1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e30d48351ef087c301561abba3a8dc29.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Vg3Kslw51An-1X44xAAv2doLy3dUg3oRziV6b5mLWOzK%7E0gGxR%7EPmgourI3HpC9TMb9%7Es%7EokqT2oHzxtK-rh7IlIrZTQcuQtXtbw8DERJpBkmyHFqs3szV4Gl83S2U82a2aMyajwy4BbcqFZyMoWc4dkwoO54F%7EBUR7O5WGLP2Khtmm1sA3eWVvzcU-M6svb5sbpD1FpPai%7E1TCNl2pzUKoigUDkbNaAnHQR3fJTz2mo6KUhMqnZ4ENy-Tcr49warNgWsLgTAPtRFvsqApk75XOE3rF5zNvGw1Z3DyiFpqAIl5oz9CBemODUjjEC9%7EfNxh-J4kh3NZd7K7gIfI80qA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f12d89335ee69f68608df33b3d4231f5
PDF Text
Text
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
AND THE REAL PRESENCE
By the Rev. J. F. SPLAINE, S.J.
In order to understand what Catholics mean by the
Real Presence, it is necessary first to understand what
is meant by Transubstantiation.
Take a solid body of any kind, eg., a piece of stone
or wood.
It has shape, size, weight, colour, hardness, taste,
smell, &c., but not one of these qualities, nor all of
them together, make it what it is, namely, stone or
wood. They might all be changed or taken away, and
yet it would remain what it is, stone or wood.
These qualities, therefore, are accidental, not essential.
Philosophers call them briefly “ accidents” and that in
which they are found is called “substance” or the thing
that underlies them.
Now if the body we are examining be a piece of stone,
we can fancy the “ substance ” of stone being withdrawn,
and the “substance ” of wood being put in its place the
“accidents” remaining the same as before.
That would be Transubstantiation. And this is what
�2
Transubstantiation
we believe takes place at the Consecration ; the “ sub
stance ” of bread and the “ substance ” of wine are with
drawn, and their places supplied by the “substance” of
Christ’s glorified and living Body, the “ accidents ”
remaining the same as before. Thus we have, not wine
nor bread, but Christ under the appearances of bread
and of wine.
The doctrine of Transubstantiation is clearly taught
by the Fathers of the early Church. St. Cyril of
Jerusalem (4th century) writes :—
“ What seems to be bread is not bread, but the Body
of Christ: and what seems to be wine is not wine, but
the Blood of Christ.”
Of this great mystery, Cardinal Newman asks in his
Apologia:—
“ What do I know of substance or matter ? just as
much as the greatest philosopher, and that is nothing
at all.” .
This subject might be discussed either from a
philosophical or from a spiritual point of view. I am
now going to discuss it under the latter aspect, and I
hope to show that the Catholic doctrine is clearly proved
by Holy Writ.
Christ said to the Jews: “ I am the Living Bread
which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this
Bread he shall live for ever, and the bread that I will
give is Ppy Flesh, which I will give for the life of the
world.”1
1 St. John vi. 51. All texts used in this tract are designedly
quoted from the Protestant version of the Bible.
�and the Real Presence
o
We maintain that these words support the Catholic
doctrine of Transubstantiation. Protestants deny it.
Let us hear first what they have to say. They say the
words we have quoted are to be taken in a figurative
sense, that “ giving bread ” and “ partaking of food ”
were common expressions among the Jews in speaking
of doctrine and faith, and that they are ^to be taken in
this sense here.
To which I reply that I quite agree as to this figurative
meaning of these words. They are so used in this very
chapter of St. John from v. 26 to v. 48 or 50. But at
v. 50, if not at v. 48, there is a change of subject, and
Christ begins to speak about eating, not bread, but flesh.
This is an expression which certainly is never used in
Scripture figuratively of faith. To eat the flesh of a man
had a very decided figurative meaning in the language
spoken by our Lord, as it has to the present day in the
land in which He lived. It was something like our
word backbite. It meant to calumniate or injure. See
Psalm xxvii. 2 (Catholic version, Psalm xxvi. 2), Job
xix. 22, Micha iii. 3, and Eccles, iv. 5.
In all other places where it is used in Scripture it is
to be taken literally, and we maintain that it is to be so
taken in the above passage from St. John.
Those who contradict us, and hold that it is to be
taken figuratively, must take it as meaning to calumniate
or injure. And then they will have this difficulty staring
them in the face, that at v. 54, in the same chapter,
Christ says : “ Whoso eateth My Flesh and drinketh My
Blood,” i.e., whoso calumniateth or injureth Me, “ hath
eternal life ! ” Protestants sometimes condemn our in
�4
Transubstantiation
terpretation as involving a moral impossibility. I think
we may now fairly say the same about theirs.
But after all, it is only a waste of time for us English
men to dispute about the meaning of an expression
employed by our Lord, when we have evidence of how
it was understood by the persons who spoke the language
He was using. The Jews surely understood perfectly
what Christ said. Then how did they take it ? Look at
verse 52. The figurative meaning, so dear to Protestants,
never occurs to them. It was too absurd. How could
the spiritual life of the world depend on calumniating
Chiist ?
Therefore they took His words literally. It was their
only alternative. And then they began to do what
Protestants do: “ they strove among themselves, saying:
How can this Man give us His flesh to eat I”
Were they wrong in taking Him literally ? Let us see.
What did Christ do when He saw how His words were
taken ? Usually, when His figurative language was
misunderstood, He explained Himself, e.g., St. John
iii- 3~5- “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a
man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of
God.” His figurative expression “born again” was
misunderstood by Nicodemus, and accordingly, as we
might have expected from His charity, He explains it.
“ Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot,” &c.
So, too, St. John xi. 11 : “He saith unto them,
Our friend Lazarus sleepeth.” The disciples miss His
meaning, and immediately He explains Himself:
“Then said Tesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is deadP
�and the Real Presence
5
On the other hand, when people took Him in the
right sense, but objected to it, He used to insist. Thus,
in St. John viii. 56, &c., His words implied that He was
living in the time of Abraham. The Jews so under
stood Him. They were right, but they objected:
“Thou art not yet fifty years, old, and hast Thou
seen Abraham ? ” Christ insists: “ Verily, verily, I
say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Take another example: St. Matthew ix. 2. “Jesus
said to the man sick of the palsy : Son, be of good
cheer: thy sins be forgiven thee.” The Jews took
Him literally, and they were right; but they objected,
and “ some of the scribes said within themselves, This
Man blasphemeth.” What does Christ do? He
insists, and to prove the likelihood of His having
power to forgive sins, He showed that He had
miraculous power of another kind, for He cured the
man on the spot.1
Now which of these methods did He follow in the
case that we are engaged upon ? Did He explain His
words away ? By no means. He acted as He usually
acted when people understood Him aright but refused
to accept what He said : He insisted. “ Verily, verily
I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of
Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you.”2
And then, as if He wished to close every avenue of
escape, He put it in another way. “ Whoso eateth My
Flesh and drinketh My Blood, hath eternal life. . . My
Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.
1 See Card. Wiseman’s Lectures on the Real Presence, Leet. III.
2 St. John vi. 53.
�6
Tran substantiation
He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood
dwelleth in Me and I in Him.”
What was the consequence? “Many of His disciples
murmured, and said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can
hear it ? ’ And from that time many of them went back
and walked no more with Him.” 1
And Christ allowed them to go. What ? The
Saviour of men to allow souls to be lost so easily ?
Could He not have cried out to them : “ Wait a moment!
Let Me explain. I do not mean what you thought just
now, when you asked each other, ‘ How can this Man
give us His Flesh to eat ? ’ I was only talking figura
tively.” Could He not, nay, ought He not, to have
spoken in this sense, and saved them? No; He ought
not, because He could not. They understood Him
aright. There was nothing to explain away, and, as
they would not believe what He said, He had to let
them go.
“Then said Jesus unto the twelve, ‘Will ye also go
away ? ’ Simon Peter answered Him, ‘ Lord, to whom
shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ ”2 A
passage which reveals to us that even the twelve were
almost staggered at what they had heard, but that they
submitted their judgement to Christ’s. Poor human
nature was under trial, but it triumphed in the light of
faith, and dashing aside all doubts and hesitation,
exclaimed: “Thou hast the words of eternal life!”
Such, too, is the exclamation of the Catholic.
The expression “ drinking blood ” is, if anything, still
less favourable to the Protestant interpretation than that
1 St. John vi. 66.
2 St. John vi. 67, 68.
�and the Real Presence
7
of “eating flesh.” To a Jew the idea was most revolting
and most sinful. The practice was threatened with
terrible chastisements. “ I will even set my face against
that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from
among the people.” 1
Scripture everywhere speaks of it with horror. Then
why did our Lord adopt such an expression, if, as Pro
testants say, He was only talking figuratively of faith or
doctrine ? Do people usually make a point of disgusting
their audiences when they wish to get a hearing ? And
are we to suppose that our Lord, full of solicitude as He
was to spread the new faith, would have made use of
expressions and ideas associated in the minds of His
hearers with guilt the most revolting?
The only explanation of the use of such language by
our Lord is that He meant literally what He said, namely
that we were to drink His Blood if we would have life.
He would not have used the expression unless He had
been obliged, and He would not have been obliged, had
He not meant it literally.
The conclusion, therefore, at which we arrive is that,
in the passage quoted from St. John, we have our Lord’s
word for it that He would give us His flesh to eat and
His Blood to drink. We have only to add that he
redeemed this promise when He instituted the Blessed
Sacrament, saying: “ This is My Body . . . this is My
Blood.”2 He then gave a command: “Do this in
remembrance of Me,” 3 leaving power in His Church to
celebrate the same mystery for all time; so that whoso2 St. Matt. xxvi. 26-28.
1 Lev. xvii. 10.
3 St. Luke xxii. 16.
�8
Transubstantiation
ever eats this Bread or drinks this Cup unworthily,
“eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not dis
cerning the Lords Body.” 1 If he is to be punished for
not discerning It, 7/ must be there.
At page i I have said that, in the Consecration, the
“ substance ” of bread and the “ substance ” of wine are
withdrawn, and their places supplied by the “substance”
of Christ’s glorified Body.
It is necessary to bear in mind that it is His glorified
Body. It is His Body endowed with the qualities of
immortality, impassibility, &c. It could appear in the
room, the doors being shut.2 It could be whole and en
tire in many places at the same time, or as life is in all
the individuals of a species at one and the same time.
It could be broken, yet remain whole in every part,
something like the life of the tree, which is as whole in
the slip cut from it as it is in the tree itself.
Some people say they believe in the Real Presence,
but not in a carnal sense. They hold that Christ is
present in a spiritual sense in the Holy Eucharist. Now
what do these people mean ? Do they mean that only
His Soul is present? If they do they are dividing
Christ, soul from body, whereas Christ “dieth no more.”3
Or do they mean that He is present in spirit, in the same
way as friend writes to friend, “ I am with you in spirit ”?
If they do, it is no doubt something beautiful and con
soling, and ought to cheer one amidst the trials of the
world. But if I knew anybody who professed belief in
Christ’s spiritual Presence, not His carnal, in the Blessed
Sacrament, I would ask him to settle decisively in his
Cor. xi. 29.
2 St. John xx. 26.
3 Rom. vi. 9.
�and the Real Presence
9
own mind, before going further, whether or no this be
what he means, and not to read another word of what I
am going to say until he has made up his mind.
If, after duly considering the question, he answered
No, I would then ask him, Well what do you mean?
Tell me clearly in plain English, for I protest that I can
see no other meaning except the two I have given, and
neither of them will stand examination.
If, on the contrary, he answered Yes, then I should
ask him to consider with himself what it is we mean
when we say to each other the kindly and consoling
words, I am with you in spirit. And he would find
that we mean, I am not with you really ; I wish I
were.
Hence it follows that he who holds this sort of Real
Presence believes, when we come to examine him, in a
real absence.
Some say Christ is present along with the bread and
wine. In this phrase they think they see an escape
from the difficulty of Transubstantiation,' because the
bread remains bread, and the wine is still wine—the
“ substances ” are there still.
But what does the phrase really mean ? Let us under
stand in what way exactly Christ is present, according
to this theory. Is He only spiritually present, or is
He substantially present? If only spiritually, then, as we
have already seen, He is really absent. If substantially,
then the “ substance ” of His Body is present, divested of
its own “ accidents” and under those of bread and wine.'1
1 I pass over a third alternative, that He might be sacramentally
present, because a sacramental presence need not be an objective
�IO
Transzibstantiation
But this is Transubslantiation, one-sided Transubstantia
tion, involving all the difficulties of Transubstantiation
in the Catholic sense, and entailing some more.
It involves all the difficulties of the Catholic doctrine,
because Transubstantiation in the Catholic sense means
(a) the severance of “ substance ” from “ accidents,” and
(£) the placing of the said “ substance ” under another
set of “ accidents.”
Now, according to the theory in question, all this is
done in the case of Christ. The “ substance ” of His
Sacred Body is separated from its own “ accidents,” and
placed under that of bread and wine. Surely there can
be no difficulty in doing, in the case of bread and wine,
what is done with Christ, in removing, /.<?., the “ sub
stance ” of bread and wine to make way for the “ sub
stance” of the body of Christ. Yet the upholders of
the theory will not hear of it.
This brings me to my second point, that this one-sided
Transubstantiation entails additional difficulties.
What I mean is this, that by it we are obliged to hold
that Christ’s Body is united with the bread in one or
other of two ways, i.e., either (a) as the Divine and
human natures are united in our Lord in the Hypostatic
Union, or (Z>) as the sap and the wood are united in the
tree, merely by juxtaposition, both remaining distinct
and separable. This last is the Impanation of Luther,
and the difficulty of admitting either theory arises from
this, that by each is an indignity offered to our Lord.
presence, that is, a presence in the bread and wine, but only a
presence in the stibject, or person who receives, and this is less
than those whom I am speaking about would claim.
�and the Real Presence
11
I. An indignity is offered to our Lord by Impanation,
because according to it the words of our Lord, “ This is
My Body,” would not be true. Let me try to show
why.
“Substance” is not perceptible to the senses, and
therefore we know things only by their “ accidents.”
Their “ accidents ” are the sign of their presence. So
that when we point to an object, and say, This is so and
so, we mean that the thing to which these “accidents”
belong, or the thing of whose presence these accidents
are the sign, or the thing which these accidents make
perceptible to you, is so and so.
Therefore, when Christ says, “ This is My Body,” He
means, The thing to which these “ accidents ” belong,
or The thing of whose presence these “ accidents” are
the sign, is My Body. But according to the Impanation
theory this would not be true, for the “accidents”
which are perceived do not belong to, and are not a
sign of the presence of Christ’s Body. They are
a sign of the presence of, and belong to, bread. So
that Christ, if Impanation were true, might say, This
is bread, or Along with this is My Body; but He
could not say, “This is My Body,” any more than
one could say truly, pointing to a tree, This is sap.
If we may take the Rev. J. W. Hicks as an exponent,
the doctrine as to the Real Presence now held by the
High Church party is Lutheran Impanation; for, in
a lecture given at Cambridge, 1885 {Lectures on Church
Doctrine, First Series), he says: “ There is no ‘ corporal
Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood ’ in the
Sacrament, i.e. no Presence after the manner of material
�12
Tvansubstantiation
bodies in the natural world. What is present after that
manner is bread and -wine ” (p. 9).
The above passage suggests the question how the
Body of our Lord can be present while “ there is no
corporal Presence”? Mr. Hicks would answer, that
“the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament is the
presence of a spiritual body ” (p. 10). Then does
he think that a spiritual or glorified body is not a
body, is not “ corporal ” ? What does he make of
our Lord’s words: “ Behold My hands and My feet,
that it is I Myself ... for a spirit hath mot flesh
and bones as ye see Me have”? (St. Luke xxiv. 39).
Would he say there was here no “ corporal” Presence ?
Scarcely; and yet it was that same Body which had
entered the room “ when the doors were shut ”
(St. John xx. 19).
Mr. Hicks seems to have rather hazy ideas of bodies
“natural,” “spiritual,” “corporal,” &c. He speaks,
°f Christ’s “ natural Body ” being in heaven,
and explains “natural” as “having the natural
properties of a body, of being in a certain place, of
a certain form, and material composition, and the
like.” But if the Body of Christ in heaven has
“ the natural properties of a body,” and of “ material
composition,” could it enter a room while “the doors
were shut”? And, if not, is the Body of Christ in
heaven different from the glorified Body of Christ
as it was on earth after the Resurrection ?
In the Preface to these Lectures we read: “One
of the chief dangers to, which members of the University
and others engaged in intellectual pursuits are exposed
�and the Real Presence
13
... in regard to the Christian faith, arises from the
vagueness of the notions prevalent about certain
doctrines which are, or ought to be, ‘ most surely
believed among us.’” We should think that highly
probable.
And The Church Times of August 27, 1886, urges the
study of this Lecture as “ one of the most temperate
and scholarly statements of the doctrine published,”
words which suggest another question, What is the
meaning of a temperate statement of doctrine ? One
might just as well talk about a temperate statement
of the propositions of Euclid. A statement of doctrine
ought to be a truth, and there is neither “ more ” nor
“less” in truth. If you overstate it, it is no longer
truth.—Ah, yes. Under a very thin skin you have in
your “ English Catholic ” a genuine, sturdy Protestant,
to whom doctrine is still opinion—a statement of
opinion may of course be “ temperate.”
Even the doctrine of the Real Presence (which if
true in the Protestant’s Communion, is, without doubt,
practically the most momentous dogma of his Creed,
and the most replete with vital consequences for all
the members of the Church), is to him, after all, only
a matter of opinion; for the formularies do not insist
upon it, and therefore nobody is obliged to believe it.
This at any rate is a fair deduction from another
passage in Mr. Hicks’s Lectures. Speaking of the
“receptionist” view, according to which Christ is
somehow present, but only “in the worthy receiver,”
and “ not in the Sacrament,” so that the “ objective ”
Presence for which he is contending is completely
�14
Transubstantiation
swept away, he says: “ I desire to speak with re
verence of many pious and learned and Catholicminded members of the English Church who have
held this ‘ receptionist’ view; and I do not for a
moment believe that our formularies were meant to
exclude them” (p. 13).
But fancy a Church holding the doctrine of the Real
Presence, and not insisting on it 1 Still worse, fancy a
Church teaching it without being infallibly certain that
it is true ! Such a Church is teaching her children to
give divine honour to what may possibly be only bread ;
a just retribution on those who have persistently accused
Catholics of idolatry. This is something for all those
who profess to believe in the Real Presence, but scoff
at Infallibility, to think about. A Church which holds
to the Real Presence as an incontrovertible fact cannot
leave belief in it to the discretion of her children,
without exposing the Holy of Holies to disrespect.
And she cannot, without exposing her children to
idolatry, teach it as an incontrovertible fact unless
she is infallible.
II. An indignity is offered to our Lord by the
hypostatic theory. For according to this theory the
Body of Christ is united to the bread either exactly,
as the divine and human nature are united in the
Hypostatic Union, or not exactly. If not exactly,
then we fall back into some sort of Impanation. If
exactly, then there are in Christ three natures—the
nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of
bread. So that this theory ends in an absurdity, not
to call it by the more fitting name of blasphemy.
�and the Real Presence
15
As Dryden well writes of such modes of explanation
in his “ Hind and Panther,”
“ The literal sense is hard to flesh and blood,
But nonsense never can be understood.”
In the case “Sheppard v. Bennett,” the Dean of
Arches ruled that it was not contrary to the law of
the Church of England to teach that the mode of
presence is “objective, real, natural, and spiritual.”
This decision was hailed as a triumph by a certain
party in the Protestant Church, but it contains not a
word to save their doctrine from the difficulties, or
themselves from the inconsistencies which we have
pointed out above.
An objection is often raised against the Catholic
doctrine, founded on the words : “ It is the spirit that
quickeneth : the flesh profiteth nothing.” 1
From these words it is urged that our Lord’s ex
pressions, in the preceding part of His discourse, are
to be ta.ken spiritually, and not literally.
This is what is called “a popular objection,” i.e., one
which has a plausible look about it, and “goes down ”
easily with uneducated and inaccurate minds. Learned
Protestants have long since given it up. Kiihnoel,
for instance, says: “ This interpretation cannot be
maintained according to the ordinary use of words in
Scripture.”
Bloomfield says the same. So does
Schleusner in his Lexicon of the New Testament.2
If, in the text quoted above, “ the spirit ” means
1 St. John vi. 63.
2 See Card. Wiseman’s Lectures on the Real Presence, Leet. IV.
�16
Transubstantiation
the figurative interpretation of Christ’s words, which
Protestants contend for, then “the flesh,” being in
antithesis, must mean the literal interpretation of
them. But who ever heard before of such a meaning
being attached to those two words ? In Scripture,
at any rate, there is not a single example of it.
If, on the other hand, “ the flesh ” means simply the
flesh, then “ the spirit ” must mean simply the spirit.
If one is to be taken literally, so must the other also,
and figurative meaning vanishes altogether.
The fact is that in the New Testament “ the flesh ”
means human nature, with its depraved and vicious
tendencies.
“The spirit” means that elevation of
thought which comes of grace. The passage therefore,
“ It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth
nothing,” contains a passing commentary by our Lord
on the whole case. It is as if He said: In the words
that I have spoken there are thoughts of life, thoughts
that would quicken and raise up anybody who received
them; but so depraved is the nature of this people that
they profit nothing by them !
How many there are in our own day over whom our
Lord has to utter the same lament >
Printed and published
by the catholic truth society,
London.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Transubstantiation and the real presence
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Splaine, James F.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC, WorldCat).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1910]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1541
Subject
The topic of the resource
Transubstantiation
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Transubstantiation and the real presence), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Transubstantiation