They further teach that baptism, which precedes the eucharist, conveys all the saving benefits of Christ's redemption ; they there- fore cannot make the eucharist essential, and consequently they cannot, without contradicting Christ or themselves, interpret John vi. 48-65 as referring to the Lord's Supper.1
Appeal, of course, is also made to the words of institution, " This is my body." In this argument enough has already been said. There is no more necessity for understanding those words liter- ally than the declaration of Christ, " I am the true bread," or, " I am the door." The elements are declared to be bread and wine both by Christ and by the Apostles, after as well as before consecration.
Romanists, however, teach that there are many doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught, which are either not revealed at all, or but very imperfectly in Scripture, and which are to be re- ceived on the authority of tradition. On that authority they rely for the support of all their peculiar doctrines. As to that argument, as urged in behalf of the doctrine of transubstantia- tion, Protestants say, first, that the Scriptures are the only infal- lible rule of faith and practice, and, therefore, that no doctrine, which cannot be proved from the Bible, can be received as an article of faith. And as the doctrine of transubstantiation can- not be so proved, it is to be rejected as a mere human theory. And, secondly, that even admitting the authority of tradition, it can be demonstrated that the doctrine in question has no claim to support from the rule, " quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus." The rise and gradual development of this doctrine can be historically traced. The conflicts attending its introduc- tion as an article of faith are matters of record, and it can no more be proved, even by tradition, than the doctrine of purga- tory and extreme unction. This is the conclusion reached after years of controversy, and it is not likely ever to be shaken. It was on this point that the leading divines of the Church of Eng- land laid out their strength in their controversy with the Church of Rome.2
It is a valid objection to this doctrine that it involves an im-
i "Le sacrement de l'eucharistie n'est point n^cessaire au salut, d'une neressite' de moyen; on peut §tre sauve" sans avoir recu la communion. La raison, c'est que se sacre- ment n'a point &<$ institue" comme moyen de conferer la premiere grace sanctifiante ou de remettre le p&he" mortel, ce qui est reserve" aux sacraments de bapteme et de penitence." Gousset, Theoloffie, Paris, 1866, vol. ii. p. 516.
a In Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie, vol. xvi., there is, under the head of " Transubstan- tiation," an elaborate article of fifty-five royal octavo pages on the history of this doctrine, n which its rise through the patristical and mediaeval periods is minutely traced.
684 PART III. Ch. XX. — THE MEANS OF GRACE.
possibility. The impossible cannot be true, and, therefore, can- not, rationally, be an object of faith. It is impossible that the accidents or sensible properties of the bread and wine should re- main if the substance be changed. Such a proposition has no more meaning in it than the assertion that an act can be without an agent. Accidents or properties are the phenomena of sub- stance ; and it is self-evident that there can be no manifestations where there is not something to be manifested. In other words nothing, a " non-ens " cannot manifest itself. Romanists cannot turn to the theory that matter is not a substance ; for that is not their doctrine. On the contrary, they assert that the substance of the bread is transmuted into the substance of Christ's body. Nor can they help themselves by resorting to the pantheistic doc- trine that all accidents are phenomena of God, for that would up- set their whole system.
It is moreover impossible that the well-attested testimony of our senses should be deceptive. If it once be assumed that we cannot trust to the laws of belief impressed on our nature, of which faith in our sense perceptions is one of the most important, then the foundation of all knowledge, faith, and religion is over- turned. What has Catholicism to say for itself, if the people cannot trust their ears when they hear the teachings of the Church, or their eyes when they read its decrees ? It has nothing to stand upon. It is engulfed with all things else in the abyss of nihilism. To believe in transubstantiation we must disbelieve our senses, and this God requires of no man. It involves^ disbelief in Him who is the author of our nature and of the laws which are impressed upon it. There is no more complete and destruc- tive infidelity than the want of faith in the veracity of conscious- ness, whether it be consciousness of our sense perceptions, or of the truths involved in our rational, moral, or religious nature.
It is another objection to this doctrine that it logically leads, and in fact has led, to the greatest practical evils. It has led to superstitious, in the place of rational and Scriptural reverence for the sacrament ; to the idolatrous worship of the consecrated wafer ; to attributing to it magical, or supernatural virtue contrary to Scripture ; to perverting a simple sacrament into a propitiatory sacrifice, and to investing the ministers of Christ with the char- acter of sacrificing priests, empowered to offer, for money, a pro- pitiatory oblation securing forgiveness even for the sins of the de- parted. It has been made a mine of wealth to the priesthood and the Church. It was principally the popular belief in this