So

be not less miraculous and incomprehensible than transubstan tiation, is called consubstantiation: while the Calvinists and church of England men in general (though many of the bright est luminaries of the latter have approached to the Catholic_doc trine) main ain that Christ is barely present in figure, and re ceived only by faith. Now all the alleged absurdities, in a manner, and all the pretended impiety and idolatry, which are attributed to transubstantiation, equally attaches to consubstantiation and to the real presence professed by those eminent divines of the established church. Nevertheless, what controversial preacher or writer ever attacks the latter opinions? What law excludes Lutherans from parliament, or even from the throne? far from this, a chapel royal has been founded and is maintained in the palace itself for the propagation of their consubstantiation and the participation of their real presence! In short, you may say with Luther, the bread is the body of Christ, or with Osiander, the bread is one and the same person with Christ, or with bishop Cosin, that "Christ is present really and substantially by an incomprehensible mystery," or with Dr. Balguy, that there is no mystery at all, but a mere "federal rite, barely signifying the receiver's acceptance of the benefit of redemption;" in short, you may say any thing you please concerning the eucharist, without obloquy or inconvenience to yourself, except what the words of Christ, this is my body, so clearly imply, namely, that he changes the bread into his body. In fact, as the bishop of Meaux observes, "the declarations of Christ operate what they express; when he speaks, nature obeys, and he does what he says thus he cured the ruler's son, by saying to him, Thy son liveth; and the crooked woman, by saying, Thou art loosed from thy infirmity." The prelate adds, for our further observation, that Christ did not say, My body is here; this contains my body, but, this is my body: this is my blood. Hence Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, and the defenders of the figurative sense in general, all except the Protestants of England, have expressly confessed, that, admitting the real presence, the Catholic doctrine is far more conformable to Scripture than the Lutheran. I shall finish this letter with remarking, that, as transubstantiation, according to bishop Cosin, was the first of Christ's miracles in changing water into wine; so it may be said to have been his last, during his mortal course, by changing bread and wine into his sacred body and blood. I am, &c.

panation, or an hypostatical and personal union of the body, in consequence of which a person might truly Christ's body. * Hist. of Transub. p. 44. + Charge vii.

J. M.

bread with Christ's say: This bread is Variat T. ii. p. 34

LETTER XXXVII

To JAMES BROWN, Esq.

ON THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE B. SACRAMENT.

DEAR SIR,

Jr is clear from what I have stated in my last letter to you that the first and main question to be settled between Catholics and church Protestants is concerning the real or figurative pre sence of Christ in the sacrament. This being determined, it will be time enough, and, in my opinion, it will not require a long time, to conclude upon the manner of his presence, namely, whether by consubstantiation or transubstantiation. To consider the authorized exposition or catechism of the established church, it might appear certain that she herself holds the real presence; since she declares, that "The body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." To this declaration I alluded, in the first place, where I complained of Protestants disguising their real tenets, by adopting language of a different meaning from their sentiments, and conformable to those of Catholics, in consequence of such being the language of the sacred text. In fact,

it is certain and confessed, that she does not, after all, believe the real body and blood to be in the supper, but mere bread and wine, as the same catechism declares. This involves an evident contradiction; it is saying, you receive that in the sacrament, which does not exist in the sacrament:* it is like the speech * Dryden, in his Hind and Panther, ridicules this inconsistency as fol lows: "The literal sense is hard to flesh and blood;

"But nonsense never could be understood." Even Dr. Hey calls this "an unsteadiness of language and a seeming in consistency." Lect. vol. iv. p. 338.

N. B. It is curious to trace in the Liturgy of the Established church her variations on this most important point of Christ's presence in the sacrament The first communion service, drawn up by Cranmer, Ridley, and other Protestant bishops and divines, and published in 1548, clearly expresses the real presence, and that "the whole body of Christ is received under each particle of the sacrament." Burnet, P. ii. b. J.

Afterwards, when the Calvinistic party prevailed, the 29th of the 42 Articles of Religion, drawn up by the same prelates and published in 1552, expressly denies the real presence, and the very possibility of Christ being in the Eucharist, since he has ascended up to heaven. Ten years afterwards, Elizabeth being on the throne, who patronized the real presence, (see Heylin, p. 124,) when the 42 Articles were reduced to 39, this declaation against the real and corporal presence of Ch ist was left out of the Common Prayer Book, for the purpose of comprehending those persons who believed in it, as was the whole of the former rubric, which explained that "by kneeling at the sacrament no adoration was intended to any con

the money i

of a lebtor, who should say to his creditor, I hereby verily and indred pay you owe you; but I have not verily and indeed the money to pay you with.

Nothing proves more clearly the fallacy of the Calvanists and other dissenters, as likewise of the established church men in general, who profess to make the Scripture, in its plain and literal sense, the sole rule of their faith, than their denial of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, which is so manifestly and emphatically expressed therein. He explained and promised this divine mystery near one of the Paschs, John vi. 4, previous to his institution of it. He then multiplied five loaves and two fishes, so as to afford a superabundant meal to five thousand men besides women and children, Mat. xiv. 21; which was an evident sign of the future multiplication of his own body on the several altars of the world; after which he took occasion to speak of this mystery, by saying, 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 my flesh, for the life of the world. John vi. 51. The sacred text goes on to inform us of the perplexity of the Jews, from their understanding Christ's words in their plain and natural sense, which he, so far from removing by a different explanation, confirms by expressing that sense in other terms still more emphatical. The Jews therefore strove amongst themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them: Verily, verily, 1 say unto you: except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. -For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Ver. 52, 53, 55. Nor was it the multitude alone who took offence at this mystery of a real and corporal reception of Christ's person, so energetically and repeatedly expressed by him, but also several of his own beloved disciples, whom certainly he would not have permitted to desert him to their own destruction, if he could have removed their difficulty by barely telling them that they were only to receive him by faith, and to take bread and wine in remembrance of him. Yet this merciful Saviour permitted them to go their ways, and he contented himself with asking the apostles, if they would also leave him. They were as incapable of comprehending the mystery as the others were, but they were assured that Christ is

poral presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood." Burnet, P. ii. p. 392 So the liturgy stood for just 100 years, when, in 1662, during the reign of Charles II. among other alterations of the liturgy, which then took place, the old rubric against the real presence and the adoration of the sacramen was again restored as it stands at present!

ever to be credited upon his word, and accordingly they made that generous act of faith, which every true Christian will also make, who seriously and devoutly considers the sacred text before

us.

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said: This is a hard saying: who can hear it? From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said unto the twelve: will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him : Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. Ver. 60, 66, 67, 68.

The apostles thus instructed by Christ's express and repeated declaration, as to the nature of this sacrament, when he promised it to them, were prepared for the sublime simplicity of his words in instituting it. For, whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said: take ye and eat: THIS IS MY BODY. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: drink ye all of this; FOR THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Mat. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. This account of St. Matthew is repeated by St. Mark, xiv. 22, 23, 24, and, nearly word for word, by St. Luke, xxii. 19, 20, and St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25; who adds: Therefore whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord --and eateth and drinketh judgment (the Protestant Bible says damnation) to himself. 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29.

To the native evidence of these texts I shall add but two words. First, supposing it possible that Jesus Christ had deceived the Jews of Capharnaum, and even his disciples and his very apostles, in the solemn asseverations which he, six times over, repeated of his real and corporal presence in the sacrament, when he promised to institute it; can any one believe that he would continue the deception on his dear apostles in the very act of instituting it? and when he was on the point of leaving them? in short, when he was bequeathing them the legacy of his love? In the next place, what propriety is there in St. Paul's heavy denunciations of profaining Christ's person, and of damnation, on the part of unworthy communicants, if they partook of it only by faith and in figure? for, after all, the Paschal Lamb, which the people of God had, by his command, every year eat since their deliverance out of Egypt, and which the apostles themɛelves eat, before they received the blessed eucharist, was, as a mere figure, and an incitement to faith, far more striking, than eating and drinking bread and wine are hence the guilt of pro

faning the Paschal Lamb, and the numerous other figures of Christ, would not be less heinous than profaning the sacrament, if he were not really there.

I should write a huge folio volume, were 1 to transcribe all the authorities in proof of the real presence and transubstantiation which may be collected from the ancient fathers, councils and historians, anterior to the origin of these doctrines assigned by the bshops of London* and Lincoln. The latter, who speaks more precisely on the subject, says, "The idea of Christ's. hodily presence in the eucharist was first started in the beginning of the eighth century. In the twelfth century, the actual change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, by the consecration of the priest, was pronounced to be a Gospel truth. The first writer who maintained it was Pascasius Radbert. It is said to have been brought into England by Lanfranc."† What will the learned men of Europe, who are versed in ecclesiastical literature, think of the state of this science in England, should they hear that such positions as these, have been published by one of its most clebrated prelates? I have assigned the cause why I must content myself with a few of the numberless documents which present themselves to me in refutation of such bold assertions. St. Ignatius, then, an apostolical bishop of the first century, describing certain contemporary heretics, says, They do not admit of eucharists and oblations, because they do not believe the eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins." I pass over the testimonies, to the same effect, of St. Justin martyr, St. Irenæus, St. Cyprian, and other fathers of the second and third centuries; but will quote the following words from Origen, because the prelate appeals to his authority, in another passage, which is nothing at all to the purpose. He says, then," Manna was formerly given, as a figure; but now, the flesh and blood of the Son of God is specifically given, and is real food.”** I must omit the clear and beautiful testimonies for the Catholic doctrine, which St. Hilary, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerom, St. Austin, and a number of other illustrious doctors of the fourth and fifth ages furnish; but I cannot pass over those of St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Ambrose of Milan, because these occurring in catechetical discourses or expositions of the Christian doc trine to their young neophytes, must evidently be understood in the most plain and literal sense they can bear. The former says

66