and as his soul is in like manner connected with his divinity, it follows that the whole Christ, body, soul, and divinity, is present, and is received orally, i. e., by the mouth, by the communicant. " Docere autem oportet, Christum nomen esse Dei, et hominis, unius scilicet personse, in qua divina, et humana natura conjuncta sit, quare utramque substantiam, et quae utriusque substantiae con- sequentia sunt, divinitatem, et to tarn humanam naturam, quae ex- anima, et omnibus corporis partibus, et sanguine etiam constat, complectitur : quae omnia in sacramento esse credendum est, nam cum in ccelo tota humanitas divinitati, in una persona, et hypos- tasi conjuncta sit, nefas est suspicari, corpus, quod in sacramento inest, ab eadem divinitate sejunctum esse." 1
Thirdly, the whole Christ is in the bread and the whole Christ is in the wine : 2 and not only so, but in each and every particle of both species. Thus the Catechism, says " non solum in utra- que specie, sed in quavis utriusque speciei particula totum Chris- tum contineri."
Fourthly, Lutherans teach that the presence of the body and blood of Christ in, with, and under the bread and wine, is con- fined to the time of the administration of the sacrament. Ro- manists, on the other hand, teach that as there is an entire change of the substance of the elements into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, that change is permanent. From this it is inferred, (1.) That the consecrated wafer as containing the whole Christ, may be preserved. (2.) That it may be carried to the sick. (3.) That it may be borne about in processions. (4.) That it should be adored.
It is well known that Romanists distinguish between the " cul- tus civilis," or worship (*. e., respect) due to our superiors among men ; SovXcta, due to saints and angels ; virtp&ovXeia, due to the Vir- gin Mary, and Xarpeia, due to God alone. The ground of this worship is the real or supposed possession of divine perfections in its object. When our Lord was upon the earth He was the proper object of this divine worship, because He was God manifested in the flesh. The worship terminated on the person ; and that per- son is and was divine. If Christians err in believing that the person known in history as Jesus of Nazareth, was, and is the Eternal Son of God clothed in our nature, then their worship of Him is idolatry. They ascribe divine perfections and render di-
1 Catechismus Romanus, ut supra, quaest. 27 [33, xxxi.], p. 334.
* Romanists teach that even after consecration, it is proper to call the elements bread and wine, because, although the substance is changed, the accidents of bread and wine remain. Catechismus Romanus, ut supra, quaest, 30 [xxxv. 361, p- 335.
682 PART III. Ch. XX. — THE MEANS OF GRACE.
vdne honours to a creature, and therein consists the essence of idol- atry. In like manner Romanists teach that Wpcia, the worship due to God alone, is to be rendered to the host, or consecrated wafer. This worship, of course, is not rendered to the wafer as such, any more than the worship of Christians was rendered to the body and blood of Christ, when He was here on earth. But Romanists worship the host on the assumption that it is the body of Christ, with which his soul and divinity are inseparably connected. If their doctrine of transubstantiation be false ; if the host be no more the body of Christ than any other piece of bread ; if his soul and divinity be no more present in it than in other bread, then they must admit that the worship of the host is as pure and simple idolatry as the world has ever seen. As all Protestants believe the doctrine of transubstantiation to be utterly unscriptural and false, they are unanimous in pronouncing the worship of the consecrated elements to be idolatry.
Proof of the Doctrine.
The arguments urged by Romanists in support of the fearful dogma of transubstantiation, are derived partly from Scripture and partly from tradition. Without the latter, the former, to all appearance, even in the estimation of Romanists themselves, would be of little account. The Scriptural passage principally relied upon, is John vi. 48-65. As to this discourse of our Lord, Cardinal Gousset lays down two propositions: first, that it is to be understood of the Lord's Supper ; and second, that the eating of which it speaks is oral, by the mouth, and not merely spiritual, by faith. If these points be granted, then it follows that our Lord does speak of a literal eating of his flesh, and therefore that his flesh must be in the literal sense of the words eaten at the Lord's Supper. Such eating it must be conceded necessitates the admission of the doctrine of transubstantiation. It is enough, in this place, to say of this argument, that it proves too much. Our Lord expressly declares that the eating of which He speaks is essential to salvation. If, therefore, his words are to be understood of the Lord's Supper, then a participation in that sacrament is essential to salvation. But this the Church of Rome explicitly denies, and must in consistency with its whole system, insist on denying. Romanists teach that spiritual life is as necessary to an experience of the benefits of this sacrament, as natural life is to the body's being nourished by food.1
1 Catechismus Romanus, n. iv. 40 [li. 50], Streitwolf, vol. i. p. 344.