nocence of their religious rites? And why did they not invite the Pagans to come, and be convinced with their own eyes, that they took nothing but a little bread and wine, as a sign of mutual fellowship, and a memorial of their Saviour?—Reason, charity, and self-interest would have obliged them to do this.-In the belief of the Catholic, on the contrary, who does not see the propriety, and even necessity of this discipline? The exalted dogmas of our Faith are so far above human understanding, that, at the first mention of them, the Pagans would have derided them as foolish and extravagant, and uttered against them a thousand insults and blasphemies. Their prejudices would have been strengthened against that Religion, to which, nevertheless, they were by degrees to be enticed. Thus, on the one hand, the respect due to the mysteries of our Lord, and on the other, the regard which charity would suggest for the weakness of the Pagans, sufficed to command, in the Catholic belief, a careful silence on such doctrines, and not to make them known till after a lengthened course of instructions preparatory to Baptism. The Fathers even go so far as to name among the mysteries concealed from the profane, the Eucharist, the Christian Passover, the Sacrifice of bread and wine prefigured by that of Melchisedec. And in fact, what could be the object of the infamous calumnies spread against our brethren, but the Eucharistic mysteries? To what could they allude by their tales of infants murdered—their flesh served up as meat, and their blood as drink—of banquets of Thyestes, &c.—if not to the dogma of the Real Presence, to the manducation of the body of Jesus Christ."[1]
This reasoning is supported by facts which render it incontestible. This secrecy was adopted to conceal from the
- ↑ Dr. Travern's “ Answer to the Difficulties of Romanism,” translated by the Rev. F. C. Husenbeth. He same subject is most ably discussed, and at great length, in his “ Amicable Discussion,” translated by the Rev. W. Richmond.
