To Miss * * *

MY DEAR MADAM,—Our friend, * * to whom you sent the treatise of Bickersteth on the Lord's Supper, with notes by the Rev. Gregory T. Bedell, A. M., has asked me for an explanation of the following passage which you marked for her consideration, and my solution.

"These terms, transubstantiation, and consubstantiation, though they may be understood by the great majority of the readers of this work, are not properly understood by all, and it is therefore hoped that a definition of them may not be considered out of place, or unimportant. By transubstantiation, is meant that immediately on the act of consecration, the elements of bread and wine, become actually the body and blood of Christ, so as no longer to be bread and wine. It is easy for any one who will calmly reflect on the subject, to see the monstrous absurdity of this dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. It is attempted to defend this doctrine, upon the principle that it is a great mystery; and I once heard Bishop England remark, that the miracle is still more extraordinary, because that while to the senses there appears nothing but bread and wine, there was, in fact and essence, no bread and wine present, but the real body and blood of Christ. A mystery, as correctly understood, is something which transcends the limited powers of reason, but which has nothing in it contrary to reason. In the doctrine of transubstantiation, however, there is a palpable contradiction; for the evidence of our senses cannot mislead us as to the reality of the thing submitted to examination. If the consecrated bread appears like bread, feels like bread, smells like bread, and tastes like bread, it is utterly impossible to conceive that it should all the while, be real flesh and blood, of which, to the senses, it has not one appearance or attribute. One great error of this kind generally paves the way for another equally or still more monstrous. On the idea that the consecrated wafer is the real body and blood of Christ, is founded the denial of the cup to the laity; for the wafer being changed into the body of Christ, and the body being composed of flesh and blood, so whoever eats

“Consubstantiation, a kindred doctrine, was held by many of the early Lutherans. I do not know that it is held by the modern Lutherans, and though I am not prepared to say, I am rather of opinion that it is not, but that they agree in sentiment with our own Church. There is some doubt, however, on this point. The doctrine does not vary very materially from transubstantiation when critically examined; and there seems to be rather a nominal distinction between the terms than a real difference. By consubstantiation is to be understood, that after the consecration of the elements, the body and blood of Christ are really present, though the bread and wine remain the same in their nature and qualities.

"In contradistinction of these enormous opinions, our Church holds the doctrine that the bread and the wine are simply the emblems or symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and the 28th article declares, that 'the body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.'"-G. T. B.

I was not aware until I read this note that I had the honor of being introduced to the readers of the work. I have, however, little reason to complain of having been misrepresented, because I have frequently testified that in the holy Eucharist, although to the senses it appears to be bread and wine, there is not in reality either bread or wine: but the reverend note-maker has mistaken my meaning if he believed me to say that this was "still a more extraordinary miracle than transubstantiation," because transubstantiation means that at the consecration, the bread and wine are substantially, though not visibly changed into the body and blood of Christ, so that the latter substance retains the appearance of the former. I therefore must say that it is one and the same miracle and not two, one of which is less and another more extraordinary.

I am one who has calmly reflected on the subject, and must avow that I do not find it easy to see any monstrous absurdity in this dogma; neither have I ever known an attempt made to defend the doctrine upon the ground of its being a mystery, which would indeed be a silly effort, and no proof; but I have always known it to be defended upon the ground of its being within the power of God to effect such a change, and declared by Christ that God would make it. If the Reverend gentleman has not learned those grounds before, I trust he may now become acquainted with them, and I regret my inability to convey my ideas intelligibly to my auditors; for when the Reverend gentleman heard me make the statement which he gives, I certainly must have attempted to urge those grounds, and not the flimsy one which he adduces, for I always gave the two above stated and never gave the last.

Admitting his definition of a mystery when he proceeds to apply his fact to that principle, the gentleman is quite too hasty; the term of comparison which he assumes in the definition is the phrase "contrary to reason:" in fair argument this same term is what should be used in his application of the fact: instead of this, however, he give us the phrase "contradiction to the senses." This is a looseness of language which I should not have expected from a gentleman who finds it so "easy to see the MONSTROUS ABSURDITY of a dogma" held to be reasonable and true by the most learned men whom Christendom has produced. I shall not remark upon the plain logical distinction between "contrary propositions" and "contradictory propositions," which shows me that two of the former may be together false, which can never occur as regards two of the latter; but I will remark that the gentleman must have been very hasty indeed, in making the thoughtless assertion that senses and reason mean the same. In opposition to this doctrine several examples might be easily furnished, but I shall defer adducing one until we examine his next expression, which is put forward in semblance of proof for this position.

He says that "the evidence of the senses cannot mislead us to the reality of the thing submitted for examination." I really do not understand the meaning of this, unless it be merely to assert that the evidence of the senses is sufficient to prove to us the reality, that is the real existence of the object. I am not disposed to quarrel with him upon this, though a learned Bishop of the Irish Protesttant Church, Berkley of Cloyne, would never admit his proposition, and would contend that it was impossible to defend the Chris

tian religion against infidels, except by denying its truth: however, I differ from this learned prelate, and I avow to the Rev. Mr. Bedell, that the evidence of my senses testifies to me the real existence of a body or substance, or thing. But a subsequent question is, what is the nature of that substance or thing; and with all deference I will assert that the evidence of the senses alone will in several instances, grossly mislead us as to the nature of the substance whose reality they testify and if I can establish a single case in which the nature of the substance is widely different from its appearance to the senses, "contrary to the senses," will not be "contrary to reason," and the entire of Mr. Bedell's illusive fortress will vanish. I could exhibit several instances in the mineral kingdom and other departments of nature, as well as in its more unusual phenomena, not to mention works of art, that would bear powerfully upon the case; but no one of these would answer my present purpose with equal fitness as an instance taken from the Bible, and that, like the mystery of which we treat, is above reason, but not contradictory to it. The Reverend gentleman will not ask me to refer to chapter and verse, for what he so well knows to have frequently occurred ; the appearance of angels in the human form; where the substance was of one nature and the appearance, of which alone the senses could take cognizance, was of a nature altogether different. Surely the spiritualized body of the Saviour in the Sacrament differs not more from bread, than the spiritual substance of an angel does from a human body. Would the Rev. gentleman allow the following to be good argument for an infidel in such a case. If it appears like a human body, feels like a human body, smells like a human body and tastes like a human body, it is utterly impossible it should be all the while a rea, angel," therefore I will not believe that it is an angel but a human being? Would it not be more congenial to your Bible and to your common sense, to argue thus? "The appearance indeed is that of bread, but God who can clothe one substance with the appearance of another, and who has clothed the angelic substance with the human appearance, has declared to me that at the consecration he changes the substance, continuing the former appearance unchanged: what his power can effect his word can testify: my senses have frequently deceived me, but the word of God is true, nor am I deceived, for my senses testify truly that there is some real thing here bearing the appearance of bread, but God testifies that its nature, is now the body and blood of Jesus Christ; thus my senses which testify only to the appearances,

our doctrine, but his accurate expression should be, "My body is herewith."

I must now avow, that without meaning any thing offensive by the expression, I could never find common sense to my apprehension, in the doctrine given by the Rev. gentleman as that of his Church. I shall in a few words mention my difficulty. To eat means to take solid, as to drink is to take liquid sustenance by the mouth; now the sacrament is eaten; that is, taken by the mouth for sustenance, whether spiritual or corporal, matters not. I ask a communicant who has eaten the sacrament; "Have you eaten the body of Christ?" he says, "Yes." 1 remark, "Then that body was really present and taken into your mouth." He answers, No." "Did you then eat what was not really present, and received into your mouth?" He answers me, "Yes, but it was eaten only by Faith." I remark that faith is belief, and belief is not eating. I can understand what it is to believe by faith, and ¦ what it is to eat by the mouth; but I never could understand what eating by believing meant, and I never found any person who could explain what it meant. I easily conceive that God can change the bread into the body of Christ, leaving still the appearance of bread to the new substance: when I receive that sacrament, I eat the body of Christ. I can conceive the Lutheran doctrine which requires also the power of God to place the body of Christ together with the bread: the Lutheran can say that he eats the body of Christ together with bread. I can conceive the Zuinglian doctrine which says that there is no change, and therefore that I eat only bread, but recollect that Christ died, and believe that he will save me by his death, but that I do not eat the body of Christ, because it is not there. But I cannot understand Mr. Bedell's assertion that I eat a body which is not there: neither can I understand how I can eat by faith; nor can I understand how by eating a symbol, I eat the reality:

nor can I understand that eating and believing mean the same thing: all this is perhaps very intelligible to the Rev. gentleman and to you; and, but that I feel a distrust in my own philosophy, and could not bring myself to use such an expression [as] to what I am told you believe, and of course understand, I should be inclined to rank it with believing that by eating a wafer a person drank blood, and be tempted to give it the epithet which Mr. Bedell very properly gives to that product of his fancy, substituted by him for an article of Catholic belief.

My Dear Madam, I am perfectly aware of the power which early impressions, affectionate attachments, the appearance of consistency, and public opinion exercise over a strong and discriminating judgment, and a desire to know with certainty "what is truth." But I felt that I owed it to my own consciousness of that truth, and in some degree to the character with which I am invested, to rescue the doctrines of my Church from obloquy, and if possible my own name from being exhibited to my fellow citizens identified with the terms monstrous absurdity, palpable contradiction, more monstrous error, absurd and most unaccountable doctrine; and the call was if possible more imperative, when I was led into the closets of the most pious and virtuous portion of our community, to be made the object of their contempt or pity, at the moment of their most serious intercourse with our common Creator.

Though the Rev. Mr. Bedell's character as a philosopher or a divine, has not risen in my estimation, I assure you, madam, that I consider your loan of the book to our friend was suggested by the best motives, and that I still hold you in kind and respectful consideration, and remain

With esteem, yours,

JOHN, Bishop of Charleston.

86 Wentworth-street, Tuesday, Nov. 27, 1827.