness. Most merciful God, through the intercession of the
most blessed Virgin Mary, and of all the angels, and of all the
•Catech. Mystag. v. n. Tiii. ix. p. 327, 328. This text affords additional proof of
what I advanced in a note to Lecture xi. p. 57, that the fathers clearly distinguieb
between the commemoratiou of martyrs and saints in the Liturgy, and that of
other Rouls departed ; and that they distinguish two states, one for the perfect, and
•he other for the imperfect.
tHjm. xix. in 40 Martyres, T. ii pp. 155, 156.
ty-' im. in SS. Mart. T. iu. p. 261
92 LECTURE xni.
saints, show pity to thy creature :"* — the very form of prayci
quoted again and again in the itinerant discourses made against
us, from the beginning of the Litany of the blessed Virgin, as
the strongest proof that we worship her. There are passages.
however, innumerable in his writings, much stronger ; and I will
road you one or two, as specimens of the many prayers found in
liis works addressed to the blessed Virgin. "In thee. Patroness,
and Mediatrix with God, who was born from thee,t the human
race, 0 Mother of God, placeth its joy ; and ever is dependent
upon thy patronage : and, in thee alone, hath refuge and defence,
who hast full confidence in Him. Behold, I also draw nigh to
thee, with a fervent soul, not having courage to approach thy
Son, but imploring, that, through thy intercession [(».iairiio^] I
may obtain salvation. Despise not, then, thy servant, whu
placeth all his hopes in thee, after God ; reject him not, placed
in grievous danger, and oppressed with many griefs ; but thou,
who art compassionate, and the mother of a merciful God, have
mercy upon thy servant ; free me from fatal concupiscence," &c.
In the course of this prayer, our Blessed Lady is called, " tho
precious vision of the prophet, the clearest fulfilment of all pro-
phecy, the eloquent mouth of the apostles, the strength of kings,
the boast of the priesthood, the forgiveness of sins, the propitiar
tion of the just Judge, the rise of the fallen, tlie redemption from
sins," &c. In another prayer, we meet the following words, ad-
dressed to the same ever-glorious Virgin : " After the Trinity
(thou art) mistress of all ; after the Paraclete, another paraclete;
after the Mediator, mediatrix of the whole world. ."J Surely
this is more than enough, to prove, that if this glory of the
Syriac Church, this friend of the great St. Basil, had lived in
our times, he would not have been allowed to officiate in the
English Church ; but would have been obliged to retire to some
humble chapel, if he wished to discharge his sacred functions.
For these are stronger expressions than arc ever used by any
Catholic now ; yet this saint is not only considered liy us the
brightest ornament of the Syriac and Oriental Church, but is
equally regarded as such by Ncstoriaus, and Monophysites, and
other sectaries, who have separated from us since his time. Wo
have a glowing panegyric of him in the Avorks of St. Gregory of
*Serm. de Land. B. Mar. Virg. T. iii. p. lo6.
fMeffiriji/ jrpoj Toi' t/c oov rtx^ivra Qtov. Thi'< prayer occurs in his Gre^k
Works, \ri. iii. p. U?:!.
I'll ;if ru Ti> Toiiit^a iravTuv Ssarrdu-ii. f) ;<£rrt rov rr(ipii*iAi(roi' ilXA'Jf )ra/)4«cAi»ro|
tal utTot roc iKaiTiiv neoirijj Koaptov wavrdi. — P 62H.
LECTURE XTIT. 93
Nyesa; he ^vas tlic liosoin friend of St. Basil, and is alwayif
spoken of liy liim with the jrveatest affection and reverence, as a
man of di;<tin^uished virtin>, and so humble that he never ad-
vanced beyond the order of deacon in the Church of Edessa.
And St. Gregory of Xyssa thus addresses him after his death :
" Do thou novr, lieing present at God's altar, and with His angels
offering sacrifice to the Prince of life, and to the most holy
Trinity, remember us ; begging for us the pardon of our sins."*
The same doctrine, therefore, manifestly prevailed in every part
of tlie Church, and was as much held in the Greek as in the
Latin or Oriental.
St. Gregory of Nazianzum, speaking of his deceased friend,
St. Basil, says: "Now, indeed, he is in heaven; there, if I mis-
take not, offering up sacrifices for us, pouring out prayers for
the people: for he has not left us, so as to have deserted us. And
do thou, sacred and holy Spirit, look down, I beseech thee, on
us: arrest by th}- prayers that sting of the flesh which was given
to us for our correction, or teach us how to bear it with forti-
tude: guide all our ways to that which is best; and, when we
shall depart hence, receive us then into thy society ; that with
thee, beholding more clearly that blessed and adorable Trinity,
which now we see in a dark manner, we may put a final close to
all our wishes, and receive the reward of the labors which we
have borne. "t St. Gregory of Nyssa, the brother of St. Basil,
whom I have once already quoted, uses language equally expres-
sive, in his discourse on the martyr Theodorus. These are his
words: "Invisible though thou art, come as a friend to them
that honor thee; come and behold this solemn feast. We stand
ir need of manj- favors : be our envoy for thy country before our
common King and Lord. The country of the martyr is the
place of his suffering: his citizens, his brothers, his relations,
are they who possess, who guard, who honor him. We are in
fear of afflictions; we look for dangers: the Scythians approach
us with dreadful war. Thou, indeed, hast overcome the world;
but thou knowest the feelings and the wants of our nature. Beg
for us the continuance of peace, that these our public meetings
Ije not dissolved ; that the wicked and raging barbarian over
throw not our temples and our altars : that he tread not under
foot thy holy places That hitherto we have lived in safety, we
owe to thy fiwor: we implore thy protection for the days that are
to come ; and if a host of prayers be necessary, assemble th«
•Tom. a. p. 1018. + Oral. sx. de Laud, S. btsil. T. ii. p. 372, 373.
94 LECTURE XIII.
choirs of 3-our l>rothor martyrs, and supplicate ill tog( thcr for
us. The united .services of so many just ■will cover the sins of
the people. Admonish Peter, solicit Paul, call John, the beloved
disciple, and let them intercede for the Churches, which they
themselves have founded."*
Here is a passage from St. Ambrose : "Peter and Andrew in-
terceded for the widow. (Luke iv. 38.) It were well if we could
obtain so speedy an Intercessor: but surely those who implored
the liOrd for their relation, can do the same for us. You see,
that she, who was a sinner, was little fitting to pray for herself, or
at least to obtain what she asked. Other intercessors to the
Physician were therefore necessary. — The Angels, who are ap-
pointed to be our guardians, must be invoked ; and the martyrs
like'wise, whose bodies seem to be a pledge for their patronage.
They, who in their blood washed away every stain of sin, can
implore forgiveness for us: they are our guides, and the behold-
ers of our lives and actions : to them, therefore, we should not
blush to have recourse."!
Now then, I will show you, by an example, how nicely these
early writers drew the distinction which Catholics now do. St.
Epiphanius thus writes of the Blessed Virgin, reproving the
errors of the Collyridian heretics, who adored her, and offered
sacrifice to her: "Though, therefore, she was a chosen vessel,
and endowed with eminent sanctity, still she is a woman, par-
taking of our common nature, but deserving of the highest honors
shown to the saints of God — She stands before them all, on ac-
count of the heavenly mystery accomplished in her. But we
adore no saint : — and as this worship is not given to Angels,
much less can it be allowed to the daughter of Ann. — Let Mai-y
then be honored, but the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost alone be
adored: let no one adore Mary."| St. Augustine makes the same
exact distinction, where he thus wi'ites: — "The Christian people
celebrate the memories of the martyrs with a religious solemnity,
in order that they may learn to imitate them, and may be asso-
ciated to their merits, and be aided by their prayers: but to
ao martyr — to the God alone of martyrs, in memory of them, do
vre raise altars. For what bishop, among the repositories of holy
bodies, assisting at the altar, was ever heard to say : To thee
Peter, to thee, PiAil, or to thee, Cyprian, do we make this offer-
ing ? To God, alone, who crowned the martyrs, is sacrifice of-
• Orat. in Tlieod. Martyr. T. ii. p. 1017. t I^il*- de Tiduis, 1. il. p aoa
X AdT. Collyridianos Heer. liy. sive Ixxix. T. i. p. 1061, 106i^ 1661.
-LECTURE XIII. 95
fored in tho places -whore their relics rest; that the sight of these
places may excite a warmer sentiment towards those whom we
should imitate; and towards him, by whose aid it ran he accom-
plished. We venerate, therefore, the martyrs with that venera-
tion of regard, with which holy men are here treated upon earth,
who are disposed, we know, to suffer for the truth of the Gospel.
When they have suffered, and have conquered, our veneration is
more devoted and more firm, as they ai*e translated from a state
of conflict to a state of permanent happiness. But with that
worship, which the Greeks call xatpsio, and which in Latin can-
not be expressed by one word — as it is a worship properly due
only to the Divinity — wiih that worship we worship God alone.
To this belongs the offering of sacrifice ; whence they are idola-
ters who sacrifice to idols. We offer no sacrifice to any martyr,
nor to any saint, nor to any angel; and should any one fall into
the error, sound doctrine will so raise its voice that, he be cor-
rected, or condemned, or avoided."* Before making a few re-
marks on these passages, I will quote one more from this great
Father, which confirms as well the doctrine of purgatory: — "It
is a proof," he writes, "of kind regard towards the dead, when
their bodies are deposited near the monuments of saints. But
hereby what are they aided, unless in this, that, recollecting the
place where they lie, we be induced to recommend them to the
patronage of those saints for their prayers with God? Calling
therefore to mind the grave of a departed friend, and the near
monument of the venerable martyr, we naturally commend the
soul to his prayers. And that the souls of those will be thereby
benefited, who so lived as to deserve it, there can be no doubt."t
The distinction drawn in the two passages just quoted, and in
many others, is pi'ecisely the same as we make ; that sacrifice
and supreme homage are reserved to God alone, but that the
saints are intercessors for us, and that we may i woke them as
such. What are we to say to these testimonies ? Nothing can
be more manifest than that the doctrine of these fathers is pre-
cisely the same as I have laid down, and just what is declared
in the Council of Trent, or in the Catechisms taught to our chil-
dren. Are we to say that they were involved in the same idolatry
as ourselves ? For it is not with this dogma as with some others •
the consequences of error here are most serious. It might have
been said, in other circumstances, that some errors were allowed
T. Tiii. p. 347.
iv. T. Ti. p. 619.
96 LECTURE XIII.
to creep iuto tlio Churoli; but wlien it is ni;untiune<l thit th»
entire Church was, or is all involved iu iilolatry, it is a fatiU
charge. Will yuu venture to say that the whole of the Church,
in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries, in Italy, in
Greece, in Syx'ia, in Mesopotamia, and in every^ other part of the
world, was universally plunged into idolatrj'? Is it not a fear-
ful venture in any man to assert that a few individuals in one
country, that a small Church, or rather a collection of conflicting
religious communities, in one island of the globe, and perhaps a
comparatively small number of Christians in some other parts,
are alone the possessors, after a lapse of eighteen hundred
years, of the true faith of Christ? and that to such an extent, as
to suppose that from this deep morass of frightful and fetid cor-
ruption, it did not emei'ge until tiie superior illumination of
this small portion of mankind enabled them to see the light of
ti'uth : to such an extent as to imagine that they who were ready
to die for Him, and who were actuated by the purest zeal for his
glory, were idolaters ! "Who will refuse to call Basil, Augustine,
Jerome, Ambrose, and Irenaeus, saints? Who will refuse to
give them that title ? Read their works, and will you venture to
say that such men, such chosen, favored spirits, Avere immersed
in that damnable idolatr}' in which all men were plunged for
eight hundred 3'ears and more, according to the stern declaration
of the Book of Homilies? Is it not on their testimony that
many dogmas most essential to Christianity now rest? Is it
not on their authority, and on that of others like them, that we
mainly receive the doctrine of the Trinity and of Christ's Divi-
nity ? Can they have preserved these doctrines pure and uncon-
taminated as they came from God? and shall it yet be said that
they themselves were so grossly corrupted in faith as tu be wal-
lowing in what must be considered the lowest abyss of sinful idol-
atry? Here is a solemn problem to be solved, not only to those
who charge us with this crime, but l)y all wlio deny ours to be
the true doctrine of the true Church of Christ.
Then their difficulties increase at every step ; for I further
ask, what will they say of the worth and power of Christ, whc
jame to establish His religion on the ruins of idolatry, if iu less
than one or two hundred years it triumphed again over His
work: yea, if, even while the martyr's blood flowed, it could have
been written, that in behalf of idolatry it was shed, and that
they, indeed, died for refusing to give homage to the false gods
of the heathens, yet at the very time were showing lumor tc
their deceased fellow-men, and thereby perpetrating the eno?-
LECTURE XIIT. 97
OKHIB crime which they were shiughtered for refusing tc commit!
Surely these are diffii'ultics that must be overcome ; for is it not
mocking, deriding Chrifit, to believe that He came down to cast
afire upon earth, saying, "I will that it be enkindled;"* that
is, the fire of charity, and faith, and the true liglit of God ; and
that, after this expression of His will and determination, it should
have been extinguished so soon ; that the truth should have been
trodden out by that very monster whose head He came to crush ;
that the idolatry which he came to uproot was of so powerfijl a
growth, and the seed of His word was so feeble, that the latier
should have been choked by the former before it came to ma-
turity ? Is it not an insult to the Son of God, and to His saving
p'' Aver, to suppose His religion so soon sunk into this degraded
state: and yet thiswn^s^be asserted, if you allow the fathers who
held our doctrine to be involved, as they must be, in the same
oharge which is flung upon us.
Nor could it be said that they did not understand the popular
and trite objection, that, through such doctrine, the merits and
mediatorship of Christ are annihilated. They must have known
that the entreaty for the prayers of one man by another could
not interfere with that mediatorship — on the contrary, they
must have felt what we feel, that there cannot be a greater ho-
mage paid to God than to consider it necessary that His Saints,
after being received into final happiness, should still appear be-
fore Him as intercessors and suppliants. So '^ar from feeling
any of that delicacy which is so common now about applying
the same words to God and the Saints, we have the two joined
without scruple under the same expression. I will only cite one
example of this ; an inscription discovered two years ago, which
was erected by a person of considerable consequence, being
governor of the district around Rome. The inscription is in
these words : — " Anicius Auchenius Piassus, who had enjoyed
the consular dignity, and his Avife Honorata, with thtir children,
devout io God and the saints."j We find God and tlie sainta
here joined together; nor does it appear that any apprehension
was entertained of thereby derogating from the honor of the
Deity.
Thus far, then, my brethren, regarding the saints themselves ;
such, as you have heard, is the Catholic doctrine, such its con«
sistency, and such its proofs. Another point, intimately eon-
* Luke xii. 49.
f ANICIT8 ■ WCHEXIVS ■ BASSVS • V • C • ET • TVBRr.XIA • HONORAT* • C • P ■ EI¥S • C^»
nui8 • DEO basctisqte • devoti — St-e Letti'v to J. Poynder, Esq., ;>. 38.
Tou II.— N
98 LECTURE XIIL
neoted with it, is the respect paid by us to the relics of the
Saints. The Catholic believes that any thing which has be-
longed to men distinguished by their love of God and by what
they have done and suffered in His cause, deserves that respect
and honor which is constantly shown, in ordinary life, to what-
ever has belonged to any great, or celebrated, or very good man.
Nothing is more common than to see such objects receive marks
of respect. We meet with such feelings shown even in the Es-
tablished Church ; for we are told that in the Church of Lutter-
worth there is preserved the chair of TTycliffe, his desk, and a
portion of his cloak. Wherefore are they kept ? They are relics ;
precisely v/hat the Catholic means by relics: for they are kept
by those who consider him to have been a very great and good
man ; intending thereby to honor him, and feeling that a sort of
connection or link is kept up between him and those who come,
in after times, by the possession of these remembrances of him.
Catholics, however, go further ; for they believe that they please
God by showing respect to these objects, and that, by honor-
ing these relics of the Saints, they are incited to imitate their
example.
This, many exclaim, is rank superstition! My brethren, there
is no word more common than this, and yet there are few more
difficult to be defined. What is superstition ? It is the believing
that any virtue, energy, or supernatural power exists in any thing
independent of God's voluntary and free gift of such virtue to
that thing. The moment you, sincerely and from conviotion,
introduce God — the moment you hope or believe, because you
are intimately persuaded that God has been pleased to make use
of any thing as an instrument in His hands, superstition ceases.
And it matters not whether you speak of tlie natural oi of the
supernatural order of things. If any man believe, that by car-
rying a charm about him, it will do him some good, will cure
him or preserve him from danger, because of some innate virtue
or power of its own, or because he chooses to imagine that God
has given it such a power, without any solid reason, this is
superstitious. But if I ta'ke a medicine, persuaded of its natural
DOwer, resulting from the laws by which God has been pleased
to regulate His creation, there is no superstition. In the same
manner, whatever is practised from a sincere and well-grounded
conviction that God has appointed it or approved of it, is not
superstitious. It would have been a superstition in the Jews to
believe that, by looking on a brazen serpent, they could be healed
from the bite of fiery serpents ; but the moment God ordered
LECTURE xm. 99
Buch a symbol to be erected, with a promise of such an effect,
superstition ceased. The instant lie has given the command,
e^ery glance at it becomes, as it were, a look towards God, who
has given it that virtue and efficaoj- ; and what of its own nature
would have been superstitious, becomes not only lawful, but
most salutary. Had man raised two images of cherubims on the
ark of the covenant, and bowed down before them and woi^
shipped them, and asked that in them God would hear his
prayers, it would have been gross superstition, and there would
have been even danger of falling into idolatry, as in the worship
of the golden calf. But the moment God directed these to be
raised, and called them his merc3--seat, and said that from it He
would hear the prayers of His servants, and before it the high-
priest was ordered to bring his gifts, that instant it became a
means appointed by God, and there was no superstition in plac-
ing a trust in its instrumentality. Had precious stones been
worn on the breast, and inscribed with certain letters for oracu-
lar purposes, without a divine assurance, it would have been a
charm, or whatever you please ; but so soon as God orders the
Urim and Thummim to be made, or when David applies to the
Ephod to learn what he should do,* knowing that God had ap-
pointed it for that purpose, there is no longer any superstition.
This is a distinction to be clearly kept in view, because it goes
to confute the popular imputation of superstition to Catholics.
If any ignorant man prays before any object, or goes by pre-
ference to any certain place, in consequence of an experience
having produced conviction in his mind, no matter whether justly
or not, that his prayers are more effectual tliere than elsewhere,
certainly, by acting on that feeling, he commits no acts of super-
stition ; for he attributes all that special efficacy to the appoint-
ment of God, whereof he has become convinced. In other reli-
gions, the same idea may be found. Is it not common for a per-
son to think that he can pray with more devotion in a certain
part of iiis liouse, or in one oratory or chapel, rather than in
another.' And yet who says that such a one is superstitious F
It is from no idea that the building or walls Avill bring do\yn i
blessing on his prayers, but from a conviction that in that place
he prays better ; and that, consequently, his prayers are lietter
heard ; and surely that is not superstition. Precisely in the
same manner, why do some go to hear the preaching of one cler-
^man rather than another's, though, in reality, he isniot more
* 1 Reg. xxiii. 9.
100 LECTURE Xin.
oloquont? And yet, perliapy, if you ask thcni, they cannot tol
vou Avhj' ; only tlioy fool that, when he speaks, his words j^o mure
to their hearts, and they receive more satisfaction. Would it
be said, that tliis was attaching a virtue to the man, that it
supposed some individual efficacy to reside in him ? Consider
the matter in the simplest form, that it pleases God tu make
that person an instrument of His work, and it loses the cha
racter of superstition, and the glory given is referred to God
alone.
Apply these considerations to the relics of the saints, to those
memorials of them which we Catholics bear about our persons, or
preserve with care, Avith the feeling that they are a sort of pledge,
or symbol of the saints' protection and intercession, — that they
serve to record our devotion, and to remind us of the virtues that
distinguished those servants of God ; so long as we believe that
there is no virtue in them, independently of a bestowal from
the goodness and power of God, this cannot be called superstition.
The belief of the Catholic simpler is, that, as it has pleased God
to make use of such objects as instruments for performing great
works, and imparting great benefits to His people, they are to be
treated with respecl, and reverenced, in the humble hope that
lie may again so use them in our favor; and thus, we consider
them as possessing that symbolic virtue which I have described.
Now, we do find that God has made use of such instrument;
before. In tlie Old Law, he raised up a dead man, by his com-
ing in contact with the bones of one of his prophets. The mo-
ment he was cast into the tomb — the moment he touched the
holy prophet's bones, he arose, restored to life.* What did God
thereby show, but tbat the bones of His saints were sometimes
gifted by Ilim with a supernatural power; and that, on an occa-
sion when, apparently, there was no expectation of such an ex-
traordinary miracle? We read, that, upon handkerchiefs, which
had touched the body of St. Paul, being taken to the sick, they
were instantly restored to health ;t and those were relics in the
Catholic sense of the word. We read, that a woman was cured
who touched the hem of our Saviour's garment ;J that the very
skirts of His raiment were impregnated with that power which
issued from Him, so as to restore health, without His exercising
any act of His M-ill. These examples prove that God makes
use of the relics of His saints as instruments for his greatest
wonders. Here is the foundation of our practice, Avhich excludes
*4Rog. xiii:21. + Aoto lil-U 12. JMat.xix.20.
LECTURE Xni. 101
nil idea of supeistitiun. AVc have the express authority of God,
that lie chooses to make use of these means, and, consequcnth',
there can bo no superstition in tlie belief that He may use them
80 again.
Nor can it be said that there M'as more authority for the expect-
ation of such assistance in these cases, than tliere is at present.
It was nowhere tohl to the faithful that handkerchiefs or aprons
wore to be applied to the person of Paul, to receive virtue from
the contact, or that, if they were so used, they would heal the
sick. It is no less evident that the woman who touched our Sa-
viour's dress did it not in consequence of any invitation or
encouragement, nor from the actual experience of others ; for,
manifestly, it was the first experiment.' Jesus attributes her
cui-e to the faith which accompanies the act: — "Be of good heai't,
daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole." Now, if these per-
sons were not superstitious by trusting for the first time to the
efficacy of such means, and if, instead of being reprehended,
they were praised, on account of the faith which actuated them
to try them, how much less will the accusation hold, where the
same faith, the same feeling, has the encouragement of the former
success and the sanction of those formal approbations !
After these examples from Scripture, after this groundwork
in the word of God, I have nothing to do but show you again,
that, from the beginning of the Church, ours was the universal
belief and practice. We find the demonstration of this in the
care and anxiety with which the Christians sought to save the
bodies of the martyrs from destruction. We read throughout ec-
clesiastical history what eagerness the Christians displayed to
snatch up their relics, and sometimes, at considerable expense,
to bribe the guards to give up their mangled limbs for honorable
burial. This spirit carried them still further: they gathered up
all their blood, as well as they could, and preserved it in vessels
placed in their tombs. St. Prudentius describes a painting,
which he saw in one of the catacombs, of the martyrdom of St.
Hippolytus, who was dragged to death at the heels of horses.
Because bearing the same name as the person fabled to have
been so treated, his judge ordered him to undergo ''hat punish-
ment. The body of the saint is described as torn in ■pieces, and
a crowd of Christians followed, gathering up, not only the frag-
ments of his body, but every particle of his Idood, with sponges
or linon cloths, to preserve it. And, in fact, wi; frequently find
Hponges or phials, tinged witli !)lnod, on the tombs of the martyrs.
Another spiicies of relic uK^m fnuml there are the instruments
LECTURE Xin.
of torture, whereby :hey were put to death There is an Apartr
ment attached to theyatioan library at Rome, eaUod the jNIuheuiii
of Christian antiquities, in which all such instruments are 'Care-
fully preserved, after having been accurately authenticated. TIkj
Christians, therefore, it appears, collected all such instruments,
and buried them with the martj-rs' bodies. Another way in
which they testified their respect for the relics of the martyr.-',
was, by always erecting their oratories, or churches, where (hc^y
had suffered, and the tombs of the martyrs were their altars.
Not only is this proved by the liturgy, in which the relics of
martyrs are mentioned as necessarily' present in the altar, and
from the fact of every old church at Rome being built over the
shrine of a martyr, but it is expressly enacted in the Council of
Carthage, held in ?>'JS, Avhcrein the following decree was issued:
"Let those altars be overturned by the bishop of the place,
which are erected about the fields and the roads, a.s in memory
of martyrs, in which is no body, nor any relics. — Care also must
be taken to ascertain genuine facts. For altars, which are raised
from di'eams and the idle fancies of men, must not be support-
ed."* We have a beautiful letter of the holy Aix-hbishop of
Milan, St. Ambrose, to his sister Marcellina, wherein he relates,
how when, on a certain occasion, he announced to his flock his
intention of dedicating a new church, several of them cried out,
that he must. consecrate it, as he had done the Roman basilica.
To whom he replied, "I will, if I can discover the bodies of
martyrs." Whereupon, seized with a holy ardor, he commanded
1 search to be made, and discovered the bodies of SS. Gervasius
and Protasius, with their blood, and other evidences of authen-
ticity. They were solemnly translated to the Ambrosian basilica,
and on the way a blind man recovered his sight. He then give?
his sister the substance of his sermon on the occasion.f
Nothing remains but, according to my practice, to read a few
out of many passages, to show you that the ancient Christians
believed all regarding relics that we do. We begin with the
church of Smyrna, one of the seven mentioned in the Apoca-
lypse and one founded by St. John; St. Polycarp, its bishop,
was one of the last who had seen that evangelist, and was his
personal disciple, under whom, consequently, we cannot suppose
ihat the doctrine taught by Christ and his apostles was com-
pletely obscured. After his death, the Christians of the Church
* Can. xiv. Cone. Gen. T. ii. p. 1217.
t Epistolar. Lib. yii. e« Ivi Oj*: 'i .i^ '". p. 315, Par ]63i
LECTURE XIII. 103
of Smyrna wrote a letter, preserved by Eusebius, giving in ac
•^junt of what took place on that occasion, in w^hich is this pas-
sage:— "Our subtle enemy, the devil, did his utmost, that we
should not take away the body, as many of us anxiously wished.
It was suggested that we should desert our crucified Master,
and begin to worship Polycarp. Foolish men ! who know not
that we can never desert Christ, who died for the salvation of all
men ; nor worship any other. Him we adore as the Son of God
l)ut we show deserved respect to the martyrs, as his disciples and
followers. The centurion, therefore, caused the body to be burnt.
Wc then gathered his bones, -jaore precious than pearls, and more
tried than gold, and buried them. In this place, God willing,
we will meet and celo'-rate, with joyous gladness, the birth-day
of Ilis martyr, as weL in memory of those who have been crowned
before, as, by his example, to prepare and strengthen others for
the combat."*
In this passage there are important statements, upon which I
may- be pei-mitted to enlarge. In many respects, indeed, it is a
very sti-iking narrative : it proves the eagerness of the Christians
to have the body of the saint, — it shows that his bones were
considered by them " more precious than pearls, and more tried
than gold," — and that they would honor them by meeting at his
tomb to celebrate his birth-day. But its most striking record is
this : tliat their enemies, the Jews, suggested that they would
adore Polycarp. How comes it that their adversaries could, for
a moment, have suspected, or pretended to suspect, that the
Christians would worship Polycarp, and desert Christ? Cer-
tainly, if there had never been any marks shown of outward
respect, or honor, to the relics of martyrs, it could not possibly
have come into these men's heads that there was any danger
of the Christians worshipping the body of Polycarp: the very
charge supposes that such practices existed, and were well known
to the adversaries of the Christians.
St. Ignatius, who suffered martyrdom at Rome, one hundred
years after Christ, was Bishop of Antioch ; and we read how his
•X)dy was conveyed back to his see, and carried, as an inestima-
ble treasure, from city to city.f But on this translation we have
t-n eloquent passage of St. Chrysostom, which I must read: —
' When, therefore, he had there (at Rome) laid down his life, or
lather when he had gone to heaven, he returned again crowned.
* Hist. Eccl. L. iT. c. xv. p. 170, 171-
^Sm his acta in Rninart.
i04 LECTURE Xlll.
For the goodness of God was pleased tliut he should return t<i
U8, and to distribute the martyr between the cities. For tha\
city received his dropping blood, but you have honored his relics.
You rejoiced in his episcopacy; they beheld him struggling, and
victorious, and crowned ; you possess him perpetually. God
removed him from you for a little while, and with much more
glory has He restored him. And as they who borrow money
return with interest what they received, so also God, havinq
borrowed of you this precious treasure for a short time, and
shown him to that city, sent him back to you with inci'cased
splendor. For you sent forth a bishop, and you have received a
mai'tyr : you sent forth with prayers, and you have received with
crowns. And not you alone, but all the intermediate cities.
For how think you were they affected, when they beheld the
relics transported? What fruits of gladness did they gather?
How much did they rejoice ? With what acclamations did they
salute the crowned conqueror ? For as the spectators, starting
up from the arena, and laying hold of the noble combatant who
has overthrown all his antagonists, and is going forth with
splendid glory, do not permit him to touch the ground, but
carry him home with innumerable encomiums : so all the cities,
in order receiving this holy man from Rome, carried him on
their shoulders, and accompanied the crowned martyr with ac-
clamations even to this city, celebrating the conqueror with
hymnSj and deriding the devil, because his artifice turned against
himself, and what he had thought to do against the martyr had
proved advei-se to himself."* Thus do we find the relics of the
saints treated witli the greatest respect by the immediate disci-
ples of the apostles, by those who knew them, and had learnt
from tliem. Afterwards, the texts multiply without end.
St. Basil, bishop in Cappadocia, answers St. Ambrose, arch-
bishop of Milan, who had written all that way to request a
portion of the relics of St. Dionysius : and this shows the com-
munion between the Churches in all parts of the world, and the
object to which it was applied. These are his words : — " Affection
to our departed brethren is referred to the Lord whom they served:
and he who honors them that died for the faith, shows that he is
inspired by the same ardor ; so that t/ne and the same action is
a proof of many virtues." He then relates how, much against
the will of those who possessed them, the saint's relics had been
*Homil. in St. Ignat. Mart, xliii. i.^ translated bj- tbe Rev. F. C. HusenT>eth, in
his triumphant exposure of Faber. — •' Faberism Exposed," 1836, p. 623.
LECTURE xm. 105
tftkon up, and sont ; and that of their being genuine there was
not tho smallest doubt.*
The following is a strong passage from the saint whom I have
before quoted, witli particular praise, St. Ephrem : — " See, how
the relics of the martyrs still breathe ! Who can doubt of these
martyrs being still alive ? Who can believe that they have pe-
rished ?" He then extols the virtues of relics, and exhorts the
faithful, in every distress, to have recourse, with confidence, to
them : " For the deity dwells in the bones of the martyrs, and,
by his power and presence, miracles are wrought."t St. Asterius
Nvrites : " Wherefore, decently disposing of the bodies of the
martyrs, let us preserve them for ages as gifts of high value.
By them we are fortified ; and the Church is protected, as a city
is guarded by an armed force." St. John Chrysostom: — "That
which neither riches nor gold can efi'ect, the relics of martyrs
can. Gold never dispelled diseases, nor warded off death ; but
the bones of martyrs have done both. In the days of our fore-
fathers, the former happened ; the latter, in our own." J
There is literally no end to such testimonies. But we have,
about this time, appearing in Church history, two evidences,
which fully evince what the belief of the Christians was. Tho
first is the wi-itings of Eunapius the Sophist, about the year 380,
which were directed to show that the Christians worshipped the
martyrs. He charges them, in the first place, with taking great
care of their bodies, and placing them under their altars ; in the
Bcoond place, with paying them divine adoration, and treating
tliem as gods : whereon he accuses them of downright idolatry.
So that this is not a modern accusation : it is a very old tale, a
tery antiquated charge, made three hundred and eighty years
.ifter Christ; when, for precisely the same belief and practice as
<ve now follow, the entire Church was taxed by a heathen with
being idolatrous. This proves, at least, what great honor and
veneration was paid to the saints and to their remains.
The second evidence is, — that a few years after, we have Vigi-
lantius condemned as a heretic, for saying that the relics of
saints ought not to be honored. An express treatise yet remains,
written by St. Jerome againsc him; but the very fact of the
practice being impugned by Yigilantius shows that it existed
l)efore. St. Jerome makes a very accm-ate distinction: "We
worship not, we adore not the relics of the martyrs ; — but we
* Ail Ambros. MeUiol. Ep. cxovii. T. iii. p. 287.
t T. V. p. 310, El. Kom. ; Uoiail. Ixxi. S. DrosidJs Mart. T. r. p 882
Yct.U.— 0
106 LECTURE XIII.
honor theai, that our minds may be raised to Ilim, wbose miy
tyi's they are. We honor them, that this honor may he referred
to Him, who says : He that receiveth you, receiveth me.'"^
Tliis is just what CathoHcs have always said in modern tinios ;
that the respect paid by them to relics is referred ultimately H
God ; and that in honoring His servants, we honor God, who
chose them as His champions and faithful servants. About this
time, therefore, we have a multiplicity, an endless variety of
writers, teaching the same doctrine ; and I remember particu-
larly being struck with one of the letters of St. Augustine, meant
as a letter of recommendation to some friends who Averc travelling
in Italy. During his time, the relics of St. Stephen, the first
martyr, were discovered in the East, and a portion of them
brought into Africa. St. Augustine — and no one, it will be ad-
mitted, was more remote from credulity or superstition — gives
an account of what happened on the introduction of his bones
The bishop of a neighboring diocese was cured of a long and
harassing disease, for which he was to undergo a painful opera-
tion in a few days, by carrying the relics into the church. But
the circumstance which. I wished to mention relative to the re-
commendatory letter is, that after he has made a long encomium
of the character of the travellers, he says: "What is still more
precious, they carry with them a portion of the relics of St.
Stephen." Were any one now-a-days to write a letter of this
sort, he would be considered superstitious. And yet, who is it
that writes it ? — what an age did he live in, and what a man !
Surely such passages as these ought, at any rate, to make our
traducers modify their language, when they speak of our doc-
trines, if it were only out of respect to the individuals whom
they involve in the same condemnation. Thus much shall suffice
on the subject of our veneration for relics. We see a strong
groundwork of our belief in the word of God, and we are com-
pletely borne out by the practice of the Church.
There is still another subject in connection : that of images oi
pictures in our churches. The Council of Trent defines two
things, as the belief of the Catholic Church on this head. First,
that it is wholesome and expedient to have pictures, or images
and representations of the Saints : in the second place, that
honor and respect are to be paid to them.f This is, therefore,
the whole of the Catholic doctrine. I suppose no one will go
*£p. liii. sd Ripuiiuiu, T. i. 5S3, 584.
t Sms. xxt. "De Tenwtt Sgormn."
LECTURE xin. 107
ttie length of saying, that it is unlawful to have pictures in
churches, on the ground of its being opposed to a Jewish com-
mandment; although we have been ignorantly charged with
having corrupted the decalogue, by putting one commandment
into two, to get rid of the prohibition, which applied to the mak-
ing of images, as distinct from that of adoring them. The first
question, therefore, appears to be, is the making of all images
forbidden, or are we only forbidden to worship them ? If the
former be the case, then no monument can be allowed in a
church, and no altar-piece, and yet it is well known that there
are many such in the Established Church. In the church of
St. Stephen, Walbrook, I believe there is one ; in that of Green-
wich, there is a painting of St. Paul ; and such there are in
many other places of Protestant worship. We cannot suppose,
therefore, that the representation of human beings is prohibited
under any circumstances; and, consequently, the first part of
the first commandment is modified essentially by the second^
and from it only receives its force. We agree that no image
should be made for adoration or worship, because the first com-
mandment is against idolatry, or the making of images for such
purpose. But the making of images was prescribed by God:
for in the Tabernacle there were two cherubim in the Holy of
Holies, and the walls of the Temple were sculptured with graven
images ; and a brazen fountain, supported by twelve oxen, stood
in its court. Indeed, there is no doubt that the temple was
adorned with carved images and representations of the human
countenance, as much as it was possible for any building to be.
The whole question, then, turns upon this: whether the Catholics
are justified in making use of them as sacred memorials, in
praying before them, as inspii'ing faith and devotion. I may be
asked, what warrant there is in Scripture for all this ? I might
answer, that I seek none : for rather, I might ask, what autho-
rity there is, to deprive me of such objects : because it is a na-
tural right to use any thing towards promoting the worship of
God, which is not in any way forbidden. I might as well be
asked, what warrant there is in Scripture for the building of
churches, for the use of the organ, for the ringing of bells, for
music, or for a thousand other things that appertain to the wor-
ship of the Church. Do I want a warrant, do I require Scrip*
tnre, for the use of the organ ? — Certainly not : because, if the
thing be innocent, and serve to raise our hearts towards God,
we consider that we have a right to use it, and nothing but a
<M>8itive enactment can deprWe us of it And I wish to know,
108 LECTURE xm.
would any one charp^e mc with bad feelin;:;, if, on cuniin;^ befors
the representation or image of any one whom I had loved and
haj lost, 1 stood before it, fixed in veneration and affection, aa
though the object itself were really before me? And even if
my eyes were fiUed with tears, and I appeared to address it
with feelings of affectionate enthusiasm, I might be guilty, pei-
haps, of some extravagance in sentiment, of too vivid a feeling :
but no one, surelj', would say that I was superstitious or idola-
trous in its regard.
Such is precisely all that the Catholic is taught to believe re-
garding the images or pictures set up in churches. They are
memorials in the same way as other representations ai-e, and
we consider them calculated to excite similar feelings, only of a
religious class. And if I find that the gazing on that picture or
representation will bring my cold and stagnant feelings into
closer communion with the person whom I have loved and che-
rished, undoubtedly I may lawfully indulge myself, without any
one presuming to blame me. In like manner, then, if I find that
any picture or representation of our Saviour, or of His Blessed
Mother, or of His Saints, acts more intimately on my affections
and excites warmer feelings of devotion, I am justified, and act
well, in endeavoring so to excite them. It is precisely the same
motive as that for going to one place of worship rather than
another, because in it I find my feelings more easily drawn to
God. This is an obvious and simple ground, on which to up-
hold the Catholic practice : that it is nowhere forbidden ; and
as the prohibition formerly made was only against making
images to worship them as ,c;od.s, that prohibition does not apply
here, because ours are only made as those were which God or-
dered to be erected in his very temple.
Whether pictures and images were used in the Church of old,
is not a point of much importance ; for their use has always been
a matter of discipline. The Council of Trent does not decree
that we are obliged to use them ; it only says that it is whole-
some to have them, and that they are to be ti-eated with respeci:
with a relative respect, that is, such as is shown to the portrait
of a father, or of any one whom we esteem and reverence. But
the Council of Trent, in its directions to the parochial clergy,
expressly enjoins them to explain this doctrine to the faithful ;
\t commands them to warn the people, and make them under
stand, that these images are nothing but mere representations
that any honor paid them is to be referred to the prototype
LECTURE XIII. 109
or being represented • but that the image itself cannot have any
virtue, nor give them the slightest help.
However, although the Christians -were careful, and most
anxious, while idolatry was around them, to distinguish their
religion from it, we find that tliey used these representations in
the oldest times. In the c-atacumbs, we have cxL-ecJiugly ancient
ones ; some of them are cut in two by the tombs of the martyrs,
and consequently must have Ijeen made before these were opened
D'Agincourt has compared the paintings of the sepulchre of the
Nasoni family with those found in the catacombs, and has de-
cided that they are contemporary productions, or paintings of
the second century. In the same manner, Flaxman, in his Lec-
tures on Art, acknowledges them to be of great antiquity. So
that this practice of decoration was very ancient ; and this is
singularly confirmed by the fact that, throughout the catacombs,
the representations are uniformly the same, and precisely those
described by the oldest father, Tertullian, as used in Africa, on
the cups of the Christians ; such as the good shepherd carrying
a sheep on his shoulders : — an emblem of our Saviour's charity,
used, thus early, to excite feelings of affection towards him.
Tliis uniformity, especially in such distant countries, proves
that the common type was much more ancient, — for all could
not accidentally have agreed on the same subjects and same
mctluids of representation ; but not an inconsiderable time must
have elapsed, between some one's inventing the type, and all
artists in different parts adopting it.
This very brief sketch must suffice for the present. Perhaps
1 might be expected to say something of abuses, had I not inter-
sDcrsed several observatiims throughout my discourse, which
must be, 1 flatter myself, sufficient. In one word, I will only
remark that the chai-ge of abuse arises, in a great measure, from
p-^rsons not taking the pains to understand or know the feeling
of Catholics. If we go into other countries, we find demonstra-
tions of outAvard feeling, ever of a much warmer and more en-
thusiastic character than here ; and, consequently, nothing ia
more common than to condemn these exhibitions, by comparison
with what occurs in colder countries, and among more phlegma-
tic characters, as superstitious and idolatrous. But they who
are acquainted with the people, and who have ucen instructed
concerning their l)eliof, kn(jw tliat, however extravagant they
may outwardly aiipear, inwardly their faith and conviction ai'e
perfectly safe, and in aecurdauce with that laid down as the be-
lief of the Church.
110 LBCTUEE Xin.
This subject closes the lectures, with the exception of those
on the Eucharist, which I will enter upon at our next meeting.
Before concluding, this evening, I wish to make one or two re-
marks, which seem connected Avith our subject. They regard
those vague declamations which are daily heard respecting tlin
Catholic doctrines. I have not the least doubt, that this course
of lectures will give rise to others of a contrary tendency ;* in
which attempts will be made to show that the doctrines and
practices of Catholics are superstitious, idolatrous, and deserving
of every opprobrious epithet. I entreat all who may be induced
to listen to such replies, to keep their minds and imaginations
exceedingly cool, not to allow themselves to be carried away by
eloquence, however fervent, nor by assertions, however positive,
but to demand proof for every proposition which affects Catho-
lics ; and if opportunity to do so is not afforded them, to search
for proofs, and try to verify the grounds on which our doctrine
is impugned, before yielding up their minds to the argument*
by which we are attacked. I am confident that that method
wiU save a great deal of trouble ; because I am sure, that it will
be found, in almost every instance, that the doctrine assailed is
not that of Catholics, and that, consequently, the argument
against it is thrown away ; the reasons may be very good against
the imaginary doctrine attacked, but worth nothing as confuting
ours.
I am satisfied that we have nothing to fear from persons car-
rying on the discussion in the way I have represented. I am
confident that the time is gone by, when they could raise against
us the war-cry of our pra<^tising superstitions injurious to God,
as much as it is for raising ihe cry of disloyalty and disaffection
to the state. Both have h^ their day, and the day of both is
passed ; and no one can serve our cause better, or more thoroughly
disgust his hearers, than he who shall endeavor to found his
attack upon Catholics on such declamatory and groundless im-
putations as these. Thank God, and thank also the generosity
and uprightness of our fellow-countrymen, we can now stand
fairly and openly before the public. "We are anxious, not ic
shrink from inquiry, lut to court it ; we throw open our places
of worship to all men. we publish our books of prayer and in-
struction before the -^.vorld : we submit the least of our children
and their catechism to examination ; we invite all to inspect oui
Bchools, and present the masters and their scholars to their in-
* Tbla was actuttM't the oase.
LECTURE XIII. Ill
terrogation ; all that we write and road is at the command of the
learned ; and, if in our power, we would open our breasts, and
ask them to look even into our hearts, — for God knows that wc
have nothing to shade, nothing to conceal ; — and there let them
read our belief, as written on its tablets in the simplest and
plainest terms. No attack can any longer Iil- allowed by uny
sensible, reasonable, generous, or liberal-minded man, except
through calm and cool inv(3stigation, based entirely on the cor-
rect statement of our doctrines, and conducted exclusively, not
by vague quotations from the word of God, but by arguments
clearly and strongly addressed to his understanding.
These are the concluding admonitions which I wish to impress
upon you. At our next meeting, I shall commence, as I have
promised, the most important of all subjects, the Eucharist.
Perhaps the length to which it will lead me may not allow me
time to make many concluding reflections ; and I did not wish
you to separate, without a few such as I have just indulged in.
There are a great many other observations that offer themselves,
but the time has floAvn too rapidly, and I have ouly space again
to assure you, as I have done before, that if I have touched
lightly upon some points, and seemed to omit others, it has been
solely and exclusively through feeling sensible, that almost every
evening I have detained you here longer than it became me, and
that I have trespassed by a desire of communicating too much,
rather than by withholding any thing that appeared useful.*
• Aote \x. »
LECTURE THE FOURTEENTH.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
PART I.
JOHN Ti. 11.
" A'Tid JiSiiS took theloavcs; and when he liad given thanks, he distributed to them thai
wert sat dotcn; in like manner ako thejishes, as mudt as they would."
Altuough, my brethren, not accustomed to attach any great
importance to such accidental coincidences, I Avill acknowledge
that I felt some pleasure on discovering, when brought, this
evening, by my arrangement of the topics to be discussed in
your presence, to the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, that it
was precisely the very lesson proposed to us by the Ciiureh, iii
the Gospel of the day. For I cannot but hope that the blessing
of God will be more abundant on our labors, when our teaching
iy not merely in accordance with, but even in its outward forms
all regulated by that authority which He has appointed to govern
and instruct us. Thus, I shall enter with confidence at once
upon the task which I have assigned myself; and, as the course
which we shall have to pass over this evening will be rather pro-
tracted, and as, even to do it but partial and tolerable justice,
it will be necessary for me to omit many merely special and di-
ijrcssive questions which will present themselves in our way, 2
.vill, without further preface, enter at once on the great object
now before us. It is no other than to examine the grounds on
which the Catholic Church proposes to us her belief on this su1>
ject, — the most important, the most solemn, the most beautiful,
the most per.fcct of all I have proposed to treat of, — the True and
Real Presence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Sa-
crament of the Altar.
This doctrine of the Catholic Church, which, perhaps, of all
other dogmas, has l>eon most exposed to misrepresentation, or,
at least, certainly to scorn and oliloquy, is clearly defined in the
words of the Council of Trent, where we are told, that the Ca-
tholic Church teaches, and always has taught, that in the Blessed
112
lECTURE XIV. 118
Eucharist, that which was originally hrcad and wiii'-, i.*, ny tlift
conscci-ation, changed into tlio substance uf the Body and Blood
9f our Lord, together with Ilis soul and divinity, in other words,
his complete and entire person ; which change the Catholic
Church has properly called Transuhstantiation.* Such, my
brethren, is our belief; and I will proceed to lay before you, in
this and subsequent discourses, the grounds whereupon we hold
this doctrine ; which, to those who have not embraced it, appears
most incomprehensible and repugnant, and which forms with
too many the greatest bar to their uniting themselves with our
communion ; but which to evei'y Catholic is the most consoling,
the most cheering, and in every way the most blessed portion of
his creed.
Now, before entering on the arguments from Holy Writ, re-
garding this point, it is important that I should lay down clearly
before you the principles which will guide me in the examina-
tion of Scriptural texts. I have had, on another occasion, op-
portunity to remark, how there is a vague and insufficient way
Df satisfying ourselves regarding the meaning of Scriptural texts ;
— that is to say, when, reading them over, and having in our
minds a certain belief, we are sure to attach to them that mean-
ing which seems either absolutely to support it, or is, at least,
reconcilable with it. It is in this way that many most opposite
opinions are, by various sects, equally held to be demonstrated
in Scripture. Certainly there must be some key, or means of
interpreting it more securely ; and on the occasion alluded to,
when I had to examine several passages of Scripture, I con-
tented myself with laying down, as a general rule, that we
should examine it by means of itself, and find the key in other
and clearer passages, for the one under examination. But, on
the present occasion, it is necessary to enter more fully into an
exposition of a few general and simple principles, which have
their foundation in the philosophy of ordinary language, and in
common sense, and which will be the principles that I shall seek
to follow.
The groundwork of all the science of interpretation is exceed-
ingly simple, if we consider the object to be attained. Every
one will agree, that when we read any book, or hear any dis-
course, our object is to understand what was passing in the
author's mind when he Avrote or spoke those passages — that ia
to say, what was the meaning he himself wished to give to the
* Bese xiii e ir
Vol. II.— r
114 LECTURE XIV.
expressions which he then wrote or uttered. At this mom&i.v,
for instance, that I am addressing you, it is obvious, from every
oouventional law of society, that I wish and mean you to under-
stand me. I should be trifling with j^our good sense, your feel-
ings, and your rights, if I intended otherwise; and thence it fol-
lows, that I express myself to the best of my power, in the way
that I believe most conducive to convey exactly to your minds
the ideas passing in mine at the moment I am relating them.
In fact, the object of all human intercourse, pursuant to the
established laws of social communication, is to transfuse into
other minds the samefeelings and ideas that exist in one; and
language is nothing more than the process whereby we endeavor
to establish this communication.
It is evident that we have here two terms, which are to bo
equalized, — the mind of the speaker and that of the hearer; and
if the process of communication be properly performed, the one
must thoroughly represent the other. To illustrate this by com-
parison,— if, from the lines which you see impressed on paper
from a copper-plate, you can reason, and that infallibly, to those
inscribed on the plate, so can you, in like manner, if you see
only the plate, just as correctly reason to the impression which
must be thereby produced, provided the process followed be cor-
rect, and calculated by its nature to communicate that impres-
sion. Just so, therefore, the object of any person who addresses
others, either in writing or in speech, is to convey, as clearly as
possible, his meaning to their minds. If the processes of lan-
guage be correct, except in extraordinary cases of error — for it
is an exception, if we misunderstand one another — if the act of
imprinting be correctly performed, we receive the impressions
and ideas which the writer or speaker wished to convey. And
hence we can accurately reason from the meaning attached
to a speech by those who heard it, to the ideas passing in tho
speaker's mind.
If, then, we wished to ascertam the meaning of any passage
in a book written a hundred or a thousand years ago, we must
not judge of it by what we might understand by such words at
present : we must know what their meaning was at the time
they were spoken. If we open an English author one hundred
years old, we shall find some words used to convey a different
signification from what they do now. We find, for instance, the
word ivilto mean great and brilliant parts, including information
and learning. A few centuries before, words, which are now
trivial and in common use, were then dignified. Thus, in old
LECTURE XIV. 115
fersioiis jf Scripture, fur canticle, the word ballad is constantly
used ; now, were anyone to argue on a passage Avritten at those
times, from the meaning which such words at present bear, it ia
evident that he would err. The true rule of interpretation, there-
fore, is to know what must have been the only meaning which
the actual hearers, who were alive and present at the time tl.e
wcrds were addressed to them, could have put on any expres-
sion; and if we find that to be a certain definite signification,
and the only one which could have been given, it is clear that it
must be the true one. If we ascertain that the Jews must
have attached a certain meaning to our Saviour's words, and
could have conceived no other, He must have used them in that
sense, if he wished to be understood. This is called, by critics,
tlie usage of speech, and is considered by the writers on the in-
terpretation of Scripture, as the true key to understanding ita
language.
Such is the simple process which I intend to follow. I shall
investigate the expressions used by our Saviour, on different oc-
casions— I shall endeavor to put you in possession of the opmiona
of those who heard them, and to make you understand, from
the language in which they were spoken, what was the only sig-
nification which they could possibly have attached to them. You
will thus see how their feelings must hfive wrought at the time
they were uttered, leading them to a proper explanation; and
whatever we shall find must have been the exclusive interpreta-
tion given to phrases by these persons, we shall have a right to
consider their true meaning. By the same test I will try every
objection, — I will inquire how far they seize the true meaning
which the expressions bore at the time thej were spoken; and
by that ordeal only must they be justified.
If we loo-k into ancient phrases and words, we must bear other
considerate ons in mind ; we must weigh the peculiar character
of the teacher, for every person has a method of addressing his
hearers — every man has his peculiar forms of speech ; and it
becomes necessary to make a sort of individual investigation, to
Bee whether the explanation given can be reconciled with the or-
dinary method of him who spoke. Moreover, it has been justly
observed by an acute writer, that he who would lead others,
must in some respects, follow; that is to say, no wise and good
teacher will run counter to the habits and ordinary feelings of
those whom he addresses. If he have to recommend amiable
and inviting doctrines, he will not clothe them in imagery which
must disgust them by their very i r.vosition. Without gacri-
116 LECTURE XIV.
ficinp; one principle or particle of his opinions, ho certainly wifi
not go out of his way to render them odious. These are the
principal considerations which I have deemed it necessary to
present to you, before entering on the examination of whaJ
we consider the first proof of the Catholic doctrines of the Eucha-
rist, as contained in the sixth chapter of the gospel of St. John
The question regarding the interpretation of this chapter oi
the gospel, like all others of the same nature, reduces itself to a
filmple inquiry into a matter of ftict. All are agreed, for in-
stance, both Catholics and Protestants, that the first part of the
chapter, from the beginning to the 26th verse, is simply histori-
cal, and gives us an account of the miracle wrought by our Sa-
viour, in feeding a multitude of persons with a small quantity
of bread. All are also agreed as to the next portion of the
chapter: that is, from the 26th, so for as about the 50th verse,
that in it our Saviour's discourse is about faith. But at this
point enters the material diiference of opinion among us. We
say, that at that verse, or somewhere about it, a change tnkes
place, in our Saviour's discourse, and that from that moment we
arc not to understand Him as spe.aking of faith, but solely of the
real eating of His Body, and drinking of His Blood sacrament-
ally in the Eucharist. Protestants, on the other hand, maintain
that the same discourse is continued, and the same topic kept
up to the conclusion of the chapter. It is manifest that this is
a question of simple fact. It is like any legal question regard-
ing the meaning of a document ; and we must establish by evi-
dence, whether the latter part can continue the same subject a?
the preceding.
I need hardly premisf that nothing was more familiar Avith
our Saviour than to take the opportunity of any miracle which
He performed, to inculcate some doctrine which seemed to have
a special connection with it. For instance, in the ninth chapter
of St. John, having cured a blind man, he proceeds to reprove
the Pharisees for their spii'itual blindness. In the fifth, after
restoring a man who had been deprived of the use of his limbs,
or who had been at least in a very languishing state of illness,
he takes occasion, most naturally, to explain the doctrine of tlie
R-esurrection. Again, in the twelfth chapter of St. Matthew,
after having cast out a devil, lie ]n-ooeeds to discourse upon the
subject of evil spirits. These examples I bring merely to infer
that, such l)eing His custom, it will not lie denied, that if ever
lie did wish for an ojiportunity to propose to His hearers the
ioctrine of the Real Presence in t'>" Euchavi.st, Ue could not, in
^ECTURE XIV. 117
iliC whole CMiirse uf liis ministry, liavo found om- more siiitotl to
his purpose. For, ;is lioro, by blessing the l)rcail, He gave it a
new cflBcao}-, and made it suffieient to feed several thousands,
we could not suppose any thing more parallel to that sacrament,
wherein Ilis body is in a manner multiplied, so as to form the
food of all mankind in whatever part of the world. This, there-
fore, makes it, in the first place, not at all improbable that if
such a doctrine was to be ever taught, — if such an institution
was to be ever made, this was the favorable moment for pro-
paring liis hearers for it.
But we can still better illustrate the natural manner in Avhich
this discourse is introduced. The Jews asked our Saviour for a
sign from heaven, and the sign they insisted on was: "What
sign, therefore, dost thou show us, that we may see and believe
thee, — what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the
desert, as it is written, — he gave them bread from heaven to eat."
To which, in the following verse, he answers: "Amen, amen, I
say unto you, ^Sloses gave you not bread from Heaven, but my
Father giveth you the true bread from Heaven." Now, it is re-
markable that the Jews, in one of their earliest works after the
time of Christ, that is, the "Midrash Coheleth," or commentary
on the Book of Ecclesiastes, assert that one of the signs which
tlie Messiah would give, was precisely this; that in the same
manner as Moses had brought down the manna from heaven, so
shcjuld he bring down bread from heaven. This being the per-
suasion of the Jews, it was natural that they should choose this
criterion of Christ's being sent from God, in the same way as
Moses ; and that our Saviour should give a parallel on his part
to the former food from heaven, in a divine institution, wlioreby
men should be nourished by something more excellent tlian
manna, by the true living breail coming down from heaven.
So far is but preliminary matter; now let us enter on the ques-
tion itself. I feel myself strongly led to suppose that the tran-
sition takes place in the48th instead of the 51st verse, where it
is commonly put. I need not enter upon my reasons for it, be-
cause it is immaterial; it makes no difference whether we place
tlie transition a verse or two earlier or later. These reasons are
founded on a close and minute analysis of the portion of our
Saviour's discourse, between the 4Sth and 53d verses, as com-
pared with other discourses of His, which shows a construetion in-
dicative of a transition. I pass them over, Ikjwcvcv, as they W(.iuld
\>o likely to detain us too long, and come at once ti> the ])oint.*
They are giyen at ♦"•ill ju my •' LttstWH oa the Real Vre^enee." u. M. «<7
118 LECTURE XTV.
In the first place, it may ho said, is it probable that our Saviou,
who had just been speaking of Himself as the bread of life,
should in the 51st verse, going on with precisely the same ex-
pressions, make such a complete transition in the subject of His
discourse ? — Should we not have something to indicate this
change to another subject? To show that there is nc weight in
this objection, I will refer you to another passage in which pre-
cisely a smiilar transition takes place ; namely, the 24th chaptei
of St. Matthew. It is agreed among learned modern Protestanfc
commentators, English and foreign, — and allow me to repeat a
remark which I made on a former occasion, that when I vaguely
say commentators, I mean exclusively Protestant commentators ;
because I think it better to quote sucli authorities as will not be so
easily rejected by those with whom we are engaged in discussion,
— it is the opinion, therefore, of several such commentators, that
in the 2-ith and 25th chapters of St. Matthew, there is a discourse
of our Saviour's on two distinct topics, the first regarding the
destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem ; and the second, the end
of the world. Any one may naturally ask, where does the tran-
sition take place? It is manifest, when looking at the extremes,
that is, on comparing the phrases used in the first part of the
discourse, and those in the second, th-at the same subject is not
continued, — where then are we to &id the point of separation ?
Now, most accurate commentators place it at the 43d vei«w of
the 24th chapter, and I will just read to you the preceding verse,
and one or two of those that follow. "Watch ye therefore, be-
cause ye know not at what hour your Lord will come. But this
know ye, that if the good man of the house knew at what hour
of the night the thief would come, he would certainly watch, and
would not suffer his house to be broken open." You perceive
no transition between these verses, and yet these commentators
place the transition exactly in the middle of them. The same
imagery is still continued from verse to verse, and yet it is agreed
that a transition takes place from one subject to another, as dis-
tinct as the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, which took
place 1800 years ago, is from the end of the world, which may
not happen for many centuries. Thus may the preliminary objec-
tion be removed, that there must be a strong and marked transi-
tion, something like a prefatory plu-ase, to mark the passage
from one subject to another.
Now, therefore, on what ground do we say that in the pre-
ceding part of the chapter vi. and in the latter, a different touio
IB treated of? As T bave before observed, the question is o» %
LECTURE XIV. 119
ooint of fact, and resolves itself into twc inquiries : first, is thero
a transition here? — and, secondly, is it to the true eating and
drinking of the body and blond of Christ? In answer to the
first, I say, that I believe the first portion of our Saviour's dis-
course to apply to faith, for this simple reason : that every ex-
pression He uses throughout it, is suoh as was familiar to the
Jews, as referring to the subject. For, the ideas of giving bread
and of partaking of food were commonly applied to teaching
and receiving instruction ; consequently, there was no mis-
understanding them. Thus, we have it said in the book of
Isaiah : "All you that thirst, come unto the waters, and you that
have no money, make haste, buy and eat. Hearken diligently
to me, and eat that which is good."* *' To eat" is here applied
to listening unto instruction. Our Saviour quotes Deuteronomy ;
" Not on bread alone does man live, but on every word that
cometh out of the mouth of God."t Again, God used this re-
markable figure, when He said, that He should " send forth a
fixmine into the land, — not a famine of bread nor a thirst of
water, but of the hearing of the word of God."J In like man-
ner, Wisdom is represented as saying : " Come, eat my bread,
and drink the wine which I have mingled for you."§ Among
the later Jews, Maimonides and other commentators observe,
that whenever the expression is used among the Prophets or in
Ecclesiastes, it is always to be understood of doctrine. There-
fore, when our Saviour simply addresses the Jews, speaking to
them of the food whereof they are to partake, I have no difficulty
in supposing that He could be understood by all, as referring to
faith in Him and His teaching. But in order to contrast these
expressions more stronglj'^ AArith those that follow, allow me to
notice a peculiarity observable at the 35th verse. Throughout
the first part of this chapter, if you read it carefully over, you
will not once find our Saviour allude to the idea of eating ; he
does not once speak of eating "the bread which came down
fi-om heaven." On the contrary, in the 35th verse, he actually
violates the ordinary rhetorical proprieties of language, to avoid
this harsh and unnatural figure. In the instances where the
figure of food is applied to hearing or believing doctrine, the in-
spired writers never say, " Come and eat or receive me." But
our Saviour does not even speak of eating this figurative bread
of His doctrine ; and at the same time cautiously escapes from
applying the phrase directly to His own person. For, in the
•I». It. 1, 2 t'^I-'t '^ ^ I. Annviii.n 3Prov. ix. 6.
120 LECTURE XIV.
.35tli verse, Jesus said to them : " I um tlie l>rca<l uf life : M
iliiit cointih to mc shall nut hunj^cr, and he that hcUcvcth in mi
shall not thirst." So that when it -would appear requisite to fill
up the metaphor hj the ideas of eating and drinking, as opposed
to hunger and thirst, He carefully avoids them, and substitute;*!
othws. And tlie phrases selected were such as to indicate to the
Jews doctrine and belief.
But, supposing that they had not understood them to lie s..
applied, our Saviour is most careful to explain them in thai
sense. For the Jews made an objection, and murmured at Him
liecause He had said that He was the brc.id which came down
from heaven. Their objection referred not so much to His calliug
Himself bread, as to His saying, that He had come from heaven.
For their objection is: "Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph,
whose father and mother we know ? how then saj-eth he, I came
down from heaven?"* Now, then, see how our Saviour answers
this objection. He employs no less than seven or eight verses
in removing it. Observing some little difficulty about the ex-
pressions which he has been using till now, and having, in verse
35, employed the words, "coming to Him," as equivalent to
" believing in Him," He from that moment, until the 47th verse
never once returns to the figure of bread or food, or any thing
of that sort, to inculcate the necessity or oljligation of believing
in Him, but speaks simply of faith in Him, or of its equivalent,
coming to Him. " Murmur not among yourselves. No man
can come to me except the Father who hath sent me draw him,
and I will raise him up at the last day. Every one that hath
heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me, not tliat
any man hath seen tlie Father, but he who is of God he hath
seen the Father. Amen, amen, I say to you, he that believeth in
nit hath everlasting life."! He is, you see, most careful not to
return again to the ideas of "eating and drinking." Tliis ex-
plains clearly that his conversation, up to this moment, is of
faith ; and seeing that the expressions were of themselves cal-
culated to convey that meaning to those who heard tliem, and,
finding that Jesus himself so explained them, we conclude that
He must have been speaking of faith.
Now, then, let us come to the second part of the disccurse.
The first portion He closes thus : — " Amen, Amen, I say untc
vou, he that believeth in me hath everlasting life." We may
jonsider this as a proper epilogue or conclusion. But, from thii
• Vergo 42. f Vewes 43, 47.
LECTURB XIV. 121
moment, He begins to nso anntlior fi)rm of phraseology, which
He had carefully avoided in the lirst part of His discourse, and
it only remains to examine, whether it could convey the idea
that He Avas still going on with the same topic, or must have led
His hearers necessarily to believe that He was speaking of the
real eating of His flesh, and drinking of His blood. This in-
quiry must be conducted on precisely the same principles.
Now, I unhesitatingly assert, that there are differences of lan-
guage in the words that follow, such as must necessarily have
made the impression on His hearers, that is, those who were the
true interpreters of His words, that he no longer meant to teach
the same, but quite another doctrine.
In the first place, you will observe that our Saviour had pre-
viously avoided with care, and even at some sacrifice of the
proprieties of speech, any expression, such as "eating the bread
of life," much more " eating His own person." He had even
abandoned the metaphor entirely, on seeing that some misunder-
standing had resulted from using these expressions ; and yet
now, all on a sudden. He returns to them in a much stronger
manner ; and he does it in such a way that His hearers could
not possibly have conceived from them the same meaning as
before. He says, — " I am the living bread which came down
from heaven. If any man eat of this, he shall live for ever;
and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the
world." He goes on afterwards to say : — " Amen, Amen, I say
to you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink
his blood, ye shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh,
and drinketh mj' blood, hath everlasting life ; and I will raise
him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my
blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath
sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, the same
also shall live by me."* Nuw, here are a series of expressions,
which, on a simple perusal, appear a much stronger and grosser
violation of propriety of speech, if our Saviour meant to be un-
derstood figuratively. But, as I before intimated, if, u]) to this
point. He had evidently given up the figui-e of eating and drink-
ing, would he have returned to it again, Avithout any necessity ?
And if, from seeing that misunderstanding had before risen
from it, He had discontinued it, can we believe that He would
resume it, in a still more marked, and strongly characterized
* Verges 51-58.
122 LECTURE XIV.
form without some absolute necessity? This necessity could
only result from the inti'oduction of a new topic ; as, otherwise.
He might have persevered in the literal exposition. Here, then,
we have one evidence of a transition in the discourse to a new
topic ; but there are other marked differences.
2dly. In the former part of His discourse, our Saviour always
speaks of this bread as given by His Father. He says : " This
is the bread which His Father had sent from Heaven and given
to the Jews."* In the second portion, which I have just read.
He no longer speaks of His Father as giving this bread, but saya
that He Himself gives it. The Giver is different in the two
cases, and we are consequently authorized to suppose that the
gift likewise is different.
3dly. Our Saviour, in the first part of the discourse, speaks
of the consequence of this partaking of the bread of life, as
consisting in our being brought or drawn unto Him, or coming
to Him.f These expressions, throughout the New Testament,
are applied to faith.J In a number of passages, where persons
are said to be brought to Christ, it is always meant that they are
to be brought to faith in Him. This is the term always used in
the first part of the discourse, and exactly corresponds to our
interpretation of it concerning faith. But, in the second part,
our Saviour never speaks of our being brought to Him: but
always of our abiding in Him, or being incorporated with Him,
which expressions are always used to denote love and charity.^
This phrase occurs in this sense, John xv. 4-9, 1 Jo. ii. 24 ; iv.
16, 17. If, then, we find, in the first part of the discourse, the
efficacy attributed to that which Christ inculcated, to be pre-
cisely what is ever attributed to faith, we see a strong confirma-
tion that the discourse related to that virtue. But, similarly,
when we find the expression changed, and one used which no
longer applies to it, but to a totally different virtue, that is, to a
union by love with Christ, we are equally authorized in consider-
ing a different subject introduced, and some institution alluded
to, which is to unite us to Christ, not merely through faith, but
still more through love.
These are striking distinctions between the first part of our
Lord's discourse and the second ; but the most important yet
remains to be explained, and will require one or two preliminary
• Verses 32, 33, ?9, 40, 43, 44. f Verses 35, 36, 44, 46.
X This is fully proved in the " Lectures on the Real Presence," f 59, which SMb
gee M«t xi. 28, Lu. ri. 47, Jo. v. 40, vii. 37.
}T*ne« 67, 68.
LECTURE XIV. 123
remarks. One of tho most dolioate points in the interpretation
of Scripture, is the exphmation of figures, tropes, and similes.
It is supposed by Protestants, that by eating the flesh of Christ
and drinking His blood, nothing more was meant than a figure
or image of believing in Him. If this be the case, I might ob-
serve, for instance, that if to eat the bread of life simply meant
to believe in Christ, it follows that the verb to eat is equivalent
to the verb to believe. When, therefore, our Saviour speaks of
eating His flesh, if eating be equivalent to believing, we must
suppose that he meant believing in His flesh— a doctrine quite
diiferent, and totally distinct, from the other, and which no one
has imagined our Saviour to have here taught. For, if the Jews
offended, it was rather by too closely attending to the exterior
and material appearances of things, and neglecting their spiritual
value ; nor can we suppose that our blessed Saviour, standing
visibly before them in the flesh, would take great pains to in-
culcate a belief in the truth of His corporal existence, — sup-
posing it even to have been then possibly an object of faith.
But to return: I have just remarked, that tropes, and figures,
and types, form the most delicate elements of Scriptural phrase-
ology, as, in fact, they do of every lailguage. Although it may
appear, at first sight, that nothing is so vague and indefinite in
a language as figurative speech, which may be varied without
limits, yet is it, in truth, quite the reverse. For there is nothing
in which we are less at liberty to vary from ordinary acceptation
than in conventional tropical phraseology. So long as we are
using terms in their literal sense, there may be some vagueness ;
but the moment society has fixed on any certain figurative adap-
tation of words, we are no longer free to depart from it, without
risking the most complete misunderstanding of our words.
Nothing is easier than to try this assertion by any proverbial
expression of ordinary use ; but I will content myself with one
simple and obvious illustration. We know that mankind, in
general, have attached the idea of certain characteristic qualities
to the names of some animals. Thus, when we say that a man
ia like a lamb, or like a wolf, we understand precisely what is
meant by the expression used, we know what characteristic it
indicates. If we say that a person who is ill, or in pain, suffers
like a lamb, we understand the force of the expression — that he
Is meek and patient under his affliction. If we used it in any
different sense, we sliould necessarily deceive our hearers.
Again, we understand by the figure of, a lion, a character com-
posed of a certain- proportion (•€ sh-enKth and prowess, mixed
124 LECTURE XTV.
with ji dej^roo of ;j;cncr(ms and noble fcelinj^. By tho figure of*,
tiger, on the other hand, wo understand great animal strength,
out united with fierceness, cruelty, and brutality. These two
animals have many qualities in common ; but still, if we say
that a man is like, or is a lion, our hearers understand from the
ordinary received acceptation of the word, what i? meant. But
suppose you meant nothing more than that his liraljs were beau-
tifully formed, that he was exceedingly agile, and that his power
of leaping, or running, was very great, though these all are pro-
perties of the lion, would any body understand you ? Would you
not deceive your hearers ? Most undoubtedly ; and more by
such a wrong use of an ordinary admitted form of figurative
speech, than by any other departure from usual language. And
if, in like manner, you called a man of great strength of limb,
or agility, a tiger, you would be doing him a positive injustice;
you would be guilty of calumny, because his hearers would not
depart from the ordinary acceptation of the trope, and would
impute ferocity to him.
If, therefore, we can establish that any expression in any lan-
guage, besides its own simple, obvious, natural, and literal ac-
ceptation, had an established and recognised metaphorical one,
we have no choice — -no right to establish any meaning between
the literal and that figurative one ; and we have even no right to
create another figurative one, unless we prove that it was in
equal use. Now, the term eating a jiersou's flesh, besides its
sensible, carnal meaning, had an established, fixed, invariable,
tropical signification, among those whom our Saviour addressed ;
and therefore, we cannot depart from the literal meaning, or, if
we do, it can only be to take, without choice, that figurative one.
On this ground do I maintain, that a change of phraseology
took place at verse 48 ; because, after that verse, our Saviour uses
expressions which allow no choice between the real j^artaking
^i His Body and Blood, and a settled figurative signification,
which no one will for a moment think of adopting. For I say,
that, whether we examine the phraseology of Scripture, or the
language spoken at this da}' (which is but a dialect of that
spoken at the time of our Saviour) in Palestine, where all the
customs, manners, and feelings, are hardly one tittle changed
since His time, or if we examine the language spoken by Him-
self, we find the expression, to eat the flesh of anj' person, with
a fixed, invarial^le signification of dvdug, by thought or deed, but
principally ]iy false and calumnious accusation, a grievous injury
lo that individual. For iii^^tarce we have, in the 27th Paalm,
LECTURE XIV. 125
this expression: — "While the wicked draw near against me, tc
eat my flesh ;" — that is, as all commentators iipuu it have agreed,
to oppress, to vex, to ruin me. Again, in the 19th chapter of
Jol), — ''Why do you persecute me, and arc not satisfied with my
Hesh ;" — that is, with eating my flesh, calumniating and perse-
cuting me by words, which, as I observed, is the most ordinary
meaning of the metaphor. In the prophet Micah, again, — "Who
also eat the flesh of my people ;" — that is, who oppress them,
and do them serious injury. In Ecclesiastes, (c. iv.) — " The fool
foldeth his arms together, and eats his own flesh ;" — that is, he
destroA's, ruins himself. These are the only passages where the
phrase occurs in the Old Testament, although allusion is made
to the same idea in the 14th chapter of Job : — " They have opened
their jaws against me, — they have filled themselves with me."
In the New Testament, it occurs once or twice. St. James, [v. 3,)
speaking to the wicked, says, — "Your gold and silver is can-
kered, and the rust of them shall be for a testimony against you.
and shall eat your flesh like fire." These are the only occa-
sions on which the expression occurs in Scripture, except where
it is spoken of the very act of really eating human flesh,
and in every case it has the fixed and determinate tropical
(signification, of doing a serious injury or harm, paiiicularly by
calumny.
The next way to investigate the meaning of this phrase, is by
seeing what force it has with those who have inherited, not onl}'
the country, but all the feelings, and most of the opinions, of
those among whom our Saviour spoke; that is, the Arabs, who
now occupy the Holy Land. It is acknowledged by all biblical
scholars, that their writings, their manners and customs, and
their feelings, form the richest mine for the illustration of S'crip-
ture, in consequence of their exact resemblance on so many
points to what is there described. It is singular that among
these men, the most common form of expression to designate
calumny, is to say that a person eats the flesh of another. I have
collected a number of examples from their native writers, and I
will give you one or two. We have, for instance, in the code of
Mohammedan law, the Koran, this expression: — "Do not speak
ill one of another in his absence. Would any of you like to eat
the flesh of his brother, when dead ? Verily, you would abhor
it." — That is, equally should you abhor calumny. One of their
poets, Nawabig, writes, — "You say that ym\ are fasting, but
you are eating the flesh of \'our brother." In a poetical work,
called the Ilamasa, we read — "I am not given to detraction,
126 LECTURE XIV.
or to eating the flesli i)f my neighbor." We have also this idea
in constant aUusions in their proverbs and fables.* Tims, it is
completely understood by persons conversant with the language,
that among the Arabs, this phrase has no other moaning than
wickedly to calumniate and detract an individual. And ob-
serve, that it is not in the vrords that this idea rests, but in the
spirit of the language ; for, in every instance which I have given,
there is a variety of phrase, a different verb or substantive ; se
that it is not merely one term always used figuratively, but it is
in every instance a varied phrase, so as to prove that the idea
is in the mind of the hearer.
In the third place, we come to the language in which our
Saviour Himself spoke. It is remarkable, that in Syro-Ohaldaic
there is no expression for to accuse or calumniate, except to eat
a morsel of the person calumniated; so much so, that in the Syriac
version of Scripture, which was made one or two centuries after
the time of our Saviour, there is no name given throughout to
the devil, which, in the Greek version, signifies the accuser, or
calumniator, but the " eater of flesh." Whenever the Jews are
said in the Gospel to have accused our Saviour, they are said,
in this version, to have eaten a morsel or portion of Him, In
the Chaldaic parts of Daniel, when he is accused, it is said that
the accusers eat a portion of him before the king. It would be
easy to quote the aathority of the first modern writers on the
Hebrew, and other oriental languages, in proof of these assertions
I need only mention the names of Michaelis, Winer, and Gese-
nius ; all of whom expressly state, in difi"erent parts of their
works, that the expression is always so used, and can mean
nothing else.
Let us now come to the application of this discussion. The
Jews, so far as we have any means of ascertaining the significa-
tion which they attached to the expression eating a person's
flesh, are proved to have given it a definitive figurative meaning,
in the sense of doing a grievous injury, especially by calvminy.
According to the natural, necessary rule of interpretation, we
have no choice, if we put ourselves in the position of hearers, —
if we enter into the minds of those to whom our Saviour spoke,
— we have no choice, except between the literal signification and
that only figurative one that prevailed among them. And if
any attempt be made to adopt any other figurative meaning, the
least for which we have a right to ask, is an equal demonstrft*
* See texts and refereuces in " Lectures," as above, p. 67, uqq.
LECTURE XIV. l27
tion that such figui-ative application was so generally used
ftinong the Jews, as that there was some chance, at least, of its
being so understood.
Thus far, then, may sufiBce on the examination of the phrase-
ology used in our Saviour's discourse. We have found one class
of phrases in the first part of tlie discourse, which could be un-
derstood only of faith ; we have found in the second, expressions
of a totally different character, which no criterion that the Jews
possessed could lead them to interpret otherwise than in the
literal sense, or in that one figurative sense from which all must
at one? recoil.
But there is another ground of proof in our favor, — ^the ex-
pression now used by our Saviour, of drinking his Blood, as
well as eating His Flesh. I have before observed, that no per-
son interested in having his doctrine received by his auditors
can well be supposed to use an illustration of all others most
odious to them, one which appeared to command something
against the most positive and sacred law of God. Now we
may observe two things : first, that the simple drinking oi
blood, under any circumstances, or in any extremity, was con-
sidered a very great transgression of the law of God ; and in
the second place, that partaking of human blood was considered
still worse, — the greatest curse which God could possibly inflict
upon His enemies. Now, I would ask, is it credible that our
Saviour, when proposing and recommending to His hearers
one of the most consoling and amiable of all His doctrines,
would have voluntarily chosen to conceal it under such a
frightful and revolting image? For it is obvious, that, as He
had before used the ordinary figure of food to signify belief
in Him, and in His redemption, if they wished to be saved, —
there was nothing to prevent His continuing the same phrase ;
or, if He chose to depart from the figurative word, can we
imagine that He would have selected, of all others, one most
likely to convey to His hearers' minds the most disagreeable
and painful idea? Such a supposition is at once manifestly
repulsive.
Now, with regard to the simple drinking of blood, under
any circumstances, the prohibition belongs to the oldest law
given to Noah, upon the regeneration of the human race, afte*
the deluge.* But in the law of Moses, we read. — "^^f anv map
whosoever, of the house of Israel, or ot tne strangers wm
♦ Gen. ix. 4.
128 LECTURE XIV.
sojourn among them, cat blood, I will set m}' face against hit
soul, and will cut him off from among his people."* We
find, consequently, that partaking of blood is never mentioned
except as a dreadful crime. When the army of Saul had
slaughtered the cattle in the blood, it was told to him, that
" the people had sinned against the Lord ; and he said, yo
have transgressed."t And in the book of Judith, which, what-
ever any one's opinion of its canonical authority may be, is at
least sufficient to show what the feelings of the Jews were, it is
said of the people of Bethula, that "for drought of water, they
are to be counted among the dead : and they have a design
even to kill the cattle and drink their blood therefore, be-
cause they do these things, it is certain they will be given up to
destruction. "J Even in cases, then, of the last extremity, it
was supposed, that, if men proceeded so far as to taste blood,
they had no chance of escape, but were sure to be delivered to
utter destruction.
But if we come to speak of eating human flesh, or drinking
liuman blood, we find it is never mentioned, except as the final
curse which God could inflict on His people, or on their foes.
"Instead of a fountain and ever-ruuning river, thou gavest hu-
man blood to the unjust."^ In the Apocalypse, it is written: —
"Thou hast given them blood to drink, for they have deserved
it." II And Jeremiah is commanded to prophesy, as a plague
which would astonish all men, that the citizens should bo obliged
to "eat every man the flesh of his friend."^ With these feelings
on the part of the Jews, can you suppose that our Saviour, if
He was desirous of proposing to them a docti'ine, would have
clothed it under such imagery as was never used by them ex-
cept to describe a heinous transgression of the divine law, or the
denunciation of a signal curse and judgment from God? I am,
therefore, warranted in arguing from this, again, that such neces-
sity obliged Him to use these expressions, as that he could not
possibly depart from them, if He wished to propound His doc-
trine; and that He was driven to them, however revolting, be-
cause He could not adequately state it in other words. And
this necessity couli only be their forming the literal expression
of the doctrine proposed.
But, my brethren, hitherto we have been in a manner feehxig
our way ; making use of such criterions, and such means of 11
♦ Lev. vii. 10. 1 1 Sam. xiv. 33. J Judith xL 10-11.
{Wud.xi.7. li Apoc. xTi. 6. f Jer. six. 8, 9.
LECTURE XIV. 129
iustration, as we could collect from other sources; but, I now
come to the best and surest canon of interpretation. It is not
often we have the advantage of having it recorded, in so many
words, what was the meaning attached to the words spoken by
those who heard them. We are generally obliged to investigate
a text, as we have hitherto done, by bringing it into comparison
with whatever passages resemble it in other places, — it is seldom
we have the hearers' own explanation, — and still seldomer that
we can arrive at the teacher's declaration of what he meant.
These form the surest and most convincing sources of inter-
pretation.
It is evident that the Jews, in the former part of the discourse,
when our Saviour spoke of coming down from Heaven, had mis-
understood Him, so far, at least, as to call in question His having
come down from Heaven. Our Saviour removes that difficulty,
and goes on, again and again, inculcating the necessity of belief
in Him. The Jews make no further objection; consequently,
they are satisfied ; and so far as that doctrine went, there was
nothing more to be said against it. If we are to understand our
Saviour's discourse, in the latter part of the chapter, as only a
continuation of the preceding, the Jews could have no new rea-
son to object, because their only doubt about His coming down
from Heaven had been removed. How comes it, therefore, that
they did not feel satisfied with what came afterwards? It can
only bo, that they were convinced He had passed into a new
subject. After our Saviour had removed their former objection,
they hrvd rejoined nothing ; but no sooner did He come to the
other section of His discourse, than they immediately complain-
ed: no sooner did he say, "and the bread which I will give is
my flesh," than they instantly murmured and exclaimed, "How
can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They did not understand
it as a continuation of the topic on which He had been previously
addressing them ; they felt that the same discourse was not con-
tinued; for this was evidently a difficulty grounded on the sup-
position of a change of subject. Now, what was the difficulty?
Manifestly, the difficulty or impossibility of receiving the doc-
trine. But, if they had thought he still spoke of faith in Him,
nothing was easier than to understand it. For they had already
heard Him speak at lengtli on the suljject, without complaint.
But the very form of expression, — "how can this man give us
his flesh to oat?" — proves that they believed him now to pi'opose
a thing impossible to perform — they could not conceive how it
was to be carried into effect. This could only be if they under
Vol. U.— B
130 LECTURE XIV.
BtooJ the words ia their literal sense. Net only so, bat tliiti is
agreed on all hands: for we are often upbraided for resembling
the men of Caphernaum, in taking the expressions addressed to
them in their carnal, literal sense : so that they must be consi-
dered as agreeing with us in assuming the literal interpretation.
So far, therefore, we have every reason to si„y, that they who, in
ordinary circumstances, must be considered the best interpreters
of any expression used, agreed that our Saviour's words could
convey no meaning to thera but the literal one. I say in ordi-
nary circumstances, beccuse, on any occasion, were you to read
an account of what had taken place many years ago, and there
were expressions so obscure that you did not understand them,
and could any one who had been on the spot explain them, and
tell you what they meant, you would admit his testimony, and
aUow that, being a man of those times, he had a right to be con-
sidered a competent authority. Therefore, so far as the Jews
are concerned, and so far as hearers are the proper judges of the
meaning of any expression addressed to them, we have their tes-
timony with us, that our Saviour's expressions in the latter part
of the discourse, were such as could not refer to faith, but related
to a new doctrine, which appeared to them impossible.
We must not, however, be satisfied with this discovery; for a
great and important question here arises. The Jews believed
our Saviour's words in the liter^fi sense, even as we do: now the
main point is, Avere they right in doing so, or were they wrong?
If they were right in taking our Saviour's words literally, we
also are right, — if they were wrong in taking them literally, then
we also are wrong. The entire question now hinges on this
point, — the ascertaining, if possible, whether the Jews wers right,
or whether they were wrong, in taking Christ's words in their
literal sense. A most accurate criterion by which to discover
whether the Jews and ourselves be right or wrong, easily pre-
sents itself, and the process of applying it is a very simple one.
Let us examine, in the first place, all those passages in the New
Testament, where our Saviour's hearers uvonyli/ understood His
figurative expressions in a literal sense, and, in consequence of
this erroneous interpretation, raised an objection to the doctvLne.
and we shall see how our Lord acts on such occasions. We will
then examine another case ; that is, where his hearers take his
words literally, and are 7u^Jit in doing so: and on that literal in-
terpretation rightly taken, ground ol'lections to the doctrine; and
then we shall see how He actt» in those cases. Thus we shall
draw from oui* Savioux-'s method of acting, two rules for a«cer-
LECTURE XIV. 181
^bining whether the Jews were right or wrong; we shall see to
which class our objection belongs — and we cannot refuse to abide
by such a judgment.
I. In the first place, therefore, we have eight or nine passages
in the New Testament, where our Lord meant to be taken figu-
ratively, and the Jews icrongly took His words in their crude
literal sense, and objected to the doctrine. "We find in every in-
stance, without exception, that He corrects them. He explains
that he does not mean to be taken literally, but in the figurative
sense. The first is a weU-known passage, in His interview with
Nicodemus, (John iii.) Our Saviour said to him: "Amen, amen,
I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God." Nicodemus takes this, as the Jews do in our
case, literally, and objects: "How can a man be born again when
he is old?" He takes the words literally, so as really to mean a
repetition of natural birth, and objects to the doctrine as im-
practicable and absurd. Our Redeemer replies: "Amen, amen,
I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." This ia
manifestly an explanation of the doctrine, teaching him that a
person must be born again spiritually, through the agency of •
water. He does not allow Nicodemus to remain in his mistake,
which arose from a misinterpretation of the figurative expres-
sion. In the 16th chapter of St. Matthew, 5th verse, "Jesua
said to His disciples, take heed and beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and Sadducees." The disciples understood Him lite-
rally, as speaking of the bread used by the Pharisees and Sad-
ducees, and "thought among themselves, saying, because we
have taken no bread." He lets them know that He was speaking
figuratively: "Why do you not understand that it was not con-
cerning bread I said to you, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
and Sadducees ?" See how careful he is to correct them, although
no great harm could come from this mistaken interpretation.
But mark a very special circumstance with regard to this pas-
sage. Our Saviour saw that his disciples had misunderstood
him, and accordingly, in the 12th chapter of St. Luke, which
Doctor Townsend and others admit to contain a later discourse
than the previous one, when He wished to make use of the same
image to the crowds assembled, remembering how He had been
on a former occasion misunderstood by His apostles. He was
careful to add the explanation. "Beware," he says, "of the
leayen of the Pharisees, which is hypcicrisy ;" thus guarding
132 LECTURE XIV.
against the recurrence of that misunderstanding which had pre
viously taken place.
In John iv. 32, Jesus said to his disciples, " I have food to eat
ffhich you know not of;" and they asked, "Hath any man
brought Him any thing to eat ?" Jesus said : " My food is to
do the will of Him that sent me." Here again He corrects their
mistake, and shows that He is speaking figuratively. In the
11th chapter of St. John, 11th verse, Jesus said to His disciples :
" Lazarus, our friend, sleepeth." They here again mistake His
meaning: "Lord, if he sleepeth, he will do well:" they understood
that refreshing sleep would be the means of his recovery ; " but
Jesus spoke of death, but they thought that He spoke of the
lepose of sleep. Then, therefore, Jesus said to them plainly;
Lazarus is dead." No harm could have ensued from their con-
tinuing in their original belief that Lazarus was likely to re-
cover, as our Saviour intended to raise him from the dead ; but
He would not allow them to take His figurative words literall3',
and therefore He plainly said, " Lazarus is dead," showing that
He meant the expression figuratively, and not literally. Another
instance : when the disciples took literally His expression, in the
19th chapter of Matthew, " that it is easier for a camel to pass
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the
kingdom of God," He, as usual, corrects them, by adding, " that
it was a thing impossible to man, but not to God." They had
taken His words literally, and consequently understood them of
an absolute practical impijssibility : but He did not mean the
figure expressive of impossibility to be pushed so far ; and ac-
cordingly he rejoins, that only humanly speaking such salvation
was impossible, but that with God all things are possible.
In the eighth chaptei", Jesus says : " Whither I go you cannot
come ;"— and they said, "Will He kill Himself?" But He re-
plied: "You are from below, I am from above, — you are of this
world, I am not of this world." That is to say : " I go to the
world to which I belong, and you cannot come to it, as you do
not belong to it."
In all these cases our blessed Saviour explains his expressions ;
and there are three or four other passages of a similar nature,
in every one of which He acts in the same way. We have thus
our first canon or rule, based upon the constant analogy of our
Lord's conduct. Whei'e an objection is raised against His doc-
trine, in consequence of His words being misunderstood, and
what he meant figuratively being taken literally, He invariably
corrects, and lets his hearers know that He meant them to Ije
LECTURE XIV. 133
taken figuratively. I knoAv but of two passages which can bo
brought to weaken this rule : one is, where Jesus speaks of His
body under the figure of the temple : " Destroy this temple, and
tn three days I will raise it up again." The otlicr is, where the
Samaritan woman understands Him t<i speak of water literally,
and He seems not to explain that He spoke i-uly in figure.
Now, if I had sufficient time to enter into an analysis of these
tAvo passages, which would occupy a ccmsiderable time, I could
show you that these two instances are perfectly inapplicable to
our case. I ground their rejection on a minute analysis of them
which takes them out of this class, and places them apart quite
by themselves.* But as the instances already cited establisli the
first rule quite sufficiently, I shall proceed at once to the other
olass of texts ; that is, where objections Avere brought against
Christ's doctrine, grounded upon His hearers taking literally
what he so intended, and on that correct interpretation raising
an objection.
II. In the 9tli chapter of St. Matthew, our Saviour said to
the man sick of the palsy, "Arise, thy sins are forgiven thee."
His hearers took these words in the literal sense, when He meant
them to be literal, and made an objection to the doctrine. They
say — "This man blasphemetk;" that is to say, He has arrogated
to Himself the power of forgiving sins, which belongs to (jrod.
He repeats the expression which has given rise to the difficulty,
—He repeats the very words that have given offence: "Which
Is it easier, to say thy sins are forgiven thee, or, to take up thy
bed and walk ? But that you may know that the Son of man
hath power on earth to forgive sins . . . ." We see, therefore, in
the second place, that when His hearers object to His doctrine,
taking it in the literal sense, and being right in so doing. He
Joes not remove the objection, nor soften down the doctrine, but
insists on being believed, and repeats the expression. In the 8th
chapter of St. John : — " Abraham, your father, rejoiced to sec
my day. He saw it and was glad." The Jews take His words
literally, as though He meant to say that he was coeval with
Abraham, and existed in his time. "Thou art not yet fifty years
old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" They here again take His
words literally, and are correct in doing so, and object to His
assertion ; and how does He answer them ? By repeatmg the
very same propo.-^ition : — " Amen, amen, I say to you, before
Abraham was made, I am." In the 6th chapter of St. John, in
■
*Se« it in -'Lectures on tho Euchiirigt," p. 101-116.
184 LECTURE XIV.
the very discourse under discussion, we liave an instance whero
the Jews say: "Is not this Jesus, whose father 'and mother we
know, — how is it then, that He saith I came down from heaven?"
They object to His assertion, and He insists on it, and repeats
it again and again, even three times, saying, that He had come
down from heaven.
Thus, then, we have two rules for ascertaining, on any occ*
sion, whether the Jews were right or wi'ong, in taking our Lord's
words to the letter : — ^first, whenever they took them literally,
and He meant them figuratively. Ho invariably explained His
meaning, and told them they were wrong in taking literally wh&t
He meant to be figurative. Secondly, whenever the Jews un-
derstood Him rightly in a literal sense, and objected to the doc-
trine proposed, He repeated the very phrases which had given
offence. Now, therefore, apply these rules to our case. The
difficulty raised, is, " How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"
If the words were meant figuratively, Jesus, according to His
usual custom, will meet the objection, by stating that he wished
to be so understood. 'Instead of this, He stands to His words,
repeats again and again the obnoxious expressions, and requires
His hearers to believe them. Hence we must conclude that this
passage belongs to the second class, v.'here the Jews were right
in taking the different expressions to the letter ; and consequently
we too are right in so receiving them. Take the three cases
together.
THE PROPOSITION.
1. "Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom
of God."
2. " Abraham, your father, rejoiced to sec my day : he saw it
and was glad."
3. " And the bread which I wiU give is my flesh for the life of
the world."
THE OBJECTION.
1. " How can a man be born again when he is old ?"
2. "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen
Abraham ?"
3. " How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"
THE ANSWER.
1. " Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be bcm again
of looter and tlie Holy Glwst, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of heaven."
2. " Amen, anit-n, I say unto you. k^fure Abraham ■was made,
lam."
LECTURE xrv. 135
3. " Amen, amen, I say unto you, unless ytM cat the flesh of
the Son of man, and clrhik His blood, ye shall not have life in
you."
In the propositions and objections, there is a striking resem-
blance ; but the moment we come to the reply, there is manifest
divergence. In the first text, a modification is introduced, in-
dicative of a figurative meaning ; in the second, there is a clear
repetition of the hard vi^ord, which had not proved palatable.
And in the third, does Jesus modify his expressions? Does' he
eay, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the-
Son ofmanin spirit and by faith, ye shall not have life in you?"
Or does he repeat the very expression that has given offence ?
If he does, this passage belongs to the second class, when the
hearers were right in taking his words literally, and objected
upon that ground ; and, therefore, we must conclude that the
hearers of our Saviour, the Jews, wore right so in taking these
words in their literal sense. If they were right, avc also arc
right, and are warranted in adopting that literal intei-prctation.
After this argument, I need only proceed, in as summary a
way as possible, to analyze our Saviour's answer ; because I am
not content with showing that He merely repeated the phrase,
and thereby proving that the Jews were right in their version ;
but I am anxious to confii-m this result, by the manner in which
He made His repetition, and by the particular circumstances
which give force to His answer.
1. The doctrine is now imbodied into the form of a precept;
and you all know that, when a command is given, the words
should be as literal as possible, that they should be couched in
language clearly intelligible. Now thus, our Saviour goes on to
enjoin this solemn precept, and to add a sevei-e penalty for its
neglect. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink
His blood, you shall not have life in you." Here is a portion of
eternal life to be lost or gained by every Christian ; and can we
suppose that our heavenly Master clothed so important a precept
under such extraordinary figurative language as this ? Can we
imagine that he laid down a doctrine, the neglect of which in-
volved eternal punishment, in metaphorical phrases of this
strange sort ? What are we therefore to conclude ? That these
words are to be taken in the strictest and most literal sense ; and
this reflection gains further strength, when we consider that it
was delivered in a twofold form, as a command, and as a pro-
hibition. " If an}" mail oat of this ))roail, he sliall live for ever;"
ind, " except ye eat the flesh of the Sou of man, and drink Hia
136 LECTURE XIV.
l.M»ind, ye shall not have life in you." We have, therefore, the
compliance vpith its promise, the neglect with its penalties, pro*
posed to us. This is precisely the form used by our Saviour in
teaching the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism. "lie that
believeth and is baptized, shall be saved ; and he that bclieveth
not shall be condemned." The two cases are parallel, and, being
rrecepts, both must be taken in their literal sense.
2. In the second place, our Saviour makes a distinction be-
tween the eating of His body and the drinking of His blood ;
and does so in a very marked and energetic manner ; repeating
the expressions over and over again. If this be a figure, there
is no distinction between its two parts. If it be only descriptive
of faith, if only an act of the mind and understanding be here
designated, we cannot, by any stretch of fancy, divide it into two
acts, characterized by the two bodily operations.
3. Again, Christ subjoins a strong asseveration : " Amen,
amen," which is always used when particular weight or emphasis
is to be given to words ; when they are intended to be taken in
their most simple and obvious signification.
4. In the fourth place, we have a qualifying, determinating
phrase, because it is said, " My flesh is meat indeed," — that is to
say, truly and verily, " and my blood is drink indeed." These
expressions should certainly go far to exclude the idea that it
was only figurative meat and drink of which he spoke. When
a person says that a thing is verily so, we must understand him,
as far as it is possible for language to express it, in a literal
signification.
5. It is evident that our Saviour is compelled to use that
strong and harsh expression, " He that eateth me," a phrase that
sounds somewhat painfully harsh when repeated, however spiri-
tually it be understood. We can hardly conceive that He would,
l.iy preference, choose so strong and extraordinary an expression,
not only so, but one so much at variance with the preceding part
of His discourse, if He had any choice, and if this had not been
the literal form of inculcating the precept.
I have given you a very slight and almost superficial analysis
of our Saviour's answer. I might have quoted many other paa-
eages, had time served, to confirm the result at which we have
arrived, and to prove that the Jews were perfectly warranted in
literally determining the meaning of our Saviour's expressions.
We now come to another interesting incident. The disciples
exclaim ; " This is a hard saying," — the meaning of which ex-
pression is : " This is a disagreeable, an odious proposition."
i/'ECTURB XIV. 137
for it is in this sense that the phrase is used by ancieni authors.
"This is a hard saying, and who can hear it?" — "It is impcssi-
ble." in other words, "any longer to associate with a man who
t«anhes us such revolting doctrines as these." I ask, would they
have spoken thus, had they understood Ilini to be speaking only
of believing in Him ? But what is our Saviour's conduct to these
disciples ? What is Ilis answer ? Why, He allows all to go
away, who did not give in their adhesion, and at once believe
Him on His word ; He says not a syllable to prevent their aban
doning Him, and " they walked no more with Him." Can wo
posBibly imagine, that, if He had been speaking all the tinic in
figures, and they had misunderstood Him, He would permit them
to be lost for ever, in consequence of their refusal to believe
imaginary doctrines, which He never meant to teach them ? For
if they left Him, on the supposition that they heard intolerable
doctrines, which, indeed, He was not delivering, the fault was
not so much theirs ; but might seem, in some manner, to fall on
Uim whose unusual and unintelligible expressions had led them
into error.
In the second place, what is the conduct of the apostfes?
They remain faithful, — they resist the suggestions of natural
feeling, — they abandon themselves to His autlwrity without re-
serve. " To whom shall we go?" they exclaim, " Thou hast the
words of eternal life." It is manifest that they do not under-
stand Him, any more than the rest, but they subjuit their judg-
ments to Him ; and He accepts the sacrifice, and acknowledges
them for His disciples on this very gi-ound. " Have I net chosen
you twelve ?" — " Are you not my cJiosen friends, who will not
abandon me, but remain faithful in spite of the difficulties op-
posed to your conviction ?" The doctrine taught, therefore, was
one which required a surrender of human reasoning, and a su)>
mission, in absolute docilit}', to the word of Christ. But surely
the simple injunction to have faith in Him, would not have a{V
peared so difficult to them, and needed not to be so relentlessly
enforced by their divine Master.
I will now sum up the argument, by a comparative supposition,
which will place the two systems in simple contrast. Every
action of our Saviour's life may be doubtless considered a true
model of what we should practise ; and in whatever capacity He
acts, He must {)reseni, the most perfect example which we can
try to copy. lie is, on tliis occasion, discharging the office of a
teacher, and oi>ns(>qnently may be proposed as the purest model
of that character. Suppose a bishop of the established Churob.
138 LECTURE XIV.
on the one hand, and a bishop of the Catholic Church on thi
other, wished to recommend to the pastors of their respective
flocks the conduct of our Saviour here, as a guide to show them
how to act when teaching the doctrines of religion. The one
would have, consistently, to speak thus : " When you are teach-
ing your children the doctrine of the Eucharist, lay it down in
the strongest literal terms ; say, if you please, emphatically, in
the words of the Chux'ch Catechism, that ' the body and blood
of Christ are verily and indeed received by the fai thful in the
Lord's Supper.' Teach your doctrine in these words to your
children. If they say to you, as doubtless they will : ' But this
is the doctrine of Popery, — this is the Catholic doctrine, we
cannot believe in a Real Presence,' — follow the example of our
Saviour ; repeat the expression again and again ; give no ex-
planation, but insist, in the strongest terms, that Christ's flesh
and blood must be truly and verily received ; and let your scholars
fall away and leave you, as teaching untenable opinions : for, by
this course, you will imitate the example left you by your divine
Master." In other words, supposing you wished to give an
outline of our Lord's conduct to one who did not believe in His
divine mission, you would have to state that He was in the habit
of teaching with the greatest meekness and simplicity ; that He
laid down His doctrines in the most open and candid manner ;
that when on any occasion His hearers misunderstood Him, and
took literally what He meant figuratively, He was always ac-
customed to explain His meaning, to remove the difficulty, and
meet every objection ; but that, on this occasion alone. He com-
pletely departed from this rule. Although His hearers took His
words literally, when He was speaking figuratively, He went on
repeating the same expressions that had given rise to error, and
would not condescend to explain His meaning. You would add,
that even with His disciples He would enter into no explanation,
but allowed tliom to depart ; and that even His chosen apostle's
received the same unusual treatment.
But, in the Catholic explanation of this chapter, the whole is
consistent, from first to last, w^ith the usual conduct and charac-
ter of our Saviour. We find that He has to teach a doctrine:
we believe it to be a promise of the Eucharist ; He selects the
clearest, most obvious, and literal terms. He expresses it in the
most simple and intelligible words. The doctrine is disbelieved
as absurd: objections are raised; our Saviour, as on all other
similar occasions, goes on repeating the expressions which have
given ofience, and insists upon their being received without re*
LECTURE XIV. 139
■erve, thus evincing that lie cares not to form a party, or gather
around him a multitude of men; Ijut that he Avishes all to believe
Him, whatever His doctrines, and however grating to their feel-
ings. He would not even deign to soften the trial of faith for
His disciples, but allowed them to depart the moment they did
not receive His words implictly. Such is our case, perfectly con-
sistent with the character of Christ, while the other runs counter
to every thing we read of Him in the entire history of His divine
mission. Such a line of conduct we could unreservedly recom-
mend to every Catholic teacher.
It may be said that I have had the whole ai-gumcnt my own
way; that I have not examined the grounds on which Protestants
profess to differ from our explanation of this chapter. I answer,
that there can be only one true meaning in these words and
phrases ; and that, if our interpretation be right, it necessarily
excludes theirs. And I can insist upon this, that before we are
called on to give up our interpretation, they show us that the
Jews could have understood our Saviour, speaking in their lan-
guage, in the sense attached to His phrases by others, in direct
contradiction to ours. This, I maintain, has not yet been done.
I do not consider myself, therefore, bound to go into the exami-
nation of other interpretations. I did not lay down a proposi-
tion, and then attempt to prove it, but I have proceeded by simple
induction. I have given you a mere analysis of the text; I have
proved our interpretation, by examining minutely words and
phrases; and the result of all this has been, the Catholic inter-
pretation ; and, on this ground, do I admit and accept of that
interpretation, to the exclusion of all others.
But I do not wish to conceal any thing, or shrink from any
arguments or objections that may be made ; and I have, there-
fore, taken some pains to look through different divines of the
Protestant communion, who have defined their opinions upon this
subject of the Eucharist, and to ascertain what are the grounds,
not on which they object to the Catholic doctrine, but on which
they base and build their figurative interpretation. But, before
touching on them, I hardly need remark, that Sherlock, Jeremy
Taylor, and others, interpret this chapter of the Eucharist, —
even though they dissent from us as to the nature of Christ's
presence in this adorable Sacrament. In confirmation of the
line of argument which I have followed, I will refer to the au-
thority of two Protestant divines, among the most learned of
modern Germany. Doctor Tittman, in examining this passage,
allows that it is quite impossible to argue that our Saviour was
140 LECTURE XIV.
speaking of faith, from any interpretation which the Jews couU
have put upon it; for no usage of speech could have led them to
such an explanation. The other authority to which I beg to re-
fer is also of a Protestant writer, better known by the biblical
scholars of this country. It is Professor Tholuck of Halle, of
whose extensive acquaintance with oriental languages and the
/ihilological part of biblical literature, I can speak personally.
lie says, "It is manifest that a transition takes place in our Sa-
viour's discourse."* I quote these testimonies merely in con-
firmation of what I have advanced.
To come now to objections against our explanation. I have
taken some pains, as I before observed, to discover them; and I
have been often surprised to find them so few, and so exceed-
ingly superficial. I will content myself with one divine, who
has summed up, in a few pages, what he considers the Protestant
ground of interpretation. I allude to the Bishop of St. Asaph,
Doctor Beveridge, who has pithily condensed all the reasons
why this passage is not to be interpreted of the Eucharist. Ilis
arguments, in the main, are the same as others of the same
opinion have given ; and I will state his objections, and then
answer in the words of Dr. Sherlock. The first argument whicli
he gives for not interpreting this chapter of the Eucharist, is,
"that the Sacrament was not yet ordained. "f Here is the othei
divine's answer: — " Suppose we should understand this eating
the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of man, of feeding
on Christ by faith or believing ; yet they could understand this
no better than the other. It is plain that they did not, and I
know not how they should. For to call bare believing in Christ,
eating His flesh and drinking His Blood, is so remote from all
propriety of speaking, and so unknoAvn in all languages, that, to
this day, those who understand nothing more by it but believing
in Christ, are able to give no tolerable account of the reason of
the expression."!
To this we may add, that when our Lord inculcated to NicO'
demus the necessity of Baptism, that sacrament was not yet insti-
tuted ; and therefore, in like manner, it is no sound argument
to say, that, because the Eucharist was not instituted, He could
not speak of it as well. These are sufficient answers to the ob-
jection ; nor do I think that, even without them, it could be set
* Comment, on .To. vi.
f "TliPPauruR Thcolog." /»»</. 1710. vol. ii. p. 271.
J "Practical IHscour-sft of Rrligions Assomblieft," liund 1700, p. 364-7.
LECTURE XIV. X41
against ihc vfti-ied line of ar<j;umcnt, and tlie minute analysis of
the text wliich I liavc given yon tliis evening.
The second and third reasons why this discourse shoukl be
taken figuratively, are, that our Saviour says, that those who eat
His flesh and drink His blood shall live, and they who eat and
drink it not shall die. These are Doctor Beveridge's second and
third arguments, also much insisted on by Doctor Waterland.
The reply to this is very simple — there is always a condition an-
nexed to God's promises, "lie that believcth in me hath ever-
lasting life ;" — "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and
drink His Blood, ye shall not have life in you." Does the first
mean that nothing moi'o than faith is required for salvation ? Is
not each one bound to keep the commandments of God ? The
meaning clearly is, — He who believeth with such conditions, with
such a fructifying faith as shall produce good works, shall have
everlasting life. Here, as everywhere else, a condition is an-
nexed to the precept, — for we must always understand the im-
plied condition, that the duty be well and rightly discharged;
and thus, in the present case, eternal life is promised only to
those who worthily partake of the blessed Eucharist.
These are, literally, the only arguments brought by this re-
nowned theologian of the English Church in favor of her inter-
pretation. There is one popular argument, however, which 1
will slightly notice ; though, popular as it may be, it is of no
solid weight whatever. It is taken from the 64th verse : — "The
flesh profiteth nothing ; the words which I have spoken to you
are spirit and lift." Our Lord is hei'e supposed to explain all
His former discourse, by saying that the expressions lie had
used were all to be taken spirituallj' or figuratively. Upon
which supposition I will only make two remarks. First, that the
words "flesh" and "spirit," when opposed to one another in the
New Testament, never signify the literal and figurative sense of
an expression, but always the natural and the spiritual man, or
human nature, as left to its own impulses, and as ennobled and
Btrengthened by grace. If you will read the nine first verses of
the eighth chapter of St. Paul to the Romans, you will see tiit
distinction accurately drawn : and, if necessary, this explanation
may be confirmed from innumerable other passages. But, se-
condly, it is unnecessary to take the trouble of quoting, or even
reading them, because all modern Protestant commentators agree
in this explanation, and allow tbat nothing can \>e drawn from
that one vei-se for setting aside our interpretation. I need only
mention the names of Kuinool Home, Bloomfield, and Schleus-
142 LECTURE XIV.
ner, to satisfy you that neither want of learning, nor partiality
for our doctrines, has dictated that decision.*
But there is one Protestant commentator, to wliom I have ap-
pealed, who seems to let out the secret, and display the real
ground on which the figurative interpretation of this chapter
rests. "Still more," writes Dr. Tholuck, "were it not figura-
tive, it would prove too much, namely, the Catholic doctrine l"t
Jlere is the whole truth ; but, my brethren, can such reasoning
be for a moment tolerated? The falsehood of the Catholic
dogma is assumed in the first instance, and then made the
touchstone for the interpretation of texts, on which its truth
or falsehood must rest ! And this by men who profess to
draw their belief from the simple discovery of what is taught
in Scripture !
At our next meeting, we shall endeavor, with God's help, to
enter on the second part of our investigation, — the discussion of
the words of institution. In the mean time, I entreat you to
ponder and examine carefully the arguments which I have this
evening advanced, and try to discover if anywhere they be as-
sailable. If you find, as I flatc-er myself you will, that they resist
all attempts at confutation, you will be the better prepared for
the much stronger proof, which rests upon the simple and solemn
words of consecration.
* It having been intimated to me, that several of my audience considered this
answer too general, and indicative of a desire to slur ore* an import.int difficulty,
I took the opportunity, in the following lecture, to return to this subject, and quot«
the authorities at full: as given in the "Lectures on the EuLtarist," pp. 140-14-1.
As the .subject of that lecture was thereby necessarily intruded on. the interpols
Uon, if I may so call it, will be omitted in the publication, and the rea ler who (t»
aires full satisfaction may consult the work just referred to.
t Oomms&t, p. 131.
LECTURE THE FIFTEENTH.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
PART II.
MATT. xxTi. 26-28.
Ja^i lehili they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and qcvM
to hit disciples, and said : Tnke ye and eat, this is my body. And taHng the cTialice,
S': gave thanks, and gave to them, saying : Drinlf-ye all of this, for this is mt blood
of the New Testament, which shall be sited for many, for the remission ofsint."
In my last discourse, regarding the Blessed Eucharist, I en-
tered at length into the examination of the sixth chapter of St.
John, Tvhich I considered as the promise of the institution of that
holy sacrament ; and I proved to you, from the expressions there
used, and from the whole construction of our Saviour's discourse,
and from His conduct both towards those who disbelieved, and
towards those who believed His words, that He truly did declare
that doctrine on the subject which the Catholic Church yet holds,
— that is to say, that He promised some institution to be pro-
vided in His Church, whereby men would be completely united
to Him, being truly made partakers of His adorable Body and
Blood, and so applying to their souls the merits of His blessed
passion.
According to my engagement, therefore, I proceed this even-
ing to examine those for more important passages that treat of
the institution of this heavenly rite, and see how far we may
from them draw the same doctrine as we discovered in the pro-
mise. In other words, we shall endeavor to ascertain if Jesus
Christ really did institute some sacrament whereby men might
partake of and participate in His blessed Body and Blood. You
have just heard the words of St. Matthew, in which he describes
the institution of the Eucharist. You are aware that the same
circumstances are related, and very nearly the same words used,
by two other evangelists, and also by St. Paul, in his first epistle
to the Corinthians. It is not necessary to read over the passages
in them all, because it is with reference to words common to all
Uiat I have principally to speak this evening.
144 LECTURE XV.
We have here two forms of consecration, " This is my Body,
— this is my Blood." I own that to construct an argument on
these words is more diflBcult than it was on the sixth chapter of
St. John ; simply and solely for this reason, that it is irapossihle
to add strength or clearness to the expressions themselves. It
is impossible for me, by any commentary or paraphrase that i
can make, to render our Saviour's words more explicit, or reduce
them to a form more completely expressing the Catholic doctrine
than they do of themselves. " This is my Body — this is my
Blood." The Catholic doctrine teaches that it teas Christ's
Body and that it was His Blood. It would consequently appear
as though all we had here to do, were simply and exclusively to
rest at once on these words, and leave to others to show reason
why we should depart from the literal interpretation which we
give them.
Before, however, completely taking up my position, I must
make two or three observations on the method in which these
texts are popularly handled, for the purpose of overthrowing the
Catholic belief. It is evident that the words, simply considered,
—if there were no question about anj- apparent impossibility,
and if they related to some other matter, — Avould be at once
literally believed by any one who l^elieves at all in the words of
Christ. His reasoning would naturally be, " Christ has declared
this doctrine in the simplest terms, and I receive it on His
word." There must be a reason, as I will fully prove to you
just now, for departing in this case from the ordinary, simple
interpretation of the words, and giving them a tropical meaning.
It is for those who say that Christ, by the words, " This is my
Body," meant no more than, "This is the figure of m\' Bi)dy," to
give us a reason why their interpretation is correct. The words
themselves express that it is the Body of Christ. Whoever tells
me that it is not the Body of Christ, but only its figure, must
satisfy me how one expression is equivalent to the other. 1
will prove, too, presently, as I just said, that this is necessarily
the position in which the controversy is placed ; but I cannot
resist the desire of exhibiting to you the difficulties in which
persons find themselves involved, who wish to estaldish the
identitj- of the two phrases, and the extremely unphilosophical
methods which they consequently follow. I will take, as an
illustration, a passage in a sermon delivered a few years ago, in
a chapel of this metropolis, forming one of a series of discourses
against Catholic doctrines, by select preachers. This is on the
doctrine of Transubstantiation, and is directed to prove that it
LBCTURB XV. 145
\t unacriptural, and ought n>ot to be held. Now hear, 1 pray
you, the reasoning of this preacher on our subject. "Wo con-
tend that we must understand the words figuratively," — he is
speaking of Christ's words in my text, — "because there is do
necessity to understand them literally." What sort of a canon
of interpretation is here laid down! That no passage of Scrip-
ture is to be taken literally, unless a necessity can be shown for
it I that we must on principle take every thing as figurative, till
those who choose the literal interpretation demonstrate that
there exists a positive necessit}' for taking it so ! I should con-
tend rather that the obvious rule is to take words literally, unless
a necessity be proved for taking them figuratively ; and I wish
to know how this rule would stand before those who deny the
divinity of Christ, that we are not allowed to take any passage
literally, unless a necessity for it be first demonstrated. There-
fore, when Chi'ist is called God, or the Son of God, we must first
prove a necessity for believing Him to be God, before. we can be
justified in drawing conclusions from the words of those texts
themselves ! He proceeds : " and because it was morally impos-
sible for His disciples to have understood Him literally." Now
this is just what requires proof, because on this point hinges the
entire question — it is not a proof itself, but the proposition to be
proved. Well, the preacher seems to think so too, and goes on
to give a proof in the following words : — " for, let me ask, what
is more common, in all languages, than to give to the sign the
name of the thing signified ? If you saw a portrait, would you
not call it by the name of the person it represents, or if you
looked on the map at a particular country, would you not de-
scribe it Oy the name of that country?" I ask, is this a proof?
But let us see what examples he chooses: — "a portrait" — as if
there were no difierence between taking up a piece of bread, and
3!i3'ing, "This is my Body," and pointing at a picture, and say-
ing, "This is the kingl" As if language and ordinary usage do
not give the picture that very name ; but more than that, as if it
wore not the very essence of that object to represent another.
What other existence has a portrait, than as a type or representa-
tive ? does not its very idea suppose its being the resemblance
of a person ? But suppose I held up an ingot of gold without
the king's eftigy, and said, "This is the king's body," would my
audience therein' understand that I meant to institute a symbol
(if his person, on tlie jirounil tliat, had I showed them his efligy
on the coin, and said. "Tiiis is tlw^ king," they would have easily
undei«tood me to intimate that it was his Dortrait? 'i"l>" second
Vui.. IJ.— i
146 LECTURE XV.
instance he gives is "a map." — ^What is a map but the repre-
BOntation of a country ? What existence has it but so far as it
depicts the forms of that country? If it fail to represent it, it is
no map, and the expression would be no longer intelligible. But
when Christ says of bread, " This is my Body," tliere is no na-
tural connection or resemblance between the two ; there is no-
thing to tell men that he meant, " This is an emblem of my body."
In all such assertions there may be declamation ; but there is
manifestly no proof; nothing to demonstrate that the Catholio
interpretation must be rejected.
I will quote another passage from a writer better known : I
mean the author of the " Introduction to the Critical Study of
the Scriptures." He says, that the Catholic doctrine of Tran-
Bubetantiation is "erected on ?i forced and literal construction of
our Lord's declaration." The Catholic doctrine is based on a
forced and literal interpretation of Scripture ! I would ask,
where on earth were these two words put in juxtaposition in any
argument before ? — ^to call the literal the forced interpretation !
I do not believe that in any case, except a controversy on reli-
gion, an author would have allowed himself to fall into such a
proposition. If any of you had a cause before a court, and your
counsel were to open it by saying, " that the case must be ad
judged in favor of his client, because the adverse party had no-
thing in their favor except 'a literal and forced construction' of
the statute provided for the case," would you not consider this
equivalent to a betrayal of your cause? For, conceding thus
much is literally granting that there is nothing to be said on your
side. That any writer should, upon an argument so constructed,
condemn the CathoUc doctrine, is really extraordinary ; it is surely
accustoming students in theology, if the Introduction be meant for
them, as well as other readers, to very superficial and incorrect rea-
soning, and ought, consequently, to be reprobated in severe terms.
These may serve as specimens how far from easy it is to esta-
blish grounds, even of plausibility, for the rejection of the Catholic
doctrine. But there are graver and more solid writers, ^vho
satisfactorily admit, that, so far as our Lord's expressions go, all
is in our favor. I will quote one passage from Paley's " Evi
dences of Christianity," where he is giving proofs that the Gos-
pel's were not books merely made up for a certain purpose, but
that whatever they relate did really happen. He says : " I think,
also, the difficulties arising from the conciseness of Christ's ex-
pression, ' This is my Body,' would have been avoided in a made-
up story." Why so ? I may ask, if nothing is more common
LECTURE XV. 147
than to call signs by tlie name of thino;6 signified, and this was
as obvious and iutclliiriblc :i ti;xiuc as calling a picture of the
king by his name. lie cuntinues : "I allow that the explanation
given by Protestants is satisfactory; but it is deduced from a
minute comparison of the words in question with forms of ex-
pression used in Scripture, and especially by Christ Himself oc
other occasions. No writer woukl have arbitrarily and unneces-
sarily cast in his reader's way a difficulty, which, to say the
least, it required research and erudition to clear up."*
Here, then, it is granted, that to arrive at the Protestant in-
terpretation, it requires erudition and research ; consequently,
that it is not the simple, obvious meaning, which these words
present. When you say, that to establish a construction of a
passage, it requires study and learning, I conclude that it is his
duty who has chosen that construction to make use of these
means ; and the burden rests on him of proving his interpreta-
tion, not on those who adopt the literal and obvious sense.
Therefore, when the explicit, plain, and literal construction of
the words is that which we adopt, it becomes the task of those
who maintain us to be wrong, and say that the words, " This is
my Body," did not mean that it was the Body of Christ, but only
its symbol, — I contend, it becomes their duty to prove their figu-
rative interpretation.
Their argument necessarily takes a twofold form. Reasons
must be brought by them to prove, — first, that they are author-
ized, and secondly that they are compelled, to depart from the
literal meaning. This is usually attempted by two distinct ai*-
guments. First, an attempt is geiu'rally uimle to establish that
our Saviour's words may be taken tigurativel}^ ; that they may
be 80 interpreted as to signify, " This i-epresents my Body, this
represents my Blood," by bringing together a number of pas-
sages, in which the verb "to be" is used in the sense o^toreprer-
sent, and thence concluding that here, in like manner, it mai/
have the same meaning. In the second place, to justify such a
departure from the literal sense, it is urged, that by it wo en-
counter so many contradictions, S(j many gross violations of the
law of nature, that, however unwilling, we must abandon it, and
take the figurative signification. This is the clearest and com-
pletest form in which the argumentation can be presented. The
author, for instance, wliom I quoted just now, after giving us
his reason why we are not obliged to take these words literally.
148 LECTURE XV.
iuasimich as tlicrc is u-> ;ii.'ccssit\- for it, — gives u,s as a fuitlier
motive for not undorstamling tliem so, that the literal mcaiiiiig
leads to direct oontradictions and gross absurdities. These
are the two principal hpa<ls of objection whicli I shall have to
discuss.
First, then, it is urged that we may take our Saviour's words
figuratively, because there are many other passages of Scripture,
in which the verb "to be" means "to represent," and a great many
texts of a miscellauoous character are generally thrown together
into a confused lieap, to establish this point. In order to meet
them, it is necessary to classify them; fur although there is one
general answer which apidies to all, j^et there are specific replies,
wliich meet each separate class. The person who has given the
fullest list of such texts, and, indee<l, who has given sufficient
to establish this point, if it can be established by such a line
of argument, and the person above all others most populai'ly
quoted, is Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Discourse on the Eucharist.
He is, in fact, cited or copied by the two authors to whom I have
already referred. I will give you all his quotations, only dis-
tributing them into classes, so as to simplify mj- answers.
In the first class, I place all those passages of this form : Gene-
sis xli. 26, 27: "And the seven good kine are seven years."
Daniel vii. 24: "The ten horns arc ten kingdoms." Matthew
xiii. 38, .39 : "The field is the world, the good seed are the chil-
dren of the kingdom, the tares are the children of the wicked
one. The enemy is the devil, the harvest is tlio end of the
world, the reapers are the angels." 1 Cor. x. 4: "The rock
was Christ." Gal. iv. 24: "For these are the two covenants."
Rev. i. 20 : " The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches."
Here, it is said, arc a great many passages, in which the verb
"to be" means "to represent;" and this forms tlie first class of
texts.
Secondly, John x. 7 : "'I am the door." John xv. 1 : "I am
the true vine."
Thirdly, Gen. xvii. 10: "This is my covenant between thee
and me:" which is commonly supposed to mean, this is a re-
presentation or ima<;e of my covenant.
Fourthly, ExoJus xii. 11: "This is the Lord's passover."
Here are four classes of passages. I wish, first of all, to show
you, that, independently of the general answer which I shall give
to all, or at least of the minuter examination which I shall make
of the fir.<t class, and which will apply to many of the others, —
the texts comprised in the tiirftft iiuit olasst^s have nothing at kii
LECTirilB XV. 149
to do with the subject ; for the verb "to be" <locs not signify in
them "to represent;" and wo must consider only those to the pur-
pose in which it does mean "to represent." "I am the door;"
•' I am tlie true vine." I ask any one, on reflection, to an.swer,
does " to be" mean in these passages " to represent?" Substitute
tlie latter verb ; for if the tAvo be equivalent, the one must fit in
the other's place. Compare them with the words, " the rock wag
Christ." If you say " the rock represented Christ," the sense
is the same, because " to be" is its equivalent. "I am the door;"
I I ej)rescnt the door, — that is not Christ's meaning. "I am 05
the door, I resemble the door ;" that was what he wished to ex-
press. These passages consequently must be at once excluded ;
1)ecause it is evident, that if we substitute the phrase considered
equivalent, we produce a totally different sense from what our
iSaviour intended. Moreover, the answers which I will give to the
first class of passages will apply fully to these ; but I consider
this as a sufficient specific answer.
Secondly, "This is my covenant between thee and me." Dues
this mean that circumcision, of which this text speaks, repre-
sents, or was the figure of the covenant? Granted for a moment ;
God clearly explains himself; fur He says explicitly in the next
verse, that it is the sign : "And it shall be a sign or token of the
covenant." Therefore, if He meant to say that this was a figure
of the covenant. He goes on to explain Himself afterwards ; c.ui-
sequently no mistake could arise from His words. In the second
place, circumcision was not only a sign, but the instrument or
record of the covenant. Now, common usage warrants us in
calling by the name of the covenant the document or articles
whereby it is effected. If we hold in our hands a written treaty,
we should say, " This is the treaty." But leaving aside these
answers, it is easy to prove that the verb here noways means
"represents," and that there is no allusion to the type or figure
in the case. Tliis is evident, by comparing this text Avith every
iither in which a similar expression occurs. In all, the intro-
ductory formula signifies, that what follows is truly a matter of
compact or covenant : so that this would be the construction of
tlie entire text : "AVhat follows t^ my covenant between you and
me : you shall practise circumcision." Tlius, for instance. Is.
lix. 21': "This is my covenant with tiieni, saith the Lord; my
spirit which is in thee and my words, dial! not depart out of thy
iiiouth." ])oes God tliero mean, this is thr figure of my cove-
nani ? Do not the words signify, "What I am going to express
i« my Covenant;" so tlitit tiny are oidy an introductory or i>»'©-
150 LICTURE XV.
limiuary formula? Another instance, 1 Sam. xi. 2; "In this
will I make my covenant with you, Im boring out your rigJit
eyes." Here aj^ain the hard covenant follows the introductory
phrayc. And this interpretation is further confirmed by the
many passages in which God premises, "This is my statute or
command," after which follows the very command or statute. In
like manner, then, the words, " This is my covenant" do not mean
"This represents my covenant," but simply, "What follows is my
covenant." The examination of other passages, were there no
other consideration, would thus take this out of the class appli-
cable to our controversy ; but when we further see, that in the
next verse God expressly calls that rite a sign of his covenant, it
is plain that the form of expression is not parallel, as here an
explanation is subsequently given, which is not the case with the
words of institution.
Thirdly. The fourth class contains the text, " This is the
Lord's passover." This is an interesting text, not on account
of its own intrinsic worth, but on account of some particular
circumstances connected with its first application to this doc-
trine. It was on this text, and almost exclusively on its strength,
that the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation was rejected; it
was on this that Zuiuglius, when he attempted to deny it at the
time of the Reformation, mainly built ; for he found no other
text whereon to ground his objection against the words "This is
my Body" being literallj' taken. Now, I think we can easily
prove that the verb "is" has here its literal meaning. As the
cii'cumstances of his discovery are curious, I beg leave to give
his own account. Yet though the narrative tells greatly in our
favor, I feel a repugnance to detail it : it is degrading to human-
ity and to religion, that any thing so discreditable, so debasing,
should be recorded by any writer of himself; and I would will-
ingly pass it over, were it not that stern justice to the cause I
am defending, demands that I show the grounds on which the
Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence was first supposed to be
disproA'od. Zuiuglius, therefore, tells us himself, that he was
exceedingly anxious to get rid of the Catholic doctrine of the
Real Pi-esence, but found a great difficulty in arguing against the
natural and obvious signification of these wuds, "This is my
Bod}- — this is my Blood" — that he could find nothing in Scrip-
ture to warrant him in departing from the literal sense, except
passages manifestly relating to piivables.
It was on the 13th of April, early in the morning, that the
happy revelation occurred. His conscience, he says, ui'ges jbim
LBOTURE XV. 161
to relate the circumstances, which he would gladly conceal ; fof
he knows they must expose him to ridicule and obloquy. He
found himself, in a dream, disputing with one who pressed him
close, while he seemed unable to defend his opinion, tiU a moni-
tor stood at his side. "I know not," he emphatically adds,
" whether he were white or black," who suggested to him this
important text. He expounded it next morning, and convinced
his hearers that, on the strength of it, the doctrine of the Real
Presence was to be abandoned !
Such is the account given us of the first discovery of a text
sufficient to reject the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation,
and that text is the one which I have just quoted to you from
the 12th chapter of Exodus, 11th verse : " This is the Lord's
passover." I waive several considerations which might be drawn
from the circumstances in which these words were spoken, of a
natural tendency to teach the Israelites that a typical institution
was made, whereas at the Last Supper there was nothing done
or said which could intimate that any such intention existed ;
also some remarks regarding the phrase itself as intelligible to
the Jews, from the custom of calling sacrifices by the name of
the object for which they were offered. For, in truth, the text
is of no value whatever towards establishing the point that " to
be" signifies "to represent."
In fact, one of the most learned of modern Protestant coii>
mentators observes, that the construction is such as always sig-
nifies " This is the clay or feast of the Passover, saci-ed to the
Lord." The grounds of this translation can hardly be under-
stood, without reference to the original language ; in which, as
he observes, what is translated by a genitive, " the Lord's," is
dative, and in this construction signifies ** sacred to the Lord ;"
and then the verb is has its own obvious signification : as much
as when we say, *' This is Sunday," which certainly does not
mean, " This represents Sunday." To prove this point, he refers
to two or three other passages, where exactly the same form of
expression occurs, and shows that it always has a similar mean-
ing. For instance, in Exodus xx. 10 : " This is the sabbath of
the Lord," the dative form is here used : " This is the sabbath
to the Lord," meaning the sabbath sacred to Him. Now, the
construction in the original is precisely the same in both texts ;
nor is it ever used in the sense of a thing being an emblem or a
sign. In another text, (Exod. xxxii. 5,) "the festival of the
Lord," the same construction occurs, signifying the same ; and,
finally, in the 27th verso of th* very chapter in question, we
152 LECTURE XV.
have, " This is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover ;" that is, ac-
cording to the original, " tlie sacrifice of the passover [sucred)
to the Lord." From these parallel expressions, where in the
original exactly the same construction occurs, he concludes that
the verb " to be" is here literally taken.* Hence, this text af
fords no aid to the argument -which would consider the verb
substantive to mean "represent," in the words of institution •
the iutei-pretation put upon it is incorrect ; and, conse.^ucntly,
when Zuinglius learnt it from his monitor as a sufiicient ground
for rejecting the Catholic doctrine, may we not conclude that it
was not a spirit of truth that appeared to him, and that he re-
jected our doctrine on grounds not tenable, and by attributuig
to Avords a meaning which they cannot have ?
I have thus first set these passages aside, because, according
to the system I have endeavored to follow, I wish my answers t*»
be strictly and individually applicable to each part of the case ;
although the remarks which I shall make on the first class of
passages, where I own that "to be" means "to represent," will
apply to almost every one of them.
Well, then, it is argued that the words "This is my body, this
is my blood" may be rendered by " This represents my body,
this represents my blood," in other words, figuratively, because
in certain other passages quoted, it is obvious that the two terms
are equivalent. The only way in which the argument can hold,
is by supposing that tlie texts quoted form what are called jw-
rallel 2Mssaffes to the word of institution. But, first, I will ask
a simple question. In these passages, the verb " to be" means
"to represent;" but there are some thousands of passages in
Scripture, where the verb "to be" does not mean "to represent."
I ask the reason, why the words of institution are to be detached
from these thousand passages, and interpreted by the others ? 1
want some good reason to authorize me in classifying it with
these, and not with the others. It is no reason to say, that it is
necessary or convenient to take it so : I want some reason why
it must be so. Therefore, merely considering the question in thi?
indefinite way, we have a right to ask, why these words should
be detached from the multitude of places where " to be" has its
proper signification, and joined to the few tliat are always to Ije
considered the exception.
But let us join issue a little more closely. What are parallel
passages? Are any two passages where the same word occurs
*ROBeaiuUUer in loo.
LECTURE XV. 153
to be considered parallel? There must be something more,
necessary to constitute parallelism. "Well, I am -willing to take
Home's rule fortius source of interjn'ctatiou. It is briefly this;
that, when struck Airith any resemblance between passages, j^ou
must not be content with similarity of words ; but examine,
■' Avhcther the passages be sufficiently similar, that is, not oul//
rrlicthcr ilie same word, but also tJie same tiling, answers together."*
The rule is translated from another writer, and is more cloarly
exjtressed in the original, which says, that we must sec "ATJictlicr
butli passages contain the same thin-j, and not onli/ the same
irot(L"f And the commentator on this author makes this re-
mark: "We must therefore hold that similitude qf //</»//.■>•, not
of words, constitutes a parallelism."
We have a rule, then, laid down, that two passages arc not
parallel, or, in other words, that we maj'- not use them to interpret
one another, merely because the same Avord is in them, unless
the same thing also occur in both. Let us, therefore, ascertain
whether the same thing occurs, as well as the same words, in all
the passages of this class. But first, as an illustration of the
rule, let me observe that, when in my last discourse I quoted
several texts, I not only pointed out the same Avords in them
but I was careful to i>rove that the same circumstances occurred
— that is, that our Saviour made use of expressions which wei->^
taken literally when He meant to be understood so, that objec-
tions were raised, and that He acted precisely in the same mannor
as in the text under examination ; and from this similarity ot
things, I reasoned, considering the passages as parallel in con-
sequence of it. What is tJie thing in all the passages united in
this class, that we may see if it be likewise found in the Avords
of institution ? We may exemplify the rule in these passages
themselves. Suppose I wish to illustrate one of them by another,
I should say, this text — "The seven kine are seven years" — is
parallel Avith " The field is the world," and both of them with
the phrase, "These are the tAvo covenants ;" and I can illustrate
tiiem one by another. And Avhy? Because in every one of
ihcm tlie same thing exists : — that is to say, in every one of
these passages there is the intei-pretation of an allegorical
teaching — a vision in the one, a parable in the second, and an
allegory in the third. I do not put them into one class, because
they all contain the verb " to be," but because they all contain
the same thing — the3'^ speak of sumething mystical and typical,
* Vol. li. p. Sol. t Ki"nesti, p. 61.
Vol. II. -U
154 LECTURE XV.
the interpretatK>n of a dieain, an allegory, ai d a parable. Ther»v
foro, having ascortaincd that in one of these the verb " to be"
means "to represent,'' I coneliule that it has the same sense in
the others ; and I frame a general rule, that wherever such sj-m-
bolical teaching ocours, these verbs are synonymous. When,
therefore, you tell me that " This is my body" may mean " This
represents my body," because in those passages the same verl)
or word occurs with this sense, I must, in like manner, ascertain,
not only that the word " to be" is common to the text, but that
the same thing is to be found in it as in them : in other words,
that in the forms of institution there was given the explanation
of some sijmhoJ, such as the interpretation of a vision, a pai'able,
or a prophecy. If j'ou show me this, as I can show it in all the
others, then I will allow this to be parallel with them.
This similarity of substance will readily be discovered l)y
looking closely into those passages quoted by Dr. Adam Clarke
as parallel, which I have placed in this class. — " The seven kine
ai'e seven years," Joseph is interpreting the dream of Pharaoh ;
" And the ten horns are ten kings," Daniel is receiving the in-
terpretation of his vision ; " The field is the worM," our Saviour
is interpreting a para1)le ; " The rock was Christ," St. Paul is
professedly explaining the symbols of the old law, and tells us
tliat he is doing so, and that he spoke of a spiritual rock ;
" These are the two covenants," St. Paul again is interpreting
the allegory upon Hagar and Sarah : " The seven stars ai-c the
angels of the seven Churches," St. John is receiving the expla-
nation of a vision. All these passages belong to one class, be-
cause they refer to similar things ; — therefore, before I join to
them the words " This is my body," you must show me that it
nters into the same class by the same circumstance ; you must
show me that not only the verb " to be," which occurs in a
thousand other instances, is there : but that it is used under the
same conditions, in a ease clearly similar to these hy the expla-
nation of allegories, or dreams, or parables, or of any other
mystical method of teaching that you please. Until you have
done this, you have no right to consider them all as parallel, or
to interpret it by them.
But, before finishing this consideration, allow me to observe,
that not only, in every one of the instances I have quoted, is it
manifest from the context that a parable, a vision, or an alle-
gory is explained ; but the writers themselves tell us that they
'ire going to interpret such things. For, in the examples from
Uenesis, Daniel, and St. Mattiiew, it is said, "This is the infpr-
LECTURE XY. IM
pretation of the dream" — "Tliis ia a vision which I saV — "This
is the meaning of the parable which I spoke ;" — so that we are
expressly told thdt the speakers are going to interpret a figure.
St. Paul to the Galatians is equally careful, "which things are
an aUegory, fok, these are the two covenants." In the words of
institution, our Saviour does not say this is an allegory — He does
not give such a key to interpret His words as in the other cases.
St. Paul to the Corinthians, "All these things were done to them
in figure, and they drank from the spiritual rock; and the rock"
(that is, the spiViifuaZ rock) "was Christ." In the Apocalypse,
it is said to John, " Write down the things which thou hast seen;
the mystery of the seven stars," which, in the language familiar
to St. John, signifies the symbol of the seven stars. It is aftei
this introduction that he says, "And the seven stars are the an-
gels of the seven Churches." In every case, the wi-iter is careful
to let us know that he is going to deliver the interpretation of a
figurative teaching; and, therefore, before you can compel me to
apply these passages to the explanation of the words of institu-
tion, I require you to show me that a similar instruction is
found in these words as in those other passages.
But let us try the process of our opponents on another appli-
cation. In the fii'st verse of the Gospel of John, we have this
remarkable expression, — "And the "Word was God." Now, this
has always been considered by believers in the divinity of Christ
as an exceedingly strong text, and all its force lies in that little
syllable " was." So strong has it appealed, that in different
ways attempts have been made to modify the text, — either by
separating it into two, or by reading "The "Word was of God."
What is the use of all this violence, if the word "was" may
mean "represents?" If we are justified in giving it that inter-
pretation in other cases, why not do it here ? Compare these
three texts together, and tell me between which is there moat
resemblance ?
"The Word was God."
"The rock was Christ."
"This is my Body."
If, in the third of these, we may change the verb, because ■we
can do so in the second, what is to prevent our doing it in the
first? And instead of the Word "was God," why not interpret^
"the Word represented God t" Suppose any one to reason thus,
and still further to strengthen his arguments by saying, — ^that
in 2 Cor. iv. St. Paul tells us, that Christ is "the image of God;"
and in Celoss. i. says of Him, "who i>: the image of the inyisil)U
166 LECTURB XV.
God," — might he not as justly concUidc, that Christ being only
the image of God according to St. Paul, the words of St. John
may be well explained, conformably, as only intimating, that He
represented God ? No one has ever thought of reasoning in thia
way ; and if any person had, he would have been answered, that
these words cannot be explained or interpreted by " The rock
was Christ," because St. Paul is manifestly explaining an alle-
gory, or using a figurative form of teaching, of which there is
no sign in St. John. He v\"ould be told that he has no right to
interpret the one by the (tther, merely because, in both, the sen-
tence consists of two nouns with a verb between them; for that
is a parallelism of words and not of things. He must first show
that St. John, in this instance, was teaching in parables, as St.
Matthew, Daniel, and the others whom I have quoted. CFntil he
does this, he has no right to interpret the phrase, "The "Word
M'as God" as parallel with " The rock was Christ." Just, there-
fore in the same way, 3011 have no gi*ounds, no reason, to put
the words "This is my Bod}-," which still less resemble, "The
rock was Clu-ist," than the text of St. John, into the same class
with it, and interpret it as a parallel.
I conclude, that we must have some better argument than the
simple assertion, that our Saviour spoke the words of institution
figuratively, because, in some passages of Scripture, the verb "to
be" means " to represent." It is manifest, that not one of these
passages can be said to be a key to them, and that the words of
institution cannot be figuratively interpreted by them, unless
3'ou show more than a resemblance in phraseology : — until you
prove that the same thing was done in one place as in the others :
otherwise, whatever is denied to us, is thereby conceded to the
impugners of Chi-ist's divinity.
Thus far we are authorized in concluding, that the attenifjt
fails to produce passages demonstrative of the Protestant inter-
pretation ; for these are the only passages that have been quoted
as parallel to the words of institution. I have shown you that
they are not parallel, and consequently that they are of no
value. They are not adequate to explaining ours ; and some
other passages must be brought by our opponents, to justify
them in interpreting, "This is my Body" by "This represent-^
my Body."
1 shall pi-obably be obliged to delay until Sunday next tho
second portion of the argument — that is, the examination of the
diflSculties in the Catholic interpretation, which are supposed to
drive us to the figurative sense ; because, before leaving this ex-
LECTURE XV. 157
planation of words, this examination of phraseology, I must meet
one or two objections, -which may lead mo into some details. I
should have kept myself within the boumls of general observa-
tions, had it not been for a particular circumstauce, which makes
it my duty to intrndo a little more ]iorsonally on your notice,
Ihau I should otherwise have l>een inclined to dtt.
The first difficulty which I have to' meet has been repeated
again and again, and owes its origin or revival to Dr. Adam
Clarke, in his work already referred to, on the Eucharist. This
gentleman enjoyed, I believe, a eonsidera!>le reputation for his
acquaintance Avith oriental languages ; at least, with that dialect
which our Saviour and his apostles spoke. From this language
he raised an objection against the Catholic interpretation, which
was copied by Mr. Ilorne, in the very passage I have already
referred to, and which has been i-ecopied again and again, by
almost every writer on tliis subject. Instead of quoting tiis
words from the book itself, I prefer doing it from a letter sent
to nic a few days ago, after this course of instruction had com-
menceil. And this is the circumstauce, on account of which, I
think myself justified in coming moi'e personally before you,
than otherwise I should have been inclined to do. The letter is
!»s follows : —
London, March 4f/i.
"Rev. Sik:
'"I lieg most respectfully to invite your attention
to till' f illowiiig remarks on the Eucharist by a late divine, well
skilled in the oriental and f)ther languages, (Dr. A. Clarke.) and
which, I think, tend very much to we.iken that which Roman
Catholics advance in defence of transubstantiaticn.
"'In the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages,
there is no term which expresses fo mean, signify, or denote,
though both the Greek and Latin abound with them ; hence the
Hebrews use a figure, and say, it is, for it signifies. ' Tlic sesen
kiue ARE seven gears.' ' The ten horns .\re ten kings.' ' They
hank of the spiritual rock which foUoiced them, and the rock was
ijltrist.' This Hebrew idiom is followed, though the work is
written in Greek : ' The seven stars are the seven churches,' besides
;uany other similar instances.
""That our Lonl n<Mth!'r spoke in Greek nor Latin on this
occa-situi needs no pi-oof. It was most probaljly in wliat was
formerly called the Chalihiir, now the Sgriac,\\\A\. He conversed
with his disciples. In Matt. xxvi. 20, 27, the words in the Syriac
version are ' honau pagree,' this is my body — ' henau demee,' thii
158 X^CTURE XV.
is my blood, of ivhich forms of speech the Greek is a verbal
translation ; nor would any man, at the present day, speaking
in the same language, use, among the people to whom it was
vernacular, other terms than the above, to express ' Tliis represents
my body — this represents my blood.' — Discourse on the Holy
Eucliarist, by A. Clarke, D. D., London, 1808."
Here are three distinct assertions : First, that, in the Hebrew
or Chaldeo-Syriac, there is no word for "to represent;" secondly,
that with the people who spoke the same language as our Saviour
did in instituting the Eucharist, it was familiar or common to
say, "This is," when they meant to say, "This represents;"
thirdly, that if He meant to express, "This represents my body,"
he could do it in no other way than by saying, " This is my
body." Supposing all this true, it would not be proved that our
Saviour did institute a sign or symbol. For though lie would
have used these expressions in establishing it, yet the same
phrase would be as applicable, or rather, would be necessary,
for the literal declaration of the thing itself. The words would
be, at most, equivocal, and we should have to look elsewhere for
their interpretation.
The writer of the letter concludes in these words : — " I cannot
but feel surprised that a doctrine should be so strongly upheld
and defended by one who is a professor of Oriental languages,
and who has access to the various versions of the Scriptures, and
I humbly hope, Sir, that you will be led to see ' the error of
your way.' "
I am thankful, exceedingly thankful, to the writer of this
letter ; in the first place, because he shows an interest regarding
myself personally, which must be always a matter of obligation ;
and also in regard to the doctrines which I am endeavoring to
explain, I am thankful, because it gives me reason to sec that
this objection is still popular — still known; and that, on the
other hand, its confutation is not by any means so public ; and
en this account, I shall venture to enter more fully into the an-
swer than perhaps I should have otherwise done. Now, I am
challenged or called oii by these words to account how, having
acquired some little knowledge of the languages here referred
to, I can maintain n doctrine so completely at variance, as Dr.
Clarke asserts, with iiiat language, nv those scriptural versions,
to which I have been accustomed. And I answer, — that if any
thing on earth could have attached me more to our interpret;v
tion, — if any thiii;r couM have more strongly rooted me in m^
belief of the Catholic doctrine, it would have been the littl*
LECTURE XV. l69
knowledge I have been able to acquire of these pursuits. For I
will sho'W you how, far from this assertion of Dr. Adam Clarke's
having weakened my faith in the Catholic doctrine, it must, on
the contrary, have necessarily e nifirmed it.
About eight years ago, when more actively employed in the
study of these very matters, I saAV this passage from Dr. Adam
Clarke, as quoted by Mr. Hartwell Horno. According to the
principle I had adopted in conducting my inquiries, and in which
I hope ever to persevere, I determined to examine it fully and
impartially. Here were a series of bold assertions ; — that in a
certain language there was not one word that signifies " to re-
present ;" that it was common to express the idea of representa-
tion by the verb " to be ;" and that, consequently, our Saviour,
when He wished to say, " This represents my body," was com-
pelled to say, " This is my body." I determined to look into
them as into simple questions of philological literature ; to see
whether the Syriac was so poor and irtTctched as not to aiford a
single word implying representation. I looked through the dic-
tionaries and lexicons, and I found two or three words, supported
by one or two examples, enough to confute the assertion ; but
still not enough to satisfy my mind. I saw that the only way to
ascertain the fact, was to examine the authors who have written
in this language ; and in a work which I now have in my hand,
I published the result of my researches; entitled, "Philological
Examination of the objections brought against the literal sense
of the phrase in which the Eucharist was instituted, from the
Syriac language, containing a specimen of a Syriac dictionary."
In other words, simply considering the question as interesting
to learned men, I determined to show the imperfection of our
means for acquiring that language, and, by a specimen, to lay
open the defects of our dictionaries. The specimen consisted of
a list of such words as mean " to represent, to denote, to signify,
to typify," and are either wanting in the best lexicons, or have
not that meaning in them.
AVhat do you think is the number that this list contains, which
extends tlirough upwards of thirty or forty pages ? In other
words, how many expressions does the Syriac language, which
was said by Dr. Clarke not to possess one word for " to denote,
or represent," — how many do you think it does possess ? Tho
English language has only four or five, such as " to denote, to
signify, to reprostuit, to typify ;" and T think, with these, you are
arrived pretty nearly at the tnd oj' t!i'' list. Tlie Greek and
Latin have much tlie same nuii'bcr- i doubt if there be teu in
160 LECTURE XV.
either. How many then does the poor Syriac Linfruar^e presonti
LTinvards of forty ! Forty words are here colleeted, witli exam-
ples frnin the most classical authors ; hardly one of tliem Avitlioiit
several, some with twenty, thirty, or fort}-, — a few with nearly
a liundrcd : and in some cases, not one half tne examples have
Itoen given.
Here, then, is the first assertion, that in the Syriac languacje,
there is not one word for an idea for which it has forty-one !
More, I will venture to say, more than any language of the pre-
sent day can afford.
I dwell on this matter, not merely for the sake of its confuta-
tion, but as a general specimen of how easy it is to make bold
assertions, relative to subjects not much studied. Thus, any
jierson not acquainted with the language, and knowing Dr.
Ohirke to have been a learned man, and of course believing him
to ]^e honest in his statements, will take it for granted that his
positive assertions are accurate, and on his authority reject the
Catholic doctrine. Those assertions, however, are most incor-
rect :* the Sj'riac has plentj' of words, — more than any other, fur
the purpose required.
The second assertion is, that it is common, with persons using
that language, to employ the verb "to be" for "to represent."
This point, also, I have, to the best of my ability, examined :
and I kave no hesitation in denying that it is more common witli
them than with any otlier nation, as I can shoAV in a very simple
manner. I find, for instance, in the oldest commentator on the
Scripture in that language, that these words, meaning to re-
present, are so crowded together, that the^- will not stand transla-
tion. In the writings of St. Ephrem, the oldest in the Syriac
language, although he tells us that he is going to interpret,
figuratively or symbolically, through all his commentaries, and
consequently prepares us for corresponding language, yet the
verb "to be" occurs in the sense of " to represent" only twice,
or at most four times, where words which signify " to represent"
occur at least sixty times. In his commentary on the Book of
Deuteronomy, he uses the verb substantive six times in that
ecuse, but words significative of figure, seventy times ; so that
*> corr«spoudent has re<im'SteU me to ;;ive some of these words, in publishing
this lecture, statintr th;it my ussertions in the jiulpit had been called in question.
Were I to do so, I slumld only give a list of uniutelligilile sounds. But if any one
be inclined to doubt my contradiction of Dr. Clarke's fearless assertion, I beg h«
will consult the book referred tr : •■ Honn Syriai-w,"' Jiotne, 1828, p. 18-53, of wUek
a copy will be found in the British Museum.
LEOTTJBE XV. 161
the proportion of the two is nearly as six t sovontv. In tli«
necond place, I find that he avoided this use of the verb "to ])o"'
in such an extraordinary way, and crowded the otlier words so
thickly, that it was necessary, in some cases, in the Latin trans-
lation, to substitute the verb "to be" for them ; so that it was
easier to use it in that sense in Latin tlian in Sj'riac. In the
third place, I find that words meaning " to represent" came so
close together, that in eighteen lialf linos (for the text occupies
one half, and the translation the other half of eacli page,^so that
there are often only three or four words in a line) he uses the
words that mean " to represent" twelve times. This is in page
254 of vol. i. Page 283, he uses these verbs eleven times iu
seventeen lines. St. -James of Sarug employs them ten times in
thirteen lines ; and Barhebrjeus, another commentator, uses
them eleven times in as many lines." So much fur the fre-
quency with which it has been asserted that these writers us?-
the verb " to be" for *' to represent."
The third and more inrportant assertion wa'^, that any ])ers<)ii,
wishing to institute such a rite now-a-days. must conipulsDrily
use this form ; that, if he wished to ap[>oint a figure of his body.
he would be driven to say, " This is my body." I accepted the
challenge iu the strictest sense, and determined to verify it, by
seeing if this was the case. I found an old Syriac writer,
Dionysius Barsalibaeus, not a Catholic writer, who uses this ex-
pression ; " They are called, and are, the body and blood of Jesus
Christ in truth, and not figuratively." This passage shows
there is a means of expressing the idea of figure. Another pas-
sage is from a work by an old writer in Syriac, tlic original
of which has been lost, but which was trauslateii into Arabic,
by David, Archbishop iu the ninth or tenth century; and as it
is a fpiestion of language, the translation will tell sufficiently
well how far the assertion be correct. It says, "He gave us His
Ijody, blessed be His name, for tlie remission of our sins. . . lb'
said, ' This is my Body,' and He did not say, 'This is a figure of
my Body.' " Now, supposing the Syriac language had no wm-d
to signify 'represent,' how could this writer have expressed in
the original, that our Saviour did not tell us "This is the figure
of my l^od}'?" According to Dr. Clarke.'s reasoning, that they
who speak thu language have no alternative, the passage must
have run thus, '"ilfi did not say, tliis is mj- Body, but He said,
this is my Body I" Tliere is another and a still stronger pa*-
Vou U.— V
162 LECTURE XV.
sage from St. Maruthas, who wrote 300 years after Christ, and
is one of the most venerable fathers of the Oriental Church, and
it is written in the very language in question. "Besides this,
the faithful who came after His time would have been deprived
of His Body and Blood ;" — he is giving a reason why Christ
instituted the Eucharist. "But now, as often as we approach
to the Body and Blood, and receive them in our hands, we em-
brace His Body, and are made partakers of Him ; for Christ did
not call it a type or figure of His Body ; but said, verily, ' This
IS my Body, — this is my Blood.' "*
So far, therefore, from the writers of these passages believing
that our Saviour wished to institute a figure, and that He had
no means of using a specific word for that purpose, they ex-
pressly tell us that we must believe our Saviour to have insti-
tuted a real presence, because, speaking their language, he said,
" This is my Body," and did not say, " This is the figure of my
Body."
I appeal to you, now, if any knowledge which I may possess
of these languages, little though it may be, is any reason for
my rejection of a doctrine supported by such rash assertions
as these, which a very elementary acquaintance with their
source enabled me to confute? Let this serve as a warning
not easily to believe general and sweeping assertions, unless
very solid proof is brought forward ; not to be content with
the authority of any learned man, unless he give you clear
and strong reasons for his opinion. I have entered more into
detail, and come forward more personally than I could have
wished, and than I should have done, had it not been for the
manner in which I was taunted, however privately, with main-
taining doctrines which my own peculiar pursuits should have
taught me to reject. "If I have been foolish, it is you who
have forced me."
I must not forget to mention one circumstance, in justice to
my cause, and perhaps to an individual also. I have said that
Mr. Home had adopted that passage of Dr. Adam Clarke, in
which this assertion was made. This transcription was reprinted
through the different editions of his work, till the seventh, pub-
lished in 1834, iu whieh he expunged the passage ;t showing,
consequently, that he was satisfied with the explanation and the
confutation given to the assertion of Dr. Adam Clarke. This
WttH only to be expected from any honest and upright man ; bui
• F. 67-60. T Vol. ii. p. 448.
LECTURE XV. 163
it proves he was satisfied that the assertion which he had until
then repeated was incorrect. Dr. Lee, professor of Oriental
Languages at Cambridge, in his Prolegomena to Bagster's P'^Iy-
glot Bible, acknoAvledges that his fi-iend, Mr. Horno, was ic-
cidedly wrong in making such an assertion. These concessions
do not leave the confutation to rest on my individual assertion;
they prove it to be acknowledged on the other side that the ([ucs-
tion is at an end.
The second objection to which I wish to reply, contains a
similar misstatement. It has been often said, that the apostles
had a very natural clue to the interpretation of our Saviour's
words, by the ceremony or formula ordinarily used in the cele-
bration of the Paschal feast. We are told by many writers,
and modern ones particularly, that it was customary, at the
Jewish passover, for the master of the house to take in his hand
a morsel of unleavened bread, and pronounce these words:
" This is the bread of afdiction which our fathers eat ;" — evi-
dently meaning, " This represents the bread which our fathers
eat." Consequently, the formula of institution being so similar,
we may easily suppose our Saviour to have spoken in the same
sense, signifying, "This bread is the figure of my Body." In
the first place, I deny entirely and completely, that the expres-
eion meant, " This is the figure of the bread :" — it meant, ob-
viously and naturally, " This is the sort of bread which our
fathers eat." If any person held a piece of some particular
bread in his hand, and said, "This is the bread which they eat
in France or in Arabia," would he not be understood to say,
"This is the kind of hveadi they eat there," and not "This is
the figure of their bread?" — and in the case referred to, is no
the natural meaning of the words, " This unleavened bread is the
sort of bread which our fathers eat ?"
But, in fact, it is not necessary to spend much time in illus-
trating this reply ; for no such formula existed at our Saviour's
time. We have, in the first place, among the oldest writing?
of the Jews, a treatise on the paschal feast — it is their authori-
tative book on the subject — in which is minutely laid down all
that is to be done in the celebration of the pasch. Every cere-
mony is detailed, and a great many foolish and superstitious ob-
Bervanoes are given ; but not a single word of this speech, not
the least notice of it. This silence of the ritual prescribing the
forms to be followed, must be (ujufsidercd equivalent to a denial
of its being used. There is also another still later treatise ou
the pasch, iu which i^era it i>s>ta word regarding such a prao*
164 LECTURE XV.
tice. We come at length to Maiinoniclcs, eleven or twehe huii
dred years after Christ, and he is the first ^vriter who ;;ives thi*
formula. He first describes one ceremonial of the pasch, cxceetl
ingly detailed, ana then concludes, "So did they celehrate tiic
pasch before the destruction of the temple." In this there is not
a word of this practice — it is not hinted at. He proceeds to
say, — "at present, the Jews celebrate the pasch in the following
manner." In this second rite we have that ceremony; but even
then the words used are not in the form of an address, but arc
only the Ijeginning of a hymn to be sung after eating the pas-
chal lamb. Thus, the ceremony was not introduced till after
the destruction of the temple ; or rather, as appears from tvv:
older treatises, was not in use seven or eight liundied years after
Christ ; and, consequenth*, could not have been any guide fur
the apostles towards iuterpretiiig our text.
These two objections I have selected, because their answers
are not so much Avithin the range of ordinary controversy, and
because they have about them an air of learning which easily
imposes upon superficial readers. The great body of objections,
usually urged from Scripture against our interpretation, has
been incorporated in my proofs, for it consists chieflj'' of the
texts which I have discussed at length, and proved to be of no
service towards overthrowing our belief. Of one or two de
tached tests, I shall have better opportunity for treating, on
Sunday next, when, please God, I shall proceed to finish the
Scriiitural })roofs, and, at the same time, give you the tradition
upon this important dogma, thus bringing it, and the entire
course, to its conclusion. There is much to say on the various
contradictions into which the Protestant system leads its up-
liolders, and of the extravagances into which many of them have
fallen. But sufficient has been said to build up the Catliolic
truth, and this is the most important matter. That error will
l»o ever inconsistent, is but the result of its very nature. Let
us only hope that, in its constant shiftings, it may catcii a
glimpse of the truth, and, from the very impulse of its restless
character, be led to study it; and, l.iy the discontent of its per-
petual agitations, be 1)rought to embrace it — in whose profesaioa
aloue is true peace, and satisfaction, and joy.
LECTURE THE SIXTEENTH.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
PART III.
1 COR. X. 16.
■ the Clip ofhtrifdiction which we bless, is it not the communion of the hlood of Chrisit
And the bread which we break, is it not Ote partaking of Vie body of the Lordf"
Wi.«nixc, my brethren, to bring to a concluj^ion, thi.s evening,
tlie important topic whicli has occupied us for two succe.'^sive
Sundays, it -will be necessary for me to step back for a few mo-
ments, to bring j'ou to the point at which I left my argument ;
as tlio obs(»rvations whicli must follow are necessarily the sequel
to those which preceded them, and form, indeed, but part of the
train of alignment which I laid down for myself at the commcnc&
ment of my last discourse. In stating the position which the
Catholic holds, when treating the arguments for his doctrine of
tiie Eucharist, drawn from tlie words of institution, I oliserved
that the burthen of proving necessarily lies on those who main-
tain that we must depart from the strict and literal meaning of
our Saviour's words, and that, contrary to their natural and ob-
vious import, these words must be taken in a symbolical and
figurative sense. I, therefore, laid down the line of argument
which I conceived to be strongest on the side of our opiponfuts ;
and it led us into a twofold investigation : first, whetlar the
expressions in question can possiblj' be interpreted in their
figurative signification ; and, secondly, whether any reasons exist
to justifj' this less ordinary course, and to force us to a prefer-
ence of this figurative interpretation.
With regard to the first: adhering strictly to the princifjle of
biblical interpretation wliich I first laid down, I went in detail
through the various passages of Scripture advanced to pi'ove
tliat the Words of institution may be interpreted tigurativoly,
without going contrarj- to crdinary forms of speech in the New
Testament, and uKjre particularly in our Saviour's discourses
I canvassed tlieni, to show you that it \vu-< imposslMr to rsl.-iMish
any such pariilleli.sm between our wor-ls and the exau.plea
166 LECTURE XVI.
quntpd, as could give tln^ rip;ht to interpret our Isxt by thenii
This formed the first portion of the inquiry, and occupied your
attention duriut:; our lost Sumlay meeting.
The second portion of my task remains ; to see what the rea-
sons or motives may be for pi-eferring that figurative and harsh
interpretation, even at the expense, if I may say so, of propriety ;
to investigate Avhether there be not reasons so sti-ong, as to oblige
us to choose any expedient rather than interpret our vSaviour'a
words in their simple and obvious meaning. I believe I no-
ticed, that this is the argument very generally advanced by
writers on this subject, that we must interpret our Saviour's
words figuratively, Ijccause, otherwise, we are driven into such
an ocean of absurdities, that it is impossible to reconcile the doc-
trine with sound philosophy or common sense. While on this
subject, I may observe, that it is not very easy, even at the out-
set, and before examining its difficulties, to admit this form of
argument. Independently of all that I shall say a little later,
regarding these supposed difficulties, the question may be placed
in this point of view : — are we to take the Bible simply as it is,
and allow it alone to be its own interpreter ? — or are we to bring
in other extraneous elements to modify that inteiijretation ? If
there are certain rules for interpreting the Bible, and if all those
rules in any instance converge, to show us that certain words
will not, and can not, bear any interpretation but one, I ask,
if there can be any means or instrument of interpretation, of
sufficient sti-ength to overpower them all ? If we admit such a
case, do we not reduce to a nullity the entire system of biblical
interpretation ?
I find, however, that, with reflecting men, or, at least, with
those who are considered able divines, on the Protestant side of
the question, it has become much more usual than it used to be,
to acknowledge that this is not the method in which the text
should be examined. They are disposed to allow that we have
no right to consider the apparent impracticability, or impossi-
bility of the doctrine, but must let it stand or fall fairly and
solely by the authority of Scripture; and, however the circum-
stances may be repugnant to our feelings or reason, if proved
on grounds of sound interpretation, admit it as taught by God
Himself. To establish this concession, I will content myself with
a single authority, that of one who has been not merely the most
persevering, but also (for the expression is not too harsh) one of
the most virulent of our advensaries, and who, particularly ou
this subject of the Eucharist, lias taken extraordinary pains to
LECTURE XVI. 167
overthrow our belief. Mr. Faber writos in these words, on the
subject noAV under consideration :
"While arguing upon this subject, or incidentally mentioning
it, some persons, I regret to say, have been too copious in the
use of those unseemly words, 'absurdity and impossibility.' To
such language, the least objection is its reprehensible want of
good manners. A much more serious objection is the tone of
presumptuous loftiness which pervades it, and is wholly unbe-
coming a creature of very narrow faculties. Certainly, God will
do nothing that is absurd, and can do nothing impossible. But
it does not, therefore, follow, that our view of things should be
always perfectly correct, and free from misapprehension. Con-
tradictions we can easily ya?icy, where, in truth, there are none.
Hence, therefore, before we consider any doctrine a contradic-
tion, we must be sure we perfectly understand the nature of the
matter propounded in that doctrine : for otherwise, the contra-
diction may not be in the matter itself, but in our mode of ^07i-
eeiving it. In regard to myself, — as my consciously finite intel-
lect claims not to be an universal measure of congruities and
possibilities, — I deem it to be both more wise and more decorous
to refrain from assailing the doctrine of Transubstantiation, on
the ground of its alleged absurdity, or contradictoriness, or im-
possibility. By such a mode of attack, we, in reality, quit th»
field of rational and satisfactory argumentation.
"The doctrine of Transul)stantiation, like the doctrine of tha
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 most plainly is, not to discuss the
abstract absurdity, and the imagined contradictoriness, of Tran-
substantiation, but to inquire, according to the best means we
possess, whether it be indeed a doctrine of Holy Scripture. If
sufficient evidence shall determine such to be the case, we may
be sure that the doctrine is neither absurd nor contradictory.
I shall ever contend, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation,
like the doctrine of the Trinity, is a question of pure evidence."*
These observations are extremely sensible, and the comparison
which the author makes with another mystery, as I shall show
you later, sufficiently demonstrates it to be correct. However, I
do not, of course, mean to shelter myself behind his authority,
or that of any other writer ; I will not content myself with say-
ing, that sensible and acute, yes, excessively a/jute reasonera
• "DMcuUies of KomantoW/' ««Mf. 182^ p. 64.
168 LECTURE XVI.
against ub, ailniit that any fancied difficulties or o<"'ntradictioii»
are not to bo weighed against uur inteipvotation ; and thonce
i^onelude, that having, I trust, satisf:u»torily exaininod tlie allega-
tions on the other side, and proved them insufficient, we cannot
according to the obvious rule of interpretation, depart from the
literal sense. I have no such intention, my bretlnen. On the
contrary, I mean to meet these difficulties, but without departing
one step from the ground which I have chosen fiom the begin-
ning. I laid it down as my method and rule of interpretation,
that the ti-ue meaning of words or texts, is that meaning which
the speaker must have known would be affixed to his words by
those whom he addressed, and that we are to put ourselves in
their situation, an<l know what means they had for explaining
his words, and then interpret according to those means alone.
For, we are not to suppose that our Saviour spoke sentences,
which those who heard Him had no means of understanding, but
which we alone were afterwards to understand. If, therefore,
we wish to ascertain what were their means of interpreting the
wonls in question, we must invest ourselves with the feelings of
the apostles, and make our inquiry in their position.
It is said, then, that we must depart from the literal sense of
our Saviour's words, because that literal sense involves an im-
possibility or contradiction. The simple inquiry to be made, is,
therefore, could the apostles have reasoned in this manner? or
could our S!<viour have meant them so to reason ? Could they
have made the possiliility or impossibility of any thing He
uttered be the criterion of its true interpretation ? And if He
did not intend that for a criterion, which, as you will see, must,
if used, have led them astray, it is evident, that by it we nuist
not interpret the text. I beg you to observe, in the iirst jdace,
that tlie investigation into possibility or impossibility, whi'U
spoken with reference to the Almighty, is philosophically of a
much deeper chiu-acter than we can suppose, not merely or<l:-
nary, but positively illiterate and uneducated men, to have been
qualified to fathom. What is possible or impossible to God?
"W'liat is contradictory to his power? Who shall venture to de-
tine it, further than what may be the obvious, the first, and
Kirnplest principle of contradiction, — the existence and simulta-
neous non-existence of a thing ? But Avho will pretend to sa}-,
that any ordinary mind would be able to measure tliis perplexed
gubji'ct, and to reasnu thus — "The Almighty may, indeed, for in-
fctanie. change water into wine, 1>ut that he cannot change bread
•ntu a body." Who th;^^ V:>oVs on these twii propositions, with
LECTURE XVI. 169
the eye of an uncducatcil man, could say, that, in his mind,
there was such a broad distinction botAvcen them, that while he
saw one effected by tlie power of a Being believed by him to be
omnipotent, he still held the other to be of a class so widely dif-
ferent, as to venture to pronounce it absolutely impossible? Sup-
pose, again, that such a person had seen our Saviour, or any one
else, take into his hands a certain portion of bread, seven or five
loaves, and with these very identical loaves, as the Gospel nar-
rative tells us, feed and satisfy- three or five tliousand individuals,
80 that basketfuls should remain of the fragments ; not creating
more substance, but making that which existed suffice for the
effects of a much larger quantity, and then were told that the
same powerful Being could not make a body, or other food, be
at the same time in two places. AVould he, think you, at once be
able directly and boldly to pronounce in his mind, that, although
he had seen the one, although there could be no doubt that the
agent was endowed with such superior power to effect it, yet the
other belonged philosophically to such a different class of phe-
nomena, that his power was not equal to effecting it? I will
say, that not merely an uneducated man, but that the most re-
fined reasoner, or the most profound thinker, if he admitted on<3
of these facts as having been true and proved, could not pretend
to say that the other belonged to a different sphere of philoso-
phical laws — he could not reject the one from its contradictions,
in spite of the demonstration that the other had been.
Now, such as I have described, were the minds of the apostles,
those of illiterate, uncultivated men. They had been accustomed
to see Christ perform the most extraordinary works — they had
seen Him walking on the water, His body consequently deprived,
fur a time, of the usual properties of matter, of that gravity
which, according to the laws of nature, should have caused it to
sink. They had seen Him, by His simple word, command the
elements, and even raise the dead to life ; they had also witnessed
those two miracles to which I have alluded, that of transmuting
one substance into another, and that of multiplying a body, or
extending it to an immense degree. Can we, then, believe, that
with such minds as these, and with such evidences, the apostles
were likely to have words addressed to them by our Saviour,
which they were to interpret rightly, only by the reasoning of our
opponents, — that is, on the ground of what he asserted being
pliilosophically impossible ?
Moreovei', we find uur Saviour impn.'sscd His followers with
the idea, that nothing was inipo>ri!.!s to IIIui : th:it He never
Vol II —W
170 LECTURE XVI.
reproved them so beverely as when they doubted His power.
" Oh ! thou of Httle faith, why dost thou fear ?" He had s.
completely inspired His followers with this feeling, that whei
they applied to Him for any miracle, they never said, " li
thou canst, — if it be in thy power ;" it was only His will whicl
they wished to secure ; the man with the leprosy accordinglj
exclaims, — "Lord, if thou icilt thou canst makr me clean,''
"Lord," said Martha, " if thou hadst been here, my brother had
not died, but even now I know that icJiafavr thou askest of God
He will give to thee." To this extent, therefore, had their
faith in Him been strengthened, as to believe that whatever He
asked of God, whatever He wUled, that He could effect.
Nor is this aU : but our Saviour encouraged this belief to the
utmost. How did He answer the man with the leprosy ? " /
tciTZ, be thou made clean." " Your cure depends on my will ;
you were right in appealing to this attribute — the mere act of
my volition will effect it." How did He reply to Martha?
"Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me, and I know that
thou hearest me always." He confirmed, therefore, this idea in
them, that nothing was impossible to Him. Moreover, we hear
Him commend the faith of the centurion : " I have not found
Buch faith in Israel !" And why ? Because the centurion be-
lieved and asserted, that it was not even necessary for our Sa-
viour to be present to perform a miracle. "Amen, amen, I say
to you, that I have not found such faith in Israel," — not such ar
estimate of my power as this man had formed. Now, therefore,
again, if such was the conviction of the apostles, and if ouj
Saviour had taken such pains to confirm it in them, that nothing
whatever was impossible to Him, can you believe for a moment,
that He meant them to decide on the meaning of His words on
any occasion, by assuming that their accomplishment was im-
possible to Him ?
Furthermore, we find Him making this the great test of Hia
false and true disciples ; that the first, as we read in the 6th
chapter of John, went away from Him, remarking, — " This is a
bard saying, and who can hear it?" and the second remained
faithful, in spite of their not being able to comprehend His doc-
trine. Wherefore He formally approved of the twelve, saying :
" Have I not chosen you twelve ?" Although evidently in some
darkness and perplexity, they persevered, and remained attached
to Him; they yielded up their judgment and reason to His au-
thority : "To whom shall we go, for thou hast the words of
eternal life?" Again, then, our Saviour had accustomed Hia
LECTURE XVI. 171
npuBtles to this ar;iuiiiont on every occasiou : ''Although this
thing may api)ear inuM'ssiblo to us, as onr divine ^Master says it,
it must be so." Can Ave believe, then, that, on this one occasion
of the institution of the Eucharist, He made use of exjjressions,
the only key to whose right interpretation was to be precisely
the inverse of this their usual avgument, namely : " Although
our divine Master says, ' This is my body and blood,' because the
thing is impossible it cannot be so?" If our Saviour could not
possibly have expected His apostles to reason on the true mean-
ing of His words from any question of the possibility or im-
possibilitj- of what He seemed to say, if such a consideration
cannot have been the key to a right understanding, which they
could possibly have thought of using, then of course it cannot
be the instrument of interpretation, or the key to their meaning
with us ; because that only is the true meaning Avliich the apos-
tles attached to His words, and that only is the process of arriv-
ing at it, whereby they could reach, and must have reached it.
But, my brethren, as I before hinted, are we safe in at all
admitting this principle of contradiction to the law of nature,
Df apparent violation of philosophical principles, as a means of
interpreting Scripture ? What, I will ask, becomes of all mys-
tery ? Once let go the curb, and where, or how, will you stop
or check your career ? If the clearest words of Scripture are
thus to be forced, because, as they stand, we conceive them to
contain an impossibility, how will you vindicate the Trinity or
the Incarnation, each of which is no less at variance with the
apparent laws of nature ? And, after all, what do we know of
nature, we who cant^ explain the production from its seed of
the blade of grass on which we tread ? who cannot penetrate
the qualities of an atom of air which we inhale ? Perplexed
in our inquiries after the most simple elements of creation,
baffled in everj^ analysis of the most obvious properties of mat-
ter, shall we, in our religious contests, make a magic wand of
our stunted reason, and boldly describe with it a circle round
Omnipotence, which it shall not presume to overstep ? But, until
we can be certain that we are perfectly acquainted with all the
laws of nature, and, what is more, with all the resources of
Omnipotence, we have no right to reject the clearest assurances
of the Son of God, because they happen to be at variance with
our established notions.
Again, I ask, what becomes of that very mystery which we
observed Faberput in a parallel with that of Tran^ubstantiatiou
when he commented upon this ftvir«u»'^"t? What becomes of
172 T.FCTURE XVI.
tht- Triuitv? WliE^t hecmues uf the iue-arnatiuii uf uuv Saviuur f
VVluit of liis liirtli fVoni a A irgiii ? And, in slmit, what of cverv
unstcry of. the Christian religion ? Who will pretend to say tliat
he can, liy any streteh of liis imagination, or of his reason, sfle
how, by possil>ility, three persons in one God can he but one
Godhead ? If the contradiction, the apparent contrad'ction, to
the laws of nature, is so easilj' received, without being understood
b}' us here, is it to be a principle for rejecting another doctrine as
clearly laid dov>u in Scripture ? And if the doctrine of the Eu-
charist, which is even more plainly expressed than it, is to be
rejected on such a ground, how is it possible for one moment to
retain the other? Its very idea appears at iirst sight repugnant
to every law of number ; and no philosophical, mathematical, or
speculative reasoning, will ever show how it possibly can be. You
are content, therefore, to receive this important dogma, shutting
your eyes, as you should do, to its incomprehensibility ; you are
content to believe it, because the revelation of it from God was
confirmed by the authority of antiquity ; and, therefore, if you
wish not to be assailed on it by the same form of reasoning and
arguments as you use against us, you must renounce this method ;
and, simply because it comes by revelation from God, receive the
Keal Presence at once, in spite of the apparent contradiction tc
the senses ; for He hath revealed it, who hath the words of
eternal life.
It is repeatedly said, tliat such a miracle as that of the Eucha
rist, the existence of Christ's body in the way we suppose it to
be there, is contrary- to all that our senses, or that experience
can teach us. Now, suppose that a heathen philosopher had
reasoned in that manner, when the mystery of our Saviour's
incarnation, the union of God with man, was first proposed to him
by the apostles ; he would have had a perfect right to disbelieve it
on such grounds ; for he would have had not merely theory, but
the most uninterrupted experience, on his side. He could have
said it is a thing that ricver happened, which we cannot conceive
tc- happen, and, consequently, so far as the unanimous testimony
of all mankind to the possibility or impossibility of the doctrine
goes, it is perfectly decisive. When, therefore, any mystery is
revealed by God, and the observation applies chiefly to those
mysteries which have their beginning in time, such as the incar-
nation, it is evident that, up to that time, there must be against
it all the weight of philosophical observation, all the code or
canon of laws, called the law of nature, which can be deduced
Bolely from exjjerience or philoso^^cal observation. For, as the
LECTURE XVI. 173
law of nature is couiposed of that code of rules by which expo
rience shows us nature is constantly guided, it is manifest that,
experience not having given examples of such a fact, the law of
nature must necessarily appear to stand in contradiction to the
mystery. The only question is, cannot a mystery he instituted
by God ? Or, cannot it be revealed by Him ? And is not that a
sufficient modification of the law of nature ? And the more so,
whec it pleases God to make it dependent on a consistent, how-
ever supernatural, action.
Or, to take an illustration from the sacrament of Baptism, who
would say that, were it to be tried by the laws of nature, or even
by the connection between the spiritual and material world, that
sacrament would not stand to all appearance in contradiction
with them ? Who will pretend to say that there is any known
connection btjfveen those two orders of being, which could prove,
or make it even appear possible, that, by the bare action of water,
applied with certain words to the body, the soul could be cleansed
from sin, and placed in a state of grace before God? It is mani-
fest, on the contrary, that our experience in the phj'sical and
material world would lead us to conclude that such a thing
could not be. But has not God in this case modified the^aw of
nature? Has He not allowed a moi*al influence to act under
certain circumstances ? Has He not been pleased, that the mo-
ment the sacramental act is performed, certain consequences
should flow, as necessarily as the qonsequence of any physical
law must succeed to the act that produces it? Has He not bound
Himself by a covenant, in the samewaj' as in the material world,
that when certain laws are brought into action. He will give
them their supernatural efi'ect? And does not the same rule
precisely apply here ? If he who enacted the law of nature
chooses to make this modification of it — chooses to make certain
efiects dependent on certain spiritual causes — it no more stands
in opposition to it, than other superhuman exceptions to philo-
i-ophical laws: for both stand exactly on the same strong grounds.
In fact, my brethren, this seems so obvious, that several writers,
?.jid not of our religion, agree that on this point it is impos-
sible to assail us; and observe that this doctrine of Transubstan-
tiation does not, as is vulgarly supposed, contradict the senses.
One of these I ^vish most particularly to mention ; it is the cele-
brateil Leibnitz. He left lieliind him a work, entitled, "A System
of Theolugy," writtc)! in tlie Latin tongue, wiiiiii was deposited
in a publi<^ library in (iermaiiy, and was not laid before the
public until a very lew vears back, when the manuscript was
174 LECTUKE xvr.
procured by the late King of Franeo, and pulilished hy M
D'Emery, in the original, "svith a French tran.^latioi:. Leibnitz,
in this work, examines the Catholic doctrine on every p(iint, and
compares it with the Protestant; and on this matter, in particu
lar, enters into very subtile and metaphysical reasoning; and
the conclusion to which he comes is, that in the Catholic doctrine
there is not the smallest opening for assailing it on philosophical
principles : and, that these form no reasons for departing from
the literal interpretation of tlie woi'ds of institution.
Thus, it would appear, that the ground on which it is main-
tained that we must depart from the literal sense, is untenable —
untenable on philosophical grounds, as well as on principles oi
biblical interpretation. But besides this mere rejection of the
motives whereon the literal sense is abandoned, we have our-
selves strong and positive confirmation of it.
1. In the first place, the very words themselves, in which tho
pronoun is put in a vague form, strongly uphold us. Had our
Saviour said, 'This bread is my body, — this wine is my blood,"
there would have been some contradiction, — the apostles might
have said, " AVine cannot be his blood, — bread cannot be a body ;"
but when our Saviour uses this indefinite word, we arrive at its
meaning only at the conclusion of the sentence, by that which
is predicated of it. When we find that in Greek there is a dis-
crepancy of gender between that pronoun and the word "bread,"
it is more evident that He wished to define the pronoun, and
give it its charactei*, as designating His body and blood; so that,
by analyzing the words themselves, they give us our meaning
positivel}' and essentially.
2. But, this is still further confirmed by the explanations which
He adds to it; for persons using vague symbolical language,
would be careful not to define too minutely the object pointed at.
Now, our Saviour says, " This is my Body which is broken or
delivered for you, and this is my Blood which is shed ;" — by the
addition of these adjuncts to the thing, by uniting to them what
CDuld only be said of His true Body and Blood, it would appear
that He wanted still more to define and identify the objects
which he signified.
3. There are considerations likewise drawn from the circum-
stances in which our Blessed Saviour was placed. Can any of
you conceive yourselves, if, with a certain prophetic assurance
that in a few more hours you would be taken away from your
family and friends, you had called tliem around you, to make to
them your last bequests, and explain what you wished to be per
lECTURB XVI. 176
formed in remembrance of you for ever, that which was more
especially to bind them after your death to your memory, — can
you imagine yourselves making use of words, of their very nar
lure leading to a totally different meaning from what you had in
your miud, or wished to appoint ? And suppose that you were
gifted with a still greater degree of foresight, and could see what
would in future be the result of using these words — how by far
thfi greater pai't of your children, not believing it possible that
you could have any hidden meaning on such an occasion, would
determine to take your words quite literally, whence you fore-
saw the complete defeat or perversion of your wishes ; while only
a very small number would divine that you had spoken figurar
tively ; do you think that under such circumstances you would
choose that phraseology, when it was possible, without the waste
of another syllable, explicitly to state the true meaning which
you wished them to receive ?
4. Again, our Saviour himself on that night seems determined
to make his words as plain and simple as He can ; and it is im-
possible to read His last discourse to the apostles, as related by
St. John, and not observe how often He was interrupted by
them, and mildly, and gently, and lovingly explained Himself
to them. And not so satisfied. He Himself tells them — that He
is n(^t going to speak any longer in parables to them ; that the
time was come when He would no longer speak to them as their
master, but as their friend, as one who wished to unbosom Him-
self completely to them, and make them understand His words;
BO that even they say, "Behold, now thou speakest plainly, and
epeakest no proverb."* Under these circumstances, can we sup-
pose that He would make use of those exceedingly obsure words,
when instituting this last and most beautiful mystei'y of love, in
commemoration of their last meeting here on earth? These are
strong corroborations, and all lead us to prefer the literal mean-
ing, as the only reconcilable with the particular situation in
whish the words were uttered.
But, my brethren, there are two other passages of Scripture
which must not be passed over, although it wiU not be necessary
to dwell very long upon them ; they are in the Epistles of St. Paul
to the Corinthians. One of them I have chosen as my text; but the
other is still more remarkable. In the first, St. Paul asks, "The
cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the
Body of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the par-
* Johu xri. 29.
176 LECTURE XVI.
taking of the Body of the Lord?" In these -words, the apostle is
contrasting the Jewish and heathenish sacrifices and rites with
those of the Christians. No doubt but, when he speaks of their
actions and sacrifices, it is of eating and drinking really that he
treats, for, indeed, he is speaking of realities throughout. When,
therefore, he contrasts these with tlie realities of the Christian
institutions, and when he asks if these be not infinitely better
and perfecter than Avhat the Jews enjoyed, because our cup is a
partaking of the Blood of Christ, and our bread was a partaking
of the Body of the Lord, do not these words imply that there
was a contrast, a real contrast, between the two? — that the one
was partaken of as really as the other? that if their victims were
truly eaten, we also have one that is no less received?
But, on the otlier text, I have a great deal more to remark, foi
it is one of the strongest passages which we could desire in favoi
of our doctrine. In the following chapter, St. Paul enters at
length into the institution of the Last Supper, and he there de-
scribes our Saviour's conduct on that occasion exactly as St.
Matthew, St. Luke, and St. Mark have done, making use of pre-
cisely the same simple words. But then he goes on to draw con-
sequences from this doctrine. He has not left us the bare narra-
tive, as the other sacred penmen have done, but he draws prac-
tical conclusions from it, and builds upon it solemn injunctions,
accompanied with awful threats. Here, at any rate, avc must
expect plain and intelligible phraseology, and expressions noways
likely to mislead. How, then, does he write? — "He that eateth
and drinkcth unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to him-
self, not discerning the Body of the Lord." Again: "Whoso-
ever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord un-
worthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord."*
Here are two denunciations, founded by St. Paul on the doc-
trine of the Eucharist. The first is, that Avhosoever receives
unworthily drinks judgment or damnation to liimself, because he
does not discern the Body of the Lord. What is the meaning
of discerning the Body of Christ ? Is it not to distinguish it
from ordinary ibod, to make a diS'erence between it and other
things ? But if the Body of Christ be nut really there, how can
the ofienee be considered as directed against the Body of Christ?
It may be against His dignity or goodness, but surely it is not
an ofi"ence against His bod}-. But, on the second sentence, it is
curious to observe, that, throughout Scripture, the form of gpeecl:
LECTURE XVI. ITT
there used oocui-s ouly onc;e besides, in the Epistlj uf St. James,
ii. 10, wliere it is said, that Avhoevev " transgresses one com-
numdment is guilty of all," — that is, of a violation or transgres-
sion of all the commandments. It is the only passage parallel
in construction to this, where the unworthy communicant is said
to be guilty, — not of injury, not of crime, — but guilty of the
thing against which the crime is committed, — that is, guilty of
the Body of Christ. This is a peculiar expression, and perhaps
may be illustrated by a similar form in the Roman law, where a
man guilty of treason, or an offence against majesty, is simply
called "guilty of majesty," {reus majesiatis,) — that is, of a""
injury or offence against it. We see here, that the unworthy re-
ceiver is guilty of the Body, that is, of an offence against the
Body, of Christ ; but, as in the one case, if the majesty were not
there, that crime could not be committed, so, likewise, unless
the Body of our Saviour was here, to be unworthily approached,
the abuse of the Eucharist could not be called an offence against
it. Nay, rather such a designation would diminish the guilt.
For to say that a person offends again? t Christ Himself, or that
he offends against God, is a nmcli greater denunciation of guilt,
than to say that he offends against the Body of Christ, except in
cases of actual personal injury. For while the greatest outrage
possible would be one against His Body, when personally ill-
treated, as in the case of the -JeAvs, who buffeted and crucified
him ; yet, in its absence, it is the weakest mode of describing
the offence, when we are to suppose Him sitting at the right
hand of God, and, consequently, not to be approached by man.
Now, looking at all the Scripture texts on the Eucharist, con-
jointly, there is an observation which can hardly fail to strike
any considerate and reflecting mind. We bring to bear on it
four distinct classes of texts. First, we have a long discourse
delivered by our Saviour under particular circumstances, a con-
siderable time before his passion. Others suppose Him to have,
throughout it, treated of faith, or the necessity of believing in
Him. Yet, through a certain part of that discourse. He studiously
avoids any expression which could possibly lead His hearers to
understand Him in that sense, but again and again uses phrases
which naturally bring all who heard Him to believe that it was
necessary to eat His flesh and drink His blood — to receive His
body ; and He allows the crowd to murmur, and His disciples
to fall away, and His apostles to remain in darkness, without
explaining away their difficulties.
Let us allow that, for once, our Saviour spoke and acted so:
Voi,. II.— X
178 LECTUBE XVI.
we come, secondly, to anotJicr quito diilbrout jcc;ii«ion. It is no
longer the obstinate Jews, or unsteady disciples, whom He ad-
dresses : He is alone with His chosen twelve. He no longer
wishes to speak of faith, as all agree ; he wishes, according to
Protestants, to institute a symbol commemorative of His passion;
and, most extraordinarily, he uses words, conveying precisely
the same ideas as on the other occasion, when speaking of quite
another subject, having no reference at all to that institution. And
all this is related by several of the evangelists without comment,
in nearly the same words ; they evidently consider it a most im-
portant institution ; — but still we receive not a hint from one of
them that the words are to be understood figuratively.
We come, in the third place, to St. Paul, where he wishes, in
the words of my text, to prove that this commemorative rite of
the Christians is superior to the sacrifices eaten by the Jews and
heathens. Once more, although there is not the slightest ne-
cessity for such marked expressions, but he might have used the
words sijmhol, or Jigwe, or emblem, — although -writing on a to-
tally difi"erent occasion, and addressing a difiereut people, he falls
into the same extraordinary phraseology, he makes use of pre-
cisely the same words, and speaks as if the real Body and Blood of
Christ were partaken of. He goes on to reprove the bad use of this
rite. At least, on this fourth occasion, there is room to illustrate
in a different manner, — opportunity enough to describe its true
character ; but once more he returns to the same unusual phrases,
of Christ's Body and Blood being received, and tells us that
those who partake of this Blessed Sacrament unworthily are guilty
of an outrage on that Body. Now, is it not strange, that on
these four different occasions, our Saviour, and his apostles,
explaining different doctrines — speaking to different assemblies,
under totally different circumstances, — should all concur in using
these words in a figurative meaning, and not let one syllable slip
as a key or guide to the true interpretation of their doctrine ?
Is it even possible to supjDose, that our Saviour, discoursing in
the 6th chapter of St. John, and St. Paul writing to the Corin-
thians, though treating of different subjects, under varied cir-
cumstances,— should have adopted similar, figurative, and most
unusual language ? But take the simple interpretation which
the Catholic does, and from the first to the last there is not the
slightest difficulty ; there may be some struggle against the senses
or feelings — it may appear new, strange, and periiaps unnatural
to you; but so far as biblical interpretation goes, so far as the fair
principles for examining God's wo^dare concerned, all is consistent
LECTURE XVI. Vt9
from first to last. Jfou believe the expressions to be literal
throughout, and you believe the very same topic to be treated in
every one of these passages ; and consequently, you have harmony
and analogy from the first to the last on your side. Whereas,
on the other hand, you must find different explanations of the
same imagery and phraseology on those various occasions ; and
you are driven to the miserable expedient of choosing some little
word or phrase in a corner of the narrative, and persuading your-
self that it overthrows all the obvious consequences of the narrar
tive itself, and balances the clear evidence of a connected and
consisttnt proof.
To give an instance of this process : — it is said that, in the case
under consideration, we still find the names " bread and wine''
applied to the elements after consecration : and that, consequently,
all that long line of argument which I have gone through is worth
nothing : this one fact overthrows it all. Why, we Catholics call
it bread and wine after it has been consecrated ; and will any man
thence argue, that we do not believe a change to have taken place
in the elements ? These names, then, may be employed, and yet
the doctrine which we hold be maintained. In the 9th chapter
of St. John, our Saviour performs the cure of a man that was
blind ; he restores him perfectly to sight ; and there is a long
altercation between him and the Jews on the subject, which
beautifully demonstrates the miracle. The blind man is called in,
and questioned again and again, as to whether he had been blind;
they bring forward his parents and friends to identify him ; they
all testify that the man was born blind ; and that Jesus, by a
miraele, had cured him. But reason in the same way here as in
our case. Verse 17, we read, " They say again to the blind man;"
— he is called blind after the miracle is said to have been wrought;
therefore, the whole of the reasoning based on that chapter ia
worth nothing ; the fact of his being stiU called blind proves
that no change had taken place ! Precisely this reasoning is used
against our doctrine ; all the clear, express, incontestable expres-
sions of our Saviour to the apostles are of no value, because,
after the consecration, He still calls the elements bread and
wine ! We have a similar instance in the case of Moses, when
his rod was changed into a serpent ; and yet it continued to be
called a rod ; and are we then to suppose that no such change
had been made ? But it is the usage, the common method in
all language, when such a change occurs, to continue the original
name. It is said, in the narration of the miracle at the marriage
feast, "When, therefM-n the master of the feast had tasted <A«
180 LECTURE IVI.
water made mne." It could not be both water and wine rt
should have been called simph- wine, but it is called " water rnhdo
wine," 80 as to preserve the name Avhich it had before. These
examples are sufficient to show that such expressions as these
must not be taken, by any sincere inquirer, as the ground oi
interpretation for the entire passage, nor made to outweigh the
complicated difficulties that attend its being taken figuratively.
We naturally must desire, on a question like this, to ascertain
the sentiments of antiquity. Now, in examining the opinions of
the early Church on this subject, we meet with a most serious
difficulty, resulting from the circumstance which I made use of
on a former occasion, as a strong corroboration of the Catholic
rule of faith ; that is, the discipline of the secret, whereby con-
verts were not admitted to a knowledge of the principal mysteries
of Christianity until after they had been baptized. The chief
practical mystery of which they were kept in ignorance, was the
belief concerning the Eucharist. It was the principle, as I ob-
served on that occasion, among the early Christians, to preserve
inviolable secresy regarding what passed in that most important
portion of the service, the liturgy of the Church. For instance,
there is a distinction made by old writers between the Mass of
the catechumens and the Mass of the faithful. The Mass of the
catechumens was that part to which they were admitted, and tlic
Mass of the faithful was that portion from which the catechumens
were excluded. Consequentlj" the}', and still less the heathens,
knew nothing of what was practised in the Church during the
solemnization of the mysteries. This is manifest from innu-
merable passages, especially where the fathers speak of the
Eucharist. Nothing is more common than to find such expres-
sions as these : " What I am now saying or writing is for the
initiated," — " the faithful know what I mean." " If," says one
of them, " you ask a catechumen, does he believe in Jesus Christ,
he makes the sign of the cross, as a token of his belief in Christ's
incarnation and death for us ; but if you ask him, have you eaten
the Flesh of Christ, and drunk his Blood, he knows not what
you mean." We find this extraordinary passage in St. Epipha-
uius, when wishing to allude to the Eucharist : — " What were
the words which our Saviour used at his Last Supper? He took
into his hand a certain thing, and he said, it is so and so."
Thus he avoids making use of words which would expose the
belief of the Christians. Origeu expressly says, that any one
•who betrays these mysteries is worse than a murderer: St. Au-
gustine, St. Ambrose, and others, affirm that they are traitors t«
LECTURE XVI. 181
heir religion who do so. The consequence wa?, as TcrtuUian
observes, that the heathens knew nothing whatever of what was
done in the Church ; and when they charged tlie Christians with
various horrible crimes, as if there perpetrated, these contented
themselves with asking, how thev could pretend to know any
thing about mysteries, to which they were not admitted, and
cf wliich such pains were taken that they should know nothing.
This authority sufficiently proves that this discipline was not
of later introduction, as some have pretended, but had been
received, ns early writers tell us, from the time of the apostles.
For it would have been vain later to attempt concealment, if all
had been open at the beginnincr. We have a remarkable illus-
tration of this discipline in St. Juliu < 'hrisostom. In a letter to
Pope Julius, he describes a tumult in the Church of Constanti-
nople, in which he says, " they spilled the blood of Christ."
He speaks plainly, because writing a private letter to one of the
initiat«d. Not so Palladius, when relating the same circumstance ;
fi>r he says, they spilled "the symbols known to the initiated ;"
he was writing the life of the saint, which was to go abroad to
the world, and was careful consequently to avoid communicating
the mysteries to the uninitiated. There is another instance, in
the life of St. Athanasius, who was summoned before a court for
l)reaking a chalice ; and the council held at Alexandria, in 360,
expressed a horror of the Arians, for having brought the mysteries
of the church before the world through this accusation. The
same feeling is still more strongly expressed, in a letter from the
Pope to him, written in the name of a Council held at Rome.
He says, — " AYe could not believe, when we heard that such a thing
ivs the cup in which the Blood of Christ is administered, had been
mentioned before the profane and uninitiated ; and until we saw
the account of the trial, we did not think such a crime possible."*
This feeling and practice, you cannot fail to observe, must
necessarily throw a considerable veil over what is said in early
times on the Eucharist ; and it is only where accident enables
us to pr>- under it, that we are really able to see what the doctrine
of those ages was. The moans by which we discover it are various.
The tirst is, the calumnies invented by the enemies of Christianity.
We find it asserted by several old writers, and, among them, by
Tertullian, the oldest father of the Latin Church, that one of the
most common calumnies against the Christians., was, that in theii
* See my frienti Doctor DulliuatT's learned treatise, '■ Die Lehre von Uer Su
charietie.''
182 LBCTURB xn.
Assemblies, or sacred meetings, they murdered a child, and, dipping
bread in its blood, partook of it. He alludes to this charge
repeatedly. St. Justin Martyr tells us that when he was a hear
then, he had constantly heard this of the Clu-istians. Origen, like-
wise, mentions it, as do most wi-iters who liave refuted the accusa-
tions of Jews and heathens against the Christians. In what way
could this calumny have arisen: this fiction, that they dipped
br^ad in the blood of an infant, and eat it, — if they simply partook
of bread and wine ? Did it not imply that something more had
transpired among the heathens, and that the Body and Blood of
our Saviour Avere said to be partaken of on these occasions?
Does not the calumny itself insinuate as much ?
Secondly, we gain additional light by the manner in which
these calumnies are met. Suppose that the belief of the ancient
Christians had been that of Protestants ; what was more prac-
ticable than to refute these accusations? "We do no such thing
as you imagine," would have been the reply, " nothing that can
even give rise to the charge. We do no more than partake of a
little bread and wine, as a rite commemorative of our Lord's
passion. Come in, if you please, and see." Would not this have
been the simplest plan of confutation ? Instead of it, however,
they meet the charge in two ways, both very different. In tho
first place, by not answering it at all ; by avoiding the subject,
because they would have been obliged to lay open their doctrines^
and expose them to the ridicule, the outrage, and the blaspheniy
of the heathens. Although there would have been nothing at
all to fear from the disclosure, had they merely believed in a com-
memorative rite, their belief was manifestly such as they durst
not disclose ; they knew to what obloquy the confession of their
doctrine would expose them ; and consequently, they avoided
touching on the subject. A remarkable instance we have in the
case of the Martyr Blandina, commended by St. Irenteus. I have
not the passage here ; but he tells us, that the heathen servants
of some Christians, having been put to the rack, to make theia
reveal their masters' belief, they affirmed, after some time, that,
in their mysteries, tb.^ Cliristians partook of flesh and blood.
Blandina was presently charged with this guilt, and was put to
the torture, to make her confess. But, the historian says, she
" mostwisely and pni lently" answered : — " How can you think we
can be guilty of such a crime ; we who, from a spirit of mortification,
abstain from eating ordinary flesh ?" Xo\v, suppose the imputed
doctrine had been not at all akin to reality, Avhat was easier
than to say, — '" ^\'e believe uu doctrine that bears resemblance
LECIURE X^l. 183
to this fi-ightfiil imputation ; wc partake of a littln bread and
wine, as a bond of union, and a commemoration of our Saviour'3
passion. It is simple bread and Avine, and wc believe it to bo
nothing more." She, however, is praised for her wisdom and
exceeding prudence, because she did not deny the charge, at the
same time that she met the odious and unnatural imputation il
contained. The verj'^ silence and reserve, then, of the Christians,
in answering the charges of the heathens, compared with the
accusations themselves, allow us to discover, with tolerable cer-
tainty, what was their belief.
However, in the second place, occasionaly an apologist did
venture to remove this veil a little for the heathens. St. Justin
thought it better, from the peculiar circumstance of his addressing
his apology to prudent and philosophical men, like the Antouincs,
to explain what the real belief of the Christians was in this regard.
How does he make his explanation? Kemember, that the plainer
he spoke the ti'uth, the better he would serve his cause, if the
Christian Eucharist was only a commemorative rite. Listen,
now, to his explanation of the Christian belief, when wishing to
deprive it of all its disagreeable features, — when wishing to
remove prejudices and to conciliate. He says, "Our prayers
l;eing finished, we embrace one another with the kiss of peace ;"
a ceremonj' yet observed in the Catholic mass. " Then to him
who presides over the brethren, is presented bread, and wine
tempered with water ; having received which, he gives glory to
the Father of all tilings, in the name of the Son and the Holy
Ghost, and returns thanks, in many prayers, that he has been
deemed worthy of these gifts. This food we call the Eucharist,
of which they alone are allowed to partake, who believe the doc-
trines taught by us, and have been regenerated by water for the
remission of sin, and who live as Christ ordained. Nor do ice
take these gifts as common bread and common drink ; but as Jesus
Christ, our Saviour, made man by the word of God, took Flesh
and Blood for our salvation ; in the same manner, we have been
taught, that the food which has been blessed by the prayer of
the words which He spoke, and by which our blood and flesh, in
the change, are nourished, is the FlesJi and Blood of that Jesim
incarnate."* You see here how he lays open his doctrine in the
concisest and simplest manner possible : telling us, that the Eu-
charist is the Body and Blood of Christ.
But, besides writers placed in the circumstances I have described,
* Apol. i. Ilagaa Comitum. 1742. pp. 82, 83.
184 LECTURE XVI.
thore IB fortunatoly another class who liavo come down to as
into whom we must be naturally most Jisposorl to look for simpl«
information ; those who expound for the first time t(j the newly
luvptize^, what they have to believe on this subject. It was
natural tliat in explaining to them what they were tn believe, they
Rhould use the simplest language, and define the dogma precisely
as they wished it to be believed. Another class again is com-
posed of those whose homilies or sermons are addressed exclu-
sively to the initiated. These two classes aflFord abundant pi-oofs.
besides Avhich there are many passages scattered casually througii
the writings of others.
In the first instance, T vpill give a few of those expressly ad-
dressed to the newly baptized. The most romarkable of these
addresses are those of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, for Ave have a
whole scries of his catechetical discourses. In one of them, he
warns his hearer.s to bo careful not to communicate what ho
teaches them to lieathens or to the unbaptized, unless they are
about to be baptized. Thus he addresses them : " The ])read
and wine, which, before the invocation of the adorable Trinity,
were nothing but bread and wine, become, after this invocation,
the, Bodi/ and Blood of Chrisf."- " The Eucharistic bread, after
tlic invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer common bread, hu{
the Body of Clirist."^ This is the clear doctrine, most simply
expressed. In another place, he says : " The doctrine of the
Idessed Paul alone is sufficient to give certain proofs of the truth
of the divine mysteries : and you, being deemed worthy of them,
are become one body and one blood Avith Christ." After giving
an account of the institution, in the words of St. Paul, he draAvs
this conclusion : " As then Christ, speaking of the bread, de
clared and said, This is my Body, who shall dare to doiiht it ? And
as, speaking of the wine, He positively assured us, and said,
This is my Blood, loho shall dovht it and say, that it is not His
Blood ?"X Again: "Jesus Christ, in Cana of Galilee, once
changed Avater into Avine by His will only ; and shall we think
Him less worthy of credit, when lie changes wine into Blood?
Invited to an earthly marriage. He Avrought this miracle ; and
shall Avc hesitate to confess that He has given to His childi-en His
Body to eat, and His Blood to drink ? Wherefore, Avith all con-
fidence, lei lis take the body and blood of Christ. For, in the
type of brsad His Body is giA'cn to thee, and in the type of
• C*Ufk ^r^Jtg. 1, n. Tii. V. 308. t Ibid. Catech. 111. n. iii. p. 316.
J Ibid. iv. u. 1, p. 319.
liECTURE XVI. 185
winp, Ilis Blood is given : that so being made partakeis of the
'Jody and Blood of Christ, you may become one Body and one
Blijod with Him. Thus, the Body and Blood of Christ being
distributed in our members, wc become Ckrisiojori, that is, -we
earry Christ with us ; and thus, as St. Peter says, 'We arc made
partakers of the divine nature.' "* In another place, he expresses
liimself in oven stronger terms: " For as the, bread is the nourish-
ment which is proper to the body, so the Word is the nourish-
ment which is proper to the soul. Wherefore, I conjure you, my
brethren, not to consider them any more as common bread and
wine, since they are the Body and Blood of -Jesus Christ accord-
ing to His words ; and although your s^nse might suggest that
to you, let faith confirm you. Judge not of the thing by your
taste, but by faith assure yourself, without the least doubt, tliat
you are honored with the Body and Blood of Christ. This know-
ing, and of this being assured, that what appears to be bread, is
not bread, though it be taken for bread by the taste, but is the
Body of Christ; and that which appears to be wine, is not the
wine, though the taste will have it so, but is the Blood of Christ."!
Could the Catholic dogma of trausubstantiation bo laid down,
by any possibility, in terms more marked and explicit than these?
Such, then, were the terms in which the new Christians Avere
initiated and instructed ; such is the dogma laid doAvn in ele-
mentary catechetical discourses on the subject of the Eucharist.
St. Gregory of Nyssa, is another of these catechetical in-
structors. Hear him teaching the Christians regarding their ncAV
belief. "When this salutai-y medicine is within us, it repels,
by its contrary quality, the poison we had received. But what
is this medicine ? No other than that Body, Avhich was shown
to be more powei'ful than death, and was the beginning of our
life ; and which could not otherwise enter into our bodies, than
by eating and drinking. Now, we must consider, how it can
be, that one body, which so constantly, through the whole world,
is distributed to so many thousands of the faithful, can be whole
in each receiver, and itself remain wIkjIc." The very difficulty
made to the Catholic doctrine now-a-days. Hear his answer :
"The body of Christ, by tlu; inliabitatitm of the Word of (i(^d,
was transmuted into a divine dignity : and so I now believe,
that the bread, sanotififd by the Woid of God, is transmuted into
the body of the WanJ (.f (lod. This bread, as the apostle says,
i.» sancfififd % t/ie M'oj-t1 of God, and prayer, not that, as food, it
• Ibid. n. ii. iii. p. 320. f Catecb. ¥y«t- n- iv- v. ri. ix. p. 321, 322, 329.
V0L.n.— Y
186 LECTURE XVI.
passes into his bod}-, but that it is instantly changed into th«
Body of Christ, agreeably to what he said, This is my body.
And therefore does the divine Word commix itself with the weak
nature of man, that, by partiiking of the divinity, our humanity
may be exalted. By the dispensation of His grace, He enters,
by His flesh, into the breasts of the faithful, commixed and con
tempered with their bodies, that, by being united to that which
is immortal, man may partake of incorruption."* In this pas-
sage we have a word equivalent to transubstantiation, trans-
muting or changing one substance into another.! On another
occasion he says : " It is by virtue of the benediction that the
nature of the visible species is changed into His Body." — " The
bread also is, at first, common bread ; but when it has been
sanctified, it is called and made the Body of Christ."t
A distinguished writer of the second class, that is, one who
exclusively addresses the initiated, is St. John Chrysostom.
Than his homilies to the people of Antioch, nothing possibly
can be desired stronger, in demonstration of the Catholic belief.
In fact, I hardly know where to begin, or where I shall close my
extracts from him. I will take them, therefore, without choice.
" Let us, then," he says, " touch the hem of His garment ; rather
let us, if we be so disposed, possess Him entire. For His Body
now lies before us, not to be touched only, but to be eaten and to
satiate us. And if they who touched His garment, drew so much
virtue from it, how much more shall we draw, who possess Him
whole? Believe, therefore, that the supper, at which He sat, is
now celebrated ; for there is no difference between the two.
This is not performed by a man, and that by Christ. Both are
by Him. When, therefore, thou seest the priest presenting the
Body to thee, think not that it is his hand, but the hand of Christ
that is stretched towards thee."§ Again : " Let us believe God
in every thing, and not gainsay Him, although what is said may
seem contrary to our reason and our sight. Let his word over-
power both. Thus let us do in mysteries, not looking only on
the things that lie before us, but holding fast His words ; for
His word cannot deceive ; but our sense is very easily deceived.
That never failed ; this, often. Since, then. His word says : TJii*
is my Body, let us assent, and believe, and view it with the eyes
i)f our understanding." In another place, "Who," he asks,
" will give us of his flesh that we may bo filled ? (Job xxxi. 31.)
♦Orat. Catech. c. xxxvii. T. ii p. 534-7. t Mtrurroujir^ni.
t Orat. in Bapt. Christi, T. ii. p. 802.
i Uomil. 1. in cap. jut. Matt. I. vii. p. 616. dP
LECTURB XVI. 187
This, Christ has done — not only allowing Himself to be seen, but
to be touched, too, and to be eaten, and teeth to pierce His flesh,
and all to be filled with the love of Him. Parents ften give
their children to bo nourished by others: not so I, says Christ:
but I nourish you with my Flesh, and I place myself before you.
I was willing to become your brother : for the sake of you, I
took Flesh and Blood ; and again I deliver to you that Flesh and
Blood, by which I became so related."* — "What sayest thou, 0
blessed Paul? Willing to impress awe on the hearer, and mak-
ing mention of the tremendous mysteries, thou callest thtm the
cup of benediction, (1 Cor. x. 16,) that terrible and tremendous
cup. That which is in the cup is that lohicJi flowed from his
tide, and we partake of it. It is not of the altar, but of Christ
Himself that we partake; let us, therefore, approach to Him
with all reverence and purity ; and when thou beholdest the
Body lying before thee, say to thyself: By this body, I am no
longer earth and ashes, — This is that very Bodij lohich bled, which
was pierced by the lance. "f — "He that was present at the Last
Supper, is the same that is now present, and consecrates our
feast. For it is not man who makes the things lying on the
altar become the Body and Bloodof Christ : but that Christ whc
was crucified for us. The Priest stands performing his ofiice,
and pronouncing these words, — but the power and grace are the
power and grace of God. He says, ' This is my Body,' and these
words effect the change of the things oftered."| — "As many as
partake of this Body, as many as taste of this Blood, think ye it
nothing different from That which sits above, and is adored by
angels."^ One more short passage from him will sufiice : he
says: — "Wonderful! The table is spread with mysteries; tho
Lamb of God is slain for thee ; and the spiritual blood flows from
the sacred table. The spiritual fire comes down from heaven ;
the blood in the chalice is drawn from the spotless side for thy
purification. Thinkest thou, that thou seest bread? that thou
seest wine ? that these things pass off as other foods do ? Far
be it from thee to think so. But as wax brought near to the fire
loses its former substance, which no longer remains ; so do thou
thus Conclude, that the mysteries (the bread and wine) are con-
sumed by the substance of the body. Wherefore, approaching
* Hoiuil. slvi. alias xlv. in loan. T. viii. p. 272, 273.
t Homil. xxiv. iu 1 Kp. ad. Cor. T. x. pp. 212, 213, 2X4, 217.
I Homil. i. de ProJit. Judas. X. ii. p. '581.
{ UoniU iii. lu c. 1, ad. Kphes. T. xi. p. 21.
188 LECTTTRE XVI.
to them, think not that you receive the divine Body from a man,
but fire from the hand of the vScraphim."^
These are a few examples out of a great many more from tlic
fathers, expressly instructing the faithful without reserve ; and
sec what language they hold ! the fact is, that beginning from
the earliest times in the Church, we have texts without end,
expressing the same belief, sometimes casually mentioned, at
other times, although more closely veiled, betraying what their
doctrine was. For instance, St. Irenasus says: "This pure ol>-
lation the Church alone makes. The Jews make it not, for their
hands are stained with blood ; and they received not the Word
that is offered to God. Nor do the assemblies of heretics make
it ; for how can these prove that the bread, over which the words
of thanksgiving have been pronounced, is the BoJ;/ of their Lord,
aud the cup His Blood, while they do not admit that He is the
Son, that is, the Word, of the Creator of the world?''! This is
a casual passage in a writer speaking uf quite auother subject, —
of those who deprive themselves of the benefits of redemption,
by not believing in Christ.
In the following centuries, the authorities are absolutely over-
powering. I will content myself Avith one or two that seem par-
ticularly striking. St. Augustine again and again speaks most
strongly of this doctrine, as the following extracts will show.
"When, committing to us His Body, He said, TJm is my Bodi/,
Clirist was held in His own hands. He bore that body in His
hands." — "How was He borne in His liands?" he asks in the
next sermon on the same Psalm, — " Ijecause when He gavcHis own
Bod 1/ and Blood, He took into His hands tihat the faUhJ'id kiiotc;
and He bore Himself in a certain manner, when He said, This is
■my Body."X Again : "We receive with a faithful heart and mouth
the mediator of God and man, the Man Christ -Jesus, who has
given us His Body to eat, and His Blood to drink ; although it
may appear more liorrible to cat the flesh of a man, than to de-
stroy it, and to drink Jmman blood, than to spill it."| I will now
read you a splendid testimony of the Oriental Church. It is
that of St. Isaac, priest of Antioch, in the fifth centui-y, who
writes in these glowing terms: "I saw the vessel mingled, and,
f'tr wine, J'nll of Blood; and the Body, instead of bread, placed
<yn the luble. I saw the Blood, and shuddered : I saw the Body,
* llomil. is. d.' I'jenit. T. ii. p. Si9. V,50.
J- Adv. Iljer. Lili. iv. c. sviii. p. 2')1.
X In Psal. xiv. T. iv. p. .%"?:>.
2 Contra Adv. Legi.s. et Proph. L. ii. c. ix. T. viii. p. 699.
LECTURE XVI. 189
Jind Avas awcil with I'l-ar. FnKli vlii'^prrcd h n.^: EkI, itnd ht
zV.f)d; drink', <Iiild, and imjin'rc not. Sho shuwod nic tlie Bfuly
nlain, of Avhicli, i)lacinu; a ])iiitiuii on my lips,".shc 8aid gently:
Reflect, what tlion eatost. She held out to me a reed, directing
me to write. I took the reed : T wrote ; I pronounced : This is
the Body ofmij God. Taking then the cup, I drank. And what
I had said of the Body, that I now say of the cup: This is ilie
Blood of my Saviour.'"^
I will conclud-e my quotations with the sentiments of another
eminent father, which have been brought to light within the last
few years. The passage is remarkable in itself, from the strong
confirmation it gives our belief. It is, moreover, a proof how
little we have to fear from the discovery of any new writings of
the fathers ; how much, on the contrary, we should desire to
possess them all, because there is no instance of their being re-
covered, in which they liave not done us some good. St. Am-
philochius, bishop of Iconium, was the bosom friend of St. Basil,
St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Jerome, who speak of him as
one of the most learned and hoi}- men of their time. Of this
father we possess only a few detached fragments, but the little
we have is worthy of the fame which he enjoyed. These few
remnants contained nothing on the Eucharist, and never even
glanced at the subject. Four or five years ago were published,
for the first time, the acts of a council held at Constantinople, in
11G6, on the text, "The Father is greater than I." The bishops,
there assembled, collected a great many passages from the fa-
thers to illustrate these words ; and among the rest, one from
St. Amphilochius, of which we previously possessed a fragment.
The remaining portion, thus recovered, contains a powerfid tes-
timony in favor of our doctrine. As it has not yet found its
way into popular works, I beg t(j quote it at length. The writer
is as.serting the equality of the Father and Son. But, as our
Saviour had said, that the Father is greater than lie, Avhile on
:inother occasion. He tells us that they are one, St. Aniphilo-
diius endeavors to reconcile the two assertions by a series of
antitheses, which show how, in some respects, the Fatlun- is
eijual, and in others superior. This is the entire passag^i: "Tlie
Father, therefore, is greater than lie who goeth unto him, not
greater than He who is always in Ilini. And that I may speak
Compendiously; lie (the Father) is greater, and yet equal:
greater than He who asked, 'How many loaves have ye?" equai
• Serm. de Fide, lliM. Ori«p< T. 1. p. i'^O. lioinct, 1719
190 LECTURE xvr.
to Iliiu ■who satisfiod tho whole imiltitiile Avitli five lo.i> -•
greater than He who askeil, 'Wliere liavc ye laiil LazariiS?'
equal to Him Avho raised Lazarus by His word : greater than
He who said, 'AYlio toucheth me?' equal to Him who dried up
the inexhaustible flux of the sick woman : greater than He who
slumbered in the vessel; equal to Him who chid the sea: greater
than He wlio was judged by Pilate ; equal to Him who freeth
the world from judgment : greater than He who was buffeted,
and was crucified Avith thieves ; equal to Him who justified the
thief freecost : greater than He who was stripped of His rai-
ment : equal to Him who clothes the soul : greater than He to
whom vineo"ar was given to drink ; equal fo Jlim who giveth us
His own Blood fo drinJc: greater than He whose temple was dis-
solved ; equal to Him, who, after its dissolution, raised up His
own temple : greater than the former, equal to the latter."* As
the proof, then, that Christ and the Father are equal, this Saint
alleges that Christ gave us His own Blood to drink. Xow, if he
had believed Him to present us nothing more than a symbol of
His bluod, would that be a proof of His divinity, or that the
Father and He were equal? Is it of the same character as jus
tifying the sinner freecost, as clothing the soul with grace, free-
ing the world from judgment, and forgiving the penitent thief,
or raising Himself to life ? Can the mere institution of a symbol
be ranked on an equality with these Avorks of supreme power ?
And yet St. Amphilochius brings it among the last of his ex-
amples of miracles, as one of the strongest proofs of Christ's
equality to the Father: and we must consequently understand
it to have been, in his estimation, a miracle of the highest order.
Nothing but a belief in the Real Presence can justify such an
argument ; and this would be completely demonstrated, did time
aUow me to enter into further reflection on the text.f Here Ave
have a testimony recently discovered ; see how completely it
accords with the doctrine Avhich we maintain.
I have presented you Avith a very limited view of the argument
from tradition ; because I have chiefly contented myself Avith
selecting those few fathers who have expressly treated on the
Eucharist, and have consequently spoken Avithout reserA-e, for
the instruction of the faithful.
That there must be passages of considerable obscurity in their
writings, the circumstances before detailed will lead us to ex-
* "Scriptorum >et nova CoUectio." Rome, 1831 ; vol. iv. p. 9.
t See the account of this text communicated to tho "Catholic .Magaxine," viiL f».
1383, p. 284, ieq.
LECTURE XTV. 191
peot; of puch instances advantage has, of courso, been taken to
weaken the authority of tradition in our favor, but I hesitate not
to assert that, in every case, ingenuity has been baffled, and Ca-
tholic theologians have fully vindicated our interpretation of
their expressions. There are t^vo branches of this evidence,
liuwever, which I almost fear I may be taxed with injustice tfj
my cause, if I completely overlook.
The first consists of the liturgies or formularies of worship in
the ancient Church, Latin, Greek, and Oriental ; in every one
of which, the Real Presence, or Transubstantiation, is most clearly
recorded. They all -speak of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ
being truly and really present ; and, what is far more important,
they pray to God that the bread and wine may be changed or
transmuted into that Body and Blood.* This language is so
uniform, that the learned Grotius observed, it must be allowed
to have come down from the apostles, and, consequently, "ought
not to have been changed."
The second class of documents, which I must not totally omit,
is closely allied to the first. For, among the liturgies, are those
of many sects separated from our communion for upwards of a
thousand years ; and yet, on this point, we perfectly agree. But,
in addition to these standing monuments of their belief, I can
boldly invite you to look into their Confessions of Faith, or into
the \vi-itings of their respective doctors ; and you will find the
very same doctrine taught.
Ask the Greek, who sits, like Jeremiah, among the ruins of
his former empire, to what dogma of his faith he clings with
most affection, as his support in his oppression, and his comfort
in his degradation? and he will reply, that from his belief in
this mystery, as clearly attested in the confessions of faith sub-
scribed by his patriarchs and ai-chbishops, he has derived his
most feeling confidence and relief. Ask the Nestorian, separated
since the fifth century from the communion of our Church, and
secluded for ages from the rest of the world, in the uttermost
bounds of India, what made his forefathers hail with such
friendly interest, and regard as brothers, the first Europeans
who visited them in their unknown retirement? and he will
show you the published letter of his pastors, attesting that it
was their consolation to find men from Portugal, a country far
off, of whose existence they had never heard, celebrating the
* See the testimony of these Liturgies, as given by the K. R. Dr. Po^tar, ia kto
''QbtlMtianity," or iu the - Faith of C»y»oliia," 2a eU. p. 190, seq(i.
LECTURE XVI.
eaine sacrifice, viith the same belief, as tlioin.sclvot:. Ask the
e^arthy Moiiuphysito of Abyssinia, in ■vvhnsc yeu;;;raphy an<l his-
tory the name of Rome probabh' had not a place bofon; moilorn
times, what is the first mystery among the tliin and shrivelled
remains of Christianit}' which have continncd to hold their roots
in his scorched and barren land? and he replies, in tlio confes-
sion of faith written by the hand of one of his kings, tliat the
first find noblest of his sacraments is that of tlio Body and Bh)od
of his Lord. In a word, travel over the whole of Asia and
Africa, where one remnant of Christianity yet exists, ask all the
scattered tribes of the desert, all the fierci^ hordes of the moun-
tains, or the more instructed inhabitants of tlie city, what are
the points on which they agree relating to the Redeemer of tlit-
world, and His divine and human nature; and you will find
them at variance, and ready to combat together on the most im-
portant dogmas concerning it ; but the point round which all
will rally, the principle on which all will argue, as admitted
equally by all, is, that their Redeemer, Ijoth in his divine and
human nature, is really pi'esent in the sacrament of the altar.
To this mystery all recur, as a common neutral ground, whereon
to defend their respective tenets. And can this dogma have
come from any source but the fountain head of Christianity?
since, even when it thus flows through such broken cisterns,
it appears everywhere in the same purity, and maintains its
course with the same strength. "When we find this column of
faith, standing almost alone amidst the ruins and fragments of
Christianity, wherever we meet them, and always of the same
materials and proportions, always in the same integrity, must
we not conclude that it formed a substantial and most valued
ornament of the holy fabric, wherever the apostles erected it,
and that it is a sure emblem and representative of that pillar of
truth, on which the apostle of the Gentiles orders us to lean ?
In concluding this subject, I beg to make a few reflections, on
the beautiful manner in which the doctrine of the Em-harist is
connected with the system of truth which formed the topic t-f
my earlier discourses. You have seen how this most adt)rable
sacrament contains the real Body and Blood of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, who is, consequeuth-, therein present, so
Rs to be the real food of the soul; and necessarily the source and
means of conveying to it that grace whereof He is the author
Now, what were the wants of human nature which our blessed
Saviour came peculiarly to supply? The fall of our first p.arente
affected their pi>sterity in a twofold manner. In the lirst place.
LECTURE XVI. 198
having eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they were, in
punishment, blinded in their understandings, and left a prey to
error, uncertainty, and diversity of opinion : and this curse was
entailed on the understandings of their children. At the same
time, they were driven away from the tree of life, from that tree
which was intended for their nourishment and ours, to give per-
petual vigor to that happy state, and nourish it in a virtuous im-
mortality. No sooner was this lost, than the soul sank in dignity
and power, all its faculties and moral feelings became corrupted ;
and vice and depravity ensued from the irreparable loss.
We find this twofold want, of iniellectual light and moral life,
90 completely felt in every period of the world's history, that it
is impossible to doubt, that it formed the vital injury which man
had undergone. We see, on the one hand, mankind seeking on
every side for knowledge, not merely in vain speculations, or
more profound philosophies ; not merely hy consulting nature
through her works, or unravelling those clues of reasoning which
seemed to guide them through the labyrinths of their own minds;
but in ways which show how they felt the want of a superior
and supernatural enlightenment, by recourse to various kinds
of superstition, to vain oracles and auguries, and other fond and
foolish fancies, supposed to give them some communion with
heaven, or produce some glimmering spark of internal light and
mysterious knowledge.
But, besides this striving after a superior light, there was ever
a longing after a principle that could regenerate the human
heart, and bring it closer into communion with the Deity, as of
old in the normal state, wherein it was created. Frum what other
feeling could the custom have arisen, of partaking of sacrifices
ofi'ered up to the gods of paganism? Did not the very act
imply, that the victim having become the property of the god,
and, as it were his food, men were thereby brought into his
society or hospitality, and so associated Avitli him as to acquire
ft right to his protection and friendship ? But in some, there
was a resemblance still more marked to the paschal feast of the
New Law. In the Persian rites of Mithva, in some of the sacri-
fices of India, and of the North, of China, and of America, the
resemblance is so great, as to have excited a suspicion that they
may have arisen from a corrupted imitation of Christianity.*
But the mind of the philosoplicr, without entering into any
Bubtle disquisition, is content to see recorded, in all such insti-
* Se« the Abb$ Gerbet'u treatise, " I<e dogma ginfirateur ie la pl6te Catholiqne."
Vou 11— Z
194 LECTURE XVI.
talions, the want, felt by the human soul, of some regenerating
and invigorating principle, of some living and quickening food,
fraught with grace from above, which could bring it into com-
munion with the God that gave it.
If our blessed Saviour came on earth to restore poor man once
more to the happy state from which he had fallen, so far as was
consistent with the impaired state of his intellectual and moral
faculties; if He came to satisfy all the just cravings of humanity
after what is good and holy, — we may expect to find in His holy
religion, and in the Church — his earthly paradise — institutions
folly adequate to these great ends. And such the Catholic be-
lieves to be the case.
First, he hath planted in it a tree of knowledge, as a beacon
on the top of mountains, towards which all nations may flow,
from which are darted rays of bright and cheering light to the
benighted nations of the earth, and under whose shadow repose,
and on whose wholesome fruits are fed, they who have been
brought beneath its shelter. For, we believe — and my first dis-
courses were directed to prove it — that in the Church of God is
an infallible and enduring authority to teach, appointed and
guarantied by Christ Himself.
And beside it. He has placed the tree of life, in the life-giving
institution of which we last have treated, a perpetual memorial
of the benefits of redemption, bearing that sweetest food of sal-
vation, which weighed down with its blessing the tree of Gol-
gotha; lasting and immortal as the plant of knowledge beside
which it stands. Here we partake of a victim, which truly unites
and incorporates us with God, and gives us a pledge of His
friendship and love, and supplies a never-failing source of bene-
diction and grace.
But they who sit daQy round the same table, are the children
of the same house ; and hence is this holy institution a bond of
union between the professors of the one faith. For, see how per-
fectly the two institutions harmonize together, and are absolutely
necessary to one another. The one preserves us in religious
unity, whereby our understandings and minds are brought into
perfect accord thiongh. faith, the same in all; the other keeps us
Ji communion, in aflectionate connection, as members of one
body. The very name which the participation of this sacred
banquet has received amongst us, designates this its quality.
And in this manner, as the one great principle may be called
the mmd or intellect of God's Church, which directs and governs
it8 entire frame, this blessed sacrament may well be designated
LECTURE XVI. 195
Its heart, in which lies treasured an unfailing fountain of holiest
affection, that flo'w's unceasingly to its furthest extremity, in a
warm stream of invigorating and spiritualizing vitality.
This influence of our belief in the Real PresancB upon every
part of our practical religion, is too manifest to need any illus-
tration. Why do wo, when it is in our powei', and why did our
forefathers before us, erect sumptuous churches, and lavish on
them all the richos of earth, but that we believe them to be ths
real taJ^ernacles wherein the Emmanuel, the "God with us,"
really dwells ? Why is our worship conducted with such pomp
and solemnity, save that we perform it as a personal service on
the incarnate Word of God? Why are the gates of our churches,
in Catholic countries, open all day, and why do men enter at all
hours to whisper a prayer, or prostrate themselves in adoration,
but from the conviction that God is there more intimately present
than elsewhere, through this glorious mystery ? The practice ef
confession, and consequently of repentance, is closely connected,
as Lord Fitzwilliam has observed,* with this belief. For it is
the necessity of approaching to the sacred table with a clean
heart, that mainly enforces its practice ; and the sinner in repent-
ance is urged to the painful purgation, by the promised refresh-
ment of the celestial banquet.
The sacred character which the Catholic priest possesses in
the estimation of his flock, the power of blessing with which
he seems invested, are both the result of that familiarity with
which, in the holy mysteries, he is allowed to approach his Lord.
The celibacy to which the clergy bind themselves is but a prac-
tical expression of tliat sentiment which the Church entertains
of the unvarying purity of conduct and thought, wherewith the
altar should be approached. In this manner does the sacrament
of the Eucharist form the very soul and essence of all practical
religion among Catholics. But it has a much sublimer destiny
to fulfil.
I observed, in an early portion of my discourses, that the
Church of Christ holds a middle state, between one that is past,
and one that is yet to come. I showed you how the former, which
hath passed awaj^ by its form and constitution threw much light
upon our present dispensation, whereof it was the shadow.f Bat
our state, too, must in its turn reflect some of the brightness of our
future destiny, even as the mountains and the sky receive a glow
of promise, ere the sun hath risen in the fulness of his splendor.
* "Letters of Atticus." f See Lect. iv. Tol. 1. p. 86.
IM LKCTURE XVI.
And what is the essence of that blessed eiate but love or
jharity, in which, as in a cloudless atmosphere, the spirits made
perfect breathe and move, and live? Through it thej are brought
so near unto God as to see Him face to face, and feed upon His
unsating glory ; through it their affections are blended together,
till each partakes of the other's happiness. And how could
this universal love be so well represented here below, as by a sa-
crament like this, which, suited by its mysterious veils to our
corporeal existence, and having the root of its efficacy m a com-
mon faith — the proper virtue of our present dispensation — brings
us into the closest union with God of which we can be conceived
capable here below, and knits us together in a bond of insepa-
rable love ?
But, my brethren, before concluding, there is one view of the
doctrine under consideration more painful indeed, and fruitful
in awful reflection. I mean the balance to be struck between
the conflicting beliefs of Catholics and Protestants, and the stakes
which we have respectively cast upon them.
On our side, I own that we have risked all our happiness, and
all our best possession here below. We have placed beside our
doctrine the strongest effort of our faith, the utmost sacrifice of
individual judgment, the completest renunciation of human
pride and self-sufficiency, which are ever ready to rebel against
ihe simple words of revelation. And not so content, we have
cast into the scale the fastest anchor of our hope ; considering
this as the surest channel of God's mei'cy to us, as the means of
individual sanctiflcation, as the instrument of personal and local
consecration, as the brightest comfort of our dying hour, the
foretaste and harbinger of eternal glory. And, if these stakes
were not of sufficient weight, we have thrown in the brightest
links of golden charity, feeling that in this blessed sacrament
we are the most closely drawn to God, and the most intimately
united in affection with our Saviour Christ Jesus.
All this we have placed on our belief: but if, to suppose an
impossibility, we could be proved in error, it would at most ba
shown that we had believed too implicitly in the meaning o!
God's words : that we had flattered ourselves too easily that He
possessed resources of power in manifesting His goodness towards
man, beyond the reach of uur small intellects and paltry specula-
tions ; that, in truth, we had measured His love more lovingly
than prudently, and had formed a sublimer, though a less accu-
rate estimate of its power, than others had done ; in fine, that
we had been too simi^le-h'^arted, and childlike, in abandoning our
LECTURE XVL 197
reMon into his hands, because He had " the words of eternal
Ufe."
But then, if our faith be right, ponder ■well what infinitely
heavier stakes have been ventured on the other side. For on its
supposed falsehood have been risked words of contumely and
scorn, of railing and most awful blasphemy ! The holy sacrament
has been repeatedly profaned, and its adoration mocked at as
idolatrous, and its priests reviled as seducers, and the very belief
in it considered abundant ground for exclusion from political and
social benefits ! And if what I have advanced have been well
proved, then are those, who believe not with us, living in the
neglect of a sovereign command, a neglect to which is attached
a fearful penalty. "Unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man,
and drink His Blood, ye shall not have life in you."
And what conclusion can we draw from this balance of our
respective dangers, but the necessity incumbent on all who are
in the latter condition, to try this important dogma to its foundar
tion, and fully ascertain the ground on which they stand ?
But it is time that I should close this Lecture, and with it the
entire course. We have now, my brethren, for many evenings,
stood here opposed face to face, and it is probable that many of
us will not thus meet again, till we stand together before the
judgment-seat of Christ. Days, weeks, months, and years will
pass, as heretofore, quickly away ; may they be with you all
many and happy ! — but still the end will come, and it will not
be long before we are again confronted. Let us, thee, make a
reckoning of what we shall mutually liave to answer. And first,,
bear with me, for a few moments, while I speak of myself.
What will it profit me in that day, if, while I have been ad-
dressing you, I have been uttering nught but my firmest and
surest convictions? What shall I ha've gained, if I shall be
proved to have sought only to enmesh you in the toils of captio*i
reasoning and ^vily sophistry, and not rather to have been de-
sirous of captivating your souls to the truth, as it is in Christ
Jesus ? Nay, what satisfaction could it be to me even now, did
I feel a suspicion Ihat I have been misleading yuu, instead of
using my eSbrts to f'jUide yuu to what my conscience tells me is the
only true path of salvation ? if, all this time, besides the feeling
of degradation ami self-reproach which such conduct must have
inspired, I haJ felt, as I must have done, the awful conviction,
that the arm of God was stretched over my head, and challenged,
by every word I uttered, to strike and crush me as a lying pro-
phet and a deceiver in His name'. Nor is oure the rrligloa
19f^ LECTURE XVT.
which confers wealth, and dignity, and honor upon its willing
ministers, or that can hold out any nominal equivalent for oui
only true reward.
But if, on the one hand, I am fully satisfied, not merely that
no doctrine, but that not a single argument has been advanced
by me, of which I have not the most entire conviction, and if I
flatter myself, as I feelingly do, that you too are satisfied in this
respect, I have a right to demand from you a corresponding re-
turn, and it is simply this : — Allow not any slight impression
which my words have made, to pass heedlessly away. If any one
shall have felt his previous system of faith in even its smallest
parts shaken, let it be but a reason with him to try the security
of the entire building. If some small cloud shall appear to
nave cast a shadow over the serenity of his former conviction,
oh ! let him not scorn or neglect it ; for it may be like that which
the prophet commanded his servant to watch from Carmel, — ricli
with blessing, and fertility, and refreshment, to the soul that
thirsts for truth.*
No one, I am sure, who looks at the religious divisions of this
country, can, for a moment, suppose that it represents the proper
state of Christ's Church on earth. It is certain, that for ages
unity of belief reigned amongst us, and so should it be once
more. There is no doubt but individual reflection, if sincerely
and perseveringly pursued, will bring all back in steady con-
vergence towards the point of unity ; and therefore I entreat, that
if any little light shall have been now shed upon any of your
minds, if a view of religion have been presented to you, of which
before you had no idea, I entreat that it be not cast away, but
followed with diligence and gratitude, till full satisfaction shall
have been received.
Far be it from me to fancy that any thing which I have said
can of itself be worthy of so glorious a blessing. I have but
scattered a little seed, and it is God alone that can give the in-
crease. It is not on those effects, for which I am grateful to
your indulgence, and on which till my dying hour I must dwell
with delight, — it is not on the patience and kindness with which
you have so often listened to me, under trying circumstances, in
Buch numbers, and at such an hour, that I presume to rest my
hopes and augury of some good effect. No, it is on the confi-
dence which the interest exhibited gives me, that you have
abstracted from me individually, and fixed your thoughts and
*8B«f xyiii. 44.
LECTURE xvr, 199
attention upon th:? causo which I reprosont. Had 1 come before
you as a champion, armed to fight against the antagonists of our
faith, I might have bepn anxious td appear porsonally sti'ong
and well appointed. But the course which I have chosen needed
not much prowess ; a burning lamp will shine as brightly in the
hands of a child as if uplifted by a giant's arm. I have en-
deavored simply to hold before you the light of Catholic truth ;
and to Him that kindled it be all the glory !
To Thee, 0 eternal Fountain of all knowledge, I turn, to obtain
grace upon these lessons and efficacy for these wishes. If " my
speech and my preaching have not been in the persuasive words
of human wisdom,"* it is Thy word at least which I have en-
deavored to declare. Remember, then, Thy promise ! For Thou
hast said, "As the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
and return no more thither, but soak the earth, and water it,
and make it to spring, and give seed to the sower and bread to
the eater, so shall my word be : it shall not return to me void,
but shall prosper in the things for which I sent it."f Prosper
it, then, now ; may it fall upon a good soil, and bring forth fruit
a hundredfold. Remove prejudice, ignorance, and pride, from
the hearts of all who have listened to it, and give them a meek
and teachable spirit ; and strength to follow, and to discover, if
they know them not, the doctrines of Thy sa\nng truth. Hear,
on their behalf, the last prayers of Thy well-beloved Son Jesus,
when He said : " And not only for them do I pray, but for them
also who through their word shall believe in me, that they all
may be one, as Thou, Father, in me and I in Thee : that they
may also be one in us. "J Yes ; may they all be one by the pro-
fession of the same faith ; may they be one in the same hope, by
the practice of Thy holy law ; that so we may hereafter all be
one in perfect charity, in the possession of Thy eternal kingdom.
Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
♦ 1 Cor. U. 4. t Is- It. 10, 11. J Jo. xTiL », 81.
rant.
^\
BX Wiseman, Nicholas Patrick
1751 Stephen
■'^57 Lectures on the principal
1851 doctrines and practices of
V.2 the Catholic Church
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11