Another thing to incite me to the encounter, and to disparage in
my eyes the poor forces of the enemy, is the habit of mind which
they continually display in their exposition of the Scriptures,
full of deceit, void of wisdom. As philosophers, you would seize
these points at once. Therefore I have desired to have you for my
audience. Suppose, for example, we ask our adversaries on what
ground they have concocted that novel and sectarian opinion which
banishes Christ from the Mystic Supper. If they name the Gospel,
we meet them promptly. On our side are the words, _this is my
body, this is my blood._ This language seemed to Luther himself
so forcible, that for all his strong desire to turn Zwinglian,
thinking by that means to make it most awkward for the Pope,
nevertheless he was caught and fast bound by this most open
context, and gave in to it (_Luther, epistol. ad Argent._), and
confessed Christ truly present in the Most Holy Sacrament no less
unwillingly than the demons of old, overcome by His miracles,
cried aloud that He was Christ, the Son of God. Well then, the
written text gives us the advantage: the dispute now turns on the
sense of what is written. Let us examine this from the words in
the context, _my body which is given for you, my blood which hall
be shed for many_. Still the explanation on Calvin's side is most
hard, on ours easy and quite plain.
What further? Compare the Scriptures, they say, one with another.
By all means. The Gospels agree, Paul concurs. The words, the
clauses, the whole sentence reverently repeat living bread,
signal miracle, heavenly food, flesh, body, blood. There is
nothing enigmatical, nothing befogged with a mist of words. Still
our adversaries hold on and make no end of altercation. What are
we to do? I presume, Antiquity should be heard; and what we, two
parties suspect of one another, cannot settle, let it be settled
by the decision of venerable ancient men of all past ages, as
being nearer Christ and further removed from this contention.
They cannot stand that, they protest that they are being
betrayed, they appeal to the word of God pure and simple, they
turn away from the comments of men. Treacherous and fatuous
excuse. We urge the word of God, they darken the meaning of it.
We appeal to the witness of the Saints as interpreters, they
withstand them. In short their position is that there shall be no
trial, unless you stand by the judgment of the accused party. And
so they behave in every controversy which we start. On infused
grace, on inherent justice, on the visible Church, on the
necessity of Baptism, on Sacraments and Sacrifice, on the merits
of the good, on hope and fear, on the difference of guilt in
sins, on the authority of Peter, on the keys, on vows, on the
evangelical counsels, on other such points, we Catholics have
cited and discussed Scripture texts not a few, and of much
weight, everywhere in books, in meetings, in churches, in the
Divinity School: they have eluded them. We have brought to bear
upon them the _scholia_ of the ancients, Greek and Latin: they
have refused them. What then is their refuge? Doctor Martin
Luther, or else Philip (Melancthon), or anyhow Zwingle, or beyond
doubt Calvin and Besa have faithfully laid down the facts. Can I
suppose any of you to be so dull of sense as not to perceive this
artifice when he is told of it? Wherefore I must confess how
earnestly I long for the University Schools as a place where,
with you looking on, I could call those carpet-knights out of
their delicious retreats into the heat and dust of action, and
break their power, not by any strength of my own,--for I am not
comparable, not one per cent., with the rest of our people;--but
by force of strong case and most certain truth.