{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 8594, "word_count": 1536, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9692999720573425], "ccnet_perplexity": [1116.0999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
OHLlst, WHO suffered ana ultu loI uS. uc meat L
were the Manchaeans in the third century. They |
did not deny the dogma Of the real presence, on
account OF any difficulty in that doctrine, but be-


cause their system OF belief made II necessary to
do so. They conceived, among other things IN
the struggle between mans reason and the Things
which were seen, there were two distinct and IN
dependent beings-one OF whom IS God, the
to the spiritual world. The other was the principle
of evil, equally independent, whom they ascrbed
the creation of this world, OF all that ia spoken OF
And accordingly, since they conceived that the hu


man body was the work of the evil supreme being,
they denied that Christ, as such, received that
body or dwelt in it, and consequently they rejected
the dogma OF the holy Eucharist, but not on ac-
count Of any difficulty in itself. Another branch
of this sect denied the doctrine, but not upon the
same grounds And the first, in all the after histo
ry OF the Christian Church, who we find impeach-
ing the doctrine, was the preceptor OF Charles the
Bold, in the 9th century, who wrote an obscure
scholastic treatise on the subject. and was fully an
swered by monk of that day. In the llth centu.
ry Berengerus began to phllosophse upon the real
presence, and presently, as all DO who thus minge
their philosophy with faith, he tell into this error,
and called forth many bishops of France italy and
England against him, whilst he was summoned be-
tore several councils, TO whom he recanted his err


ror but relapsed again; but at last, 1t is SAID ne
confessed it, and died in the communion OF the
Church. From this time there was no dispute on
| this doctrine, except among the Albigenses; and
| be It remembered that they We're descended from
the ManichRans. Then came, in the 10th century,


the denial, for the first time, OF dogma received
from the earliest ages, denial that weighed with
| many, and which at present constitutes part
of the difference between the Catholic Church
and those sects which have left her communion.
Now there is one fact | will assert most bold
ly; it is this: that the eucharist being not an alb


sract question tor the scholar, nor matter OF pure
mystery, but practical rite connected with the
worship of God in the day service OF the church,
with which the people are as well acquainted, ,as to


its practice and administration, as the fathers OF
| the church themselves-that all the united testmo-
ny of all christendom is in favor OF this doctrines
| that there never was form OF regular lilurgica
worship before the 10th century that rejected II;
and SO true is this that the whole Eastern Church
in all ages-the various schsmatcs, such as the Eu-
tchans, the Nesterians, the Maronites, the Greek


as in The mass Of the Catholic Church.
Here is a proof-but l don't quote it as


such-that if it be not the true doctrine
| the true doctrine did not survive its Divine


founder one hundred years; that the whole


Christian Church fell at once, and universally, into
| ldolatry as gross as that from which its Divine
| founder came to deliver and enlghten the world,


We have these lturgies in every form; and al.
/ though these various sects are ready to use all


means within reach to bring the Church into dlsre-


pute, yet they have not reproached her, but all


unite In establishing the primitive dogma OF the
| real presence; and with as much certainty as we


believe Christ is the Son of Godido we believe the


reality OF his presence IN the eucharist But, bre-


thren, when we speak upon this subject, we are
! supposed to speak 10 Christians; tor would think


It waste, OF time to discuss the point with


a, man who did not believe in the divinity
i


begin with another point, and it would be


waste Of time and breath to discuss this ques


mental doctrine is founded suppose that all christians


believe that Christ the only begoiten Son Of God


flesh that Christ God and man that all power in


heaven and on earth was in his hands and that his de-


mon ground where we can meet ; and that must be pre-


served in the argument to which am about TO refer.


has e has b


against the divinity Of the Son of God from the very


principles OF those who impngn this sacred mystery


his cavs and assaults and made them part of the wcap


with which they deny the doctrine Of the real
ence Have yeu heard of the absurdity, the i'm


proprety, imputed to the Catholic doctrine Have 700


never heard il said that those who believe such doc


rne this void of and totally unworthy TO


be reasoned withl But lt to OF the inde


modes of getting the stupendous OF Gods


ma is contrary to common sense And you may easily


imagine that when they bring matters of revelation to


their arguments For whilst this dogma brought to


acommon sense test in Germany and overthrown these


did that the doctrines theywshed preserve


tor instance, that of the trinity, or the incarnation
might be brought to common sense standard
and overthrown 100 and the consequence is, thai
| in those countries not single follower Of those


who first denied the real presence the ground


common sense, found TO his voice and proclaim


the divinity of Christ Every stery Of religion has


been away in Germany because the belief III these


doctrines brought the standard Of


We ask what has common do with itl They soy


bound to believe, according to doctrse that


body can exist in two places at one time and that we


believe that body can exist without its accidents or


those properties peculiar to and that we must believe
wine not bread and wne but that my deceive
and they imagine that when they have stated these
objections they have overhrown the Dogma at least on
philosophical grounds Our argument IS very simple as
to body being In more taan place at one time We
Catholics saytroube us not vita your little philosophy
Your minds capable OF little lght-very littlebut
this mater, although we have the same light


have yet not guided by that but by the decara
caraton absurd it is your minds and cspa
city that too small to rise to it, What mystery
hendng it. But then, the other hand there is
and say to this take care how you apply this argu


men: fyou speak of bodies, such acquainte ted


WITH ell experience would teach that single bsdy


could be in two places at time But take care-f you


you there learn that Paul saw and conversed with the


Savior placed at the right hand Of the Father Was he
then in two places at time Here is gospel authority
You be consistent, and either give up the


find for it other common meaning Bat then
will be called upon to reconcile in scripture It is there


written that Savior entered the room where his disc


pies sat and that whilst the doors were al shut Did ne


through the wall or the door If he did, there were two


bodies in one place at time But let us beware for the


greatest men, among the rest Grotos and many Of the
pous and enlightened digntsries of the English


Church have declared the grounds some would


call philosophical, there could be no difficulty in this
Catholic doctrine The subject is not one within the
range Of philosophy. Our earthly body might be- hui
do suppose that Chrsts body in All respects


like ours, pei fecty natural condition. but spirita
bo endowed with such properties as we may conceive


God capable Of endowing it. lhus our divine Savior
manger Of Bethlehex-whe youth mild and gentle
dsputing with the Dc cors in the temple-when he was
preaching to the people, and going up and down
doing good-but above all, when in his gnominy
dragged before earthly tribunal, and reduced to
that state of distress not TO be expressed: when
seen in all these conditions who, judging by Whist


call philosophy who could in thi. have recognized


the Eternal Son Of Father And as Catholics
or Proiestans admit his ivinity, we admit what
presents the difficulty to the eye Of philosophy
the mystery Of the eucharist Again BRETHREN they


anayse the component matter Of the elements in the
sacrifice what discovery do they make We obliged
these objections not because they are w.rth
\ m hec are generally preyaent Hthcy
anime the substance what progress can they make Are


philosophers agreed about what they call matter


the matierl There divisions and strites


among christians bitter and steadfast those Of pho


sopherx the OF that substance upon which
they all their learned specuations IL vou say the


body Of Christ is material 1t must be dlvsble accord
ing to those who believe in the divisibty OF matter