Chapter V. Of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

Q. What do you mean by the sacrament of the Eucharist?

A, The sacrament which our Lord Jesus Christ instituted at his last supper, in which he gives us his body and blood under the forms or appearances of bread and wine.

Q. Why do you call this sacrament the Eucharist?

A. Because the primitive Church and the holy fathers! have usually called it so: for the word Eucharist in the Greek signifies thanksgiving, and is applied to this sacrament, because of the thanksgiving which our Lord offered in the first institution of it, St. Matt. xxvi. 27. St. Mark xiv. 23. St. Jjuke xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 24..And because of the¹² thanksgiving with which we are obliged to offer and receive this great sacrament and sacrifice, which contains the abridgment of all God's wonders, the fountain of all grace, the standing memorial of our redemption, and the pledge of a happy eternity. This blessed sacrament is also called the holy communion, because it unites the faithful with one another, and with their head Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. X. 16, 17. And it is called the supper of the Lord, because it was first instituted by Christ at his last supper.

Q. What is the faith of the Catholic Church, concerning this sacrament?

A. That the bread and wine are changed by the consecration into the body and blood of Christ.

Q. Is it then the belief of the Church that Jesus Christ himself, true God and man, is truly, really and substantially present in the blessed sacrament?

A, It is, for where the body and blood of Christ are, there his soul also and his divinity must needs be. And consequently, there must be whole Christ God and man: there is no taking him in pieces.

Q. Is that which they receive in this sacrament the same body as that which was born of the blessed Virgin, and which suffered for us upon the cross.

A. It is the same body: for Christ never had but one body: the only difference is, that then his body was mortal and passible, it is now immortal and impassible.

Q. Then the body of Christ in the sacrament cannot be hurt or divided, neither is it capable of being digested or corrupted?

A, No, certainly, for though the sacramental species, or the outward forms of bread and wine are liable to these changes, the body of Christ is not.

Q. Is it then a spiritual body?

A, It may be called a spiritual body, in the same sense as St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 44. speaking of the resurrection of the body, says, 'It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body:' not, but that it still remains a true body, as to all that is essential to a body; but that it partakes in some measure of the qualities and properties of a spirit.

Section I. The First Proof of the Real Presence, from the Words of Christ at the First Institution of This Blessed Sacrament

Q. How do you prove the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in this sacrament?

A. I prove it first from the express and plain words of Christ himself the eternal truth, delivered at the time of the first insiitution of this blessed sacrament, and recorded in no less than four different places in the New Testament, viz, St. Matt, xxvi. 26, 27. St. Mark xiv. 22. 24. St. Luke xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. In all these places Christ himself assures us that what he gives us in the blessed sacrament is his own body and blood, St. Matt. xxvi. 'Take eat; this is my tmd^i.... This is my BLOOD of the New Testament^ which is shed for many for the remission of sins.' St. Mark xiv, 'Take, eat; this is my. body — T\?, is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many.^ St. Luke xxii. ^This is my body which is given for you — This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you.' 1 Cor. xi ' This is my body which is broken (klomenon saciificed) for you — This cup is the New Testament in my blood. Now the body which was given and sacrificed for

US, the blood of the New Testament which was shed for us, are verily and indeed the real body and blood of Christ. Therefore, what Christ gives us in this blessed sacrament is his real body and blood: nothing can be more plain.

Q. Why do you take these words of Christ at his last supper according to the letter, rather than in the figurative sense?

A. You might as well ask a traveller why he chooses the high-road, rather than to go by byepaths with evident danger of losing his way. We take the words of Christ, according to their plain, obvious and natural meaning, agreeably to that general rule acknowledged by our adversaries,³ that in interpreting scripture, the literal sense of the words is not to be forsaken, and a figurative one followed without necessity; and that the natural and proper sense is always to be preferred, where the case will admit it. It is not therefore incumbent upon us to give a reason why we take these words of Christ, according to their natural and proper sense: but it is our adversaries, business to show a necessity of taking them otherwise. The words themselves plainly speak for us; for Christ did not say, this is a figure of my body, and this is a figure of my blood; but he said, this is my body, and this is my blood. It is their duty, as they tender the salvation of their souls, to beware of offering violence to texts so plain, and of wresting them from their evident meaning.

However, we have many reasons to offer why we take the words of Christ (which he spoke at his last supper in the institution of the blessed sacra-.ment) in their most plain, natural and obvious meaning. First, because he was then all alone with his twelve Apostles, his bosom friends and confidants, to whom he was always accustomed to explain in clear terms whatever was obscure in his parables or other discourses to the people, St. Mark iv. 11. 'To you, says he to his disciples, it is given to know the mystery (the secrets) of the kingdom of God, but unlo them that are without, all things are done in parables.' And ver. 34. ' Without a parable spoke he not unto them (the people) but when they were alone he expounded all things to his disciples.' St. John xv. 15. ^Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doth: but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you.' How then is it likely that in this most important occasion of all, when, the very night before his death, he was taking his last leave and farewell of these his dear friends, he should deliver himself to them in terms which (if they are not to be' taken according to the letter) are obscure beyond all example, and not anywhere to be paralleled?

Secondly, he was at that time making a covenant, which was to last as long as time itself should last: he was enacting a law, which was to be for ever observed in his Church: he was instituting a sacrament, which was to be frequented by all the faithful until he should come: he was, in fine, rnaking his last will and testament, and therein bequeathing to his disciples, and to us all, an admirable legacy and pledge of his love. Now such is the nature of all these things, viz. of a covenant of a law, of a sacrament, of a last will and testament, that as he that makes a covenant, a law, &c. always designs, that what he covenants, appoints, or ordains, should be rightly observed and fulfilled; so of consequence he always designs that it should be rightly understood; and therefore always expresses himself in plain and clear terms in his covenants, laws, &;c. This is what all wise men ever observe in their covenants, laws, and last wills, industri\Dusly avoiding all obscure expressions, which may give occasion to their being misunderstood, or to contentions and lawsuits about their meaning. This is what God himself observed in the old covenant; in all the ceremonial and moral precepts of the law: in all the commandments, in the institution of the legal sacraments, &;c. All are expressed in most clear and plain terms. It can then be nothing less than impeaching the wisdom of the Son of God, to imagine that he should make his new law and everlasting covenant in figurative and obscure terms, which he knew would be misunderstood by the greatest part of Christendom; or to suppose that he should institute the chief of all his sacraments, under such a form of words, which in their plain, natural and obvious meaning, imply a thing so widely different from what he gives us therein, as his own body is from a bit of bread; or, in fine, to believe that he would make his last will and testament, in words affectedly ambiguous and obscure; which, if taken according to that sense which they seem evidently to express, must lead his children into a pernicious error concerning the legacy that he bequeaths them. In effect, our Lord certainly foresaw that his words would be taken according to the letter by the bulk of all Christendom; that innumerable of the most learned and most holy would understand them so; that the Church even in her general councils would interpret his words in this sense.

It must be then contrary to all probability that he who foresaw all this would affect to express himself in this manner, in his last will and testament, had he not meant what he said, or that he should not have some where explained himself in a more clear way, to prevent the dreadful consequence of his whole Church's authorising an error in a matter of so great importance.

Q. Have you any other reason to offer for taking the words of the institution according to the letter, rather than in a figurative sense?

A, Yes, we have for so doing, as I have just now hinted, the authority of the best and most authentic interpreter of God's words, viz. his holy Church; which has always understood these words of Christ in their plain literal sense, and condemned all those that have presumed to wrest them to a figure. 'Witness the many synods held against Berengarius; and the decrees of the general councils of, Lateran, Constance, and Trent. Now against this authority HelPs gates shall never prevail, St. Matt. xvi. 18. And with this interpreter Christ hast promised, that both he himself and the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, should abide for ever, St. Matt, xxviii. 20. and St. John xiv. 16, 17.

Q. But are not many of Christ's sayings to be understood figuratively, as when he says, that he is a door, a vine, &c.? And why then may not also the words of the institution of the blessed sacrament be understood figuratively?

A. It is a very bad argument to pret^d to infer that because some of Christ's words are to be taken figurately, therefore all are to be taken so: that because in his parables or similitudes hisL. words are not to be taken according to the letter, therefore we are to wrest to a figurative sense, the words of the institution of his solemn covenant, law, sacrament, and testament, at his last supper: that because he has called himself a door, or a vine, in circumstances in which he neither was, nor ever could be misunderstood by any one, (he having taken so much care in the same places to explain his own meaning) therefore he would call bread and wine his body and blood, in circumstances, in which it was natural to understand his words according to the letter, as he foresaw all Christendom would understand them, and yet has taken no care to prevent this interpretation of them.

There is therefore a manifold disparity betweeu the case of the expressions you mention, viz. I am the door, the vine, &c. and the words of the last supper, ' this is my body, this is my blood.' First, because the former are delivered as parables and similitudes, and consequently as figures; the latter are the words of a covenant, sacrament, and testament, and therefore are to be understood according to their most plain and obvious meaning. Secondly, because the former are explained by Christ himself in the same places in a figurative sense, the latter are not. Thirdly, because the former are worded in such a manner, as to carry with them the evidence of a figure, so that no man alive can possibly misunderstand them, or take them in any other than a figurative meaning; the latter are so expressed, and so evidently imply the literal sense, that they that have been the most desirous tp find a figure in them have been puzzled to do it;"^ and all Christendom has for many ages⁴ judged without the least scruple that they ought to be taken according to the letter. Fourthly, because the Church of God has authorized the liieral interpretation of the words of the institution of the blessed sacrament: not so of those other expressions. In fine, because according to the common laws and customs of speech a thing may indeed, by an elegant figure, be called by the name of that thing of which it has the qualities or properties; and thus Christ, by having in himself the property of a door, inasmuch as it is by him that we must enter into his sheepfold, St. John x. 9. and the pro-, perty of the vine, in giving life and fruit to its branches, St. John xv. 1. might, according to the usual laws of speech, elegantly call himself a door and a vine; but it would be no elegant metaphor, to call bread and wine, without making any change in them, his body and blood; because bread and wine have in themselves neither any similitude, nor quality, nor property of Christ's body and blood; as it would be absurd, for the same reason, to point at any particular door or vine, and say, this is Jesus Christ.

Q. But may not the sign or figure according to the common laws of speech, be called by the name of the thing signified? And have we not instances of this nature in scripture; as when Joseph, interpreting the dream of Pharaoh, Gen. xli. 26. says, 'the seven good kine are seven years?' and our Lord interpreting the parable of the sower, St. Luke viii. 11. says, 'the seed is the word of God;' jand St. Paul 1 Cor. x. 4. says, ' the rock was Christ?' ^ A, In certain cases', when a thing is already known to be a sign or figure of something else, which it signifies or represents, it may indeed, according to the common laws of speech and the

CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTED. C3 use of the scripture, be said to be such or such a thing; as in the interpretation of dreams, parables, ancient figures, and upon such like occasions; where when a thing is said to be this or that, the meaning is evident, viz. that it signifies or represents this or that. But it is not the same in the first institution of a sign or figure; because, when a thing is not known beforehand to be a sign or representation of some other thing, to call it abruptly by a foreign name would be contrary to all laws of speech, and both absurd and unintelligible. As for instance, if a person by an art of memory had appointed within himself, that an oak tree should be a sign or memorandum of Alexander the Great, and pointing to the tree, should gravely tell his friends, (who were not acquainted with his design) this is that hero that overcome Darius, such a proposition as this would justly be censured as nonsensical and unworthy of a wise man; because such a figure of speech would be contrary to all laws of speech, and unintelligible. Just so would it have been, if our Saviour, at his last supper, without giving his disciples any warning beforehand, any meaning to speak figuratively, and without their considering beforehand the bread and wine as signs and representations of any thing else, should have abruptly told them, 'This is my body, this is my blood,' had he not meant that they were BO indeed. For abstracting from the change which Christ was pleased to make in the elements by his Almighty word, a bit of bread has no more similitude to the body of Christ than an oak tree has to Alexander the Great. So that nothing but the real presence of Christ's body and blood could verify his words at his last supper, or vindicate them from being highly absurd and unworthy the Son of God.

Q. But do not those words which our Lord spoke, St. Luke xxii. 19. ^this do in remembrance of me,' sufficiently clear up the difficulty, and determine his other words to a figurative sense?

A. These words, 'Do in remembrance of me,' inform us indeed of the end for which we are to offer up, and to receive the body and blood of Christ, viz. for a perpetual commemoration of his death, 1 Cor. xi. 26. but they no way interfere with these other words, 'This is my body, and this is my blood,' so as to explain away the real presence of Christ's body and blood. For why should Christ's body and blood be less present in the sacrament, because we are commanded in the receiving of them to remember his death? certainly St. Matthew and St. Mark, who in;their gospels have quite omitted those words, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' never looked upon them as a necessaiy explication of the words of the institution, or as any ways altering or qualifying the natural and obvious meaning of these words, 'this is my body.'

Q. But does not the remembrance of a thing suppose it to be absent: for otherwise, why should we be commanded to remember it?

A, Whatsoever things we may be liable to forget, whether really present or really absent, may be the object of our remembrance,- and thus we are commanded in scripture to remember God, Duet, viii. 18. Eccles. xii. 1, though in him we live, move and have our being, Acts xviii. 28. So that this command of remembering Christ is no ways opposite to his real presence: but the most that can be inferred from it is, that he is not visibly present; which is very true, and therefore, lest we should forget him, this remembrance is enjoined.

Besides, if we hearken to the Apostle, 1 Cor. xi. 26, he will inform us that what we are commanded to remember is the death of Cnrist; now, the death of Christ is not a thing really present, but really past, and therefore a most proper subject for our remembrance.

Section II. The Second Proof of the Keal Presence from St. John Vi. 51, Etc

Q. What other proof have you for the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament of the eucharist, besides the words of the institution, this is my body, and this is my blood?

A. We have a very strong proof in the words of Christ, spoken to the Jews in the sixth chapter of St. John; where, upon occasion of the miracle of feeding the multitude with five loaves, having spoken of the necessity of believing in him who is the living bread that came down from heaven, he passes, from this discourse concerning faith, to speak of this sacrament, ver. 51, &c. '1 am the living bread that 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, which I will give for the life of the world.' The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, 'verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat of the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life, in you. Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dvvelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven, not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.' In which words the eating of Christ's flesh, and the drinkmg his blood, is so strongly, so clearly, and so frequently inculcated; tind we are so plainly told, that the bread which Christ was to give, is that very flesh which he gave for the life of the world, that one must be resolved to keep one's eyes shut against the light, if one will not see so plain a truth.

Q. How do you prove that Christ in this is speaking of the blessed sacrament?

A, By comparing the words which he spoke upon this occasion with those which he delivered at his last supper in the institution of the blessed sacrament: in the one place he says, Uhe bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,' in the other, taking bread and distributing it, he says, ' this is my body which is given for you.' Where it is visible that the one is a promise which the other fulfils; and consequently that both the one and the other have relation to the same sacrament. Hence we find, that the current of the holy fathers has always explained those words of the sixth chapter of St. John, as spoken of the sacrament. See St. Irenaeus L. 4. c. 34; Origen Hom. 16. upon Numbers; St. Cyprian upon the Lord's Prayer; St. Hilary, in his 8th Book of the Trinity; St. Basil, his Moral Rules, Reg. 1, c. 1; St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, Catech. Mys-tag. 4; St. Ambrose, of the Mysteries, c. 8; St.

John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and St. Cyril, of Alexandria, writing upon the sixth chapter of St. John; St. Epiphanius Haeresi 55; Theoderet L. 4. Hist. Eccles. c. xi, &c.

Q. But does not Christ promise eternal life, St. John vi. 51, 54, and 58, to every one that eateth of that bread of which he is there speaking; which promise cannot be understood with relation to the sacrament, which many receive to their own condemnation, 1 Cor. xi. 29?

A. He promises eternal life to every one that eateth of that bread; but this is to be understood, provided that he eat it worthily, and that he persevere in the grace which he thereby receives. And in this sense it is certain that this sacrament gives eternal life: whereas, the manna of old had no such power, ver. 54. In like manner our Lord promises, St. Matt. vii. 7, 8. 'that every one that asketh shall receive:' and yet many ask and receive not, because they asketh not as they ought. St. James iv. 3, Thus St. Paul tells us, Rom. x. 13, 'that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved:' which also certainly must be understood, provided they do it worthily and perseverently; lest this text contradict that other, St. Matt. vii. 21, 'Not every one thaj; saith to me. Lord! Lord! shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.' Thus, in fine, Christ tells us St. Mark xvi. 16. 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.' And yet many believe and are baptized, like Simon Magus, Acts viii. 13. 'who for want of a true change of heart, or of perseverance in good, are never saved.'

Q. But if those words of Christ, St. John vi. 52, 53, &c. be understood of the sacrament, will it not follow that no one can be saved without receiving this Sacrament, and that also in both kinds; contrary to the belief and practice of the Catholic Church, since our Lord tells us, verse 63, 'verily, verily, I say unto you, except you eat of the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you have not (or you shall not have) life in you?'

A, It follows from those words that there is a divine precept for the receiving this blessed sacranient, which if persons wilfully neglect, they cannot be saved. So that the receiving this sacrament either actually, or in desire, is necessary for all those that are come to the years of discretion, (not for infants, who are not capable of discerning the body of the Lord, 1 Cor. xi. 29.) But that this sacrament should be received by all in both kinds, is not a divine precept, nor ever was understood to be such by the Church of God, which always believed that under either kind Christ is received whole and entire, and that consequently under either kind we sufficiently comply with the precept of receiving his flesh and blood.

Q. Why may not these words of Christ, St. John vi. 61, 62, 63, &c. be taken figuratively, so as to mean no more than the believing in his incarnation and death?

A, Because it would be too harsh a figures of speech, and unbecoming the wisdom of the Son of God, to express the believing in him by such strange metaphors as eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, such as no man ever used before or since; and to repeat and inculcate these expres sions, so often to the great offence both of the Jews} and even of his own disciples, who upon this account went back and walked no more with him, ver. 60, and Q^. when he might so easily have satisfied both the one and the other, by telling them that he meant no more by all that discourse, than that they should believe in him.

Q. Did then the Jews and those disciples who cried out, ver. 60, ' This is a hard saying, smd who can hear it?' understand our Saviour right, or did they mistake his meaning?

A. They understood him right, so far, as relates to the real receiving his flesh and blood; but as to the maimer of receiving they understood him not; since they had no thoughts of his giving himself whole and entire, veiled in a sacrament, but apprehended the eating of his flesh, cut off from his bones, and drinking of his blood, according to the vulgar manner of other meat and drink, which we digest and consume. However their not understanding him seems not to have been so faulty, as their refusing to believe him: hence our Lord, reprehends not their want of understanding, but their not believing, ver. 64. And Peter, in the name of the Apostles, ver. 68, 69. in opposition to those disciples that had fallen oflT, says, 'Lord! to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art Christ the Son of the living God.' So that these ought, like the Apostles, to have submitted themselves to believe what as yet they understood not; and not to have run away from him, who by his evident miracles proved himself to be the Son of God, and consequently incapable of an untruth. By which example, we may see how much more wisely Catholics act (who in this mystery, like the Apostles, submit themselves to believe what they cannot comprehend, because they know that Christ has the words of eternal life) than those who like (he apostate disciples cry out, ' This is a hard saying and who can hear it?' and thereupon will walk no more with Christ and his Church.

Q. What did our Lord say to his disciples, who were offended with his discourse concerning the eating of his flesh?

A, He said unto them, ver. 61, 62. ^Doth this offend you? what, and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before:' which words are variously interpreted, and may either be understood to signify, that they who made a difficulty of believing that he could give them his flesh to eat, then whilst he was visible amongst them, would have much more difficulty of believing it after he was gone from them by his ascension: or else Christ, by mentioning his ascension, would correct their mistaken notion of giving them his flesh and blood, in that gross manner which they apprehended: or, in fine, he rr^ntioned his ascension into heaven, to convince their incredulity, by the evidence of so great a miracle, which at once was to demonstrate both his Almighty power and the truth of his words.

Q. What is the meaning of the following words, ver. 63. 'It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that 1 speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.'

A. The meaning is, that the flesh separated from the spirit, in the manner which the Jews and incredulous disciples apprehended, would profit nothing: for what would it avail us to feed upon dead flesh, separated from the soul and divinity, and consequently from the lifcgiving spirit? But then it would be blasphemy to say that the flesh oi Christ, united to his spirit (in that manner in which the Catholic Church believes his flesh to be in the blessed sacrament accompanied with his soul and divinity) profits nothing: for if the flesh of Christ were of no profit, he would never have taken flesh for us, and his incarnation and death would be unprofitable to us: which is the height of blasphemy to affirm.

What means the flesh profits nothing? says St, Augustine, writing upon this text, Tract. 27. in Joan. It profits nothing, as they understood it; for they understood flesh as it is torn in pieces in a dead body, or sold in the shambles; and not as it is animated by the spirit. Wherefore it is said, the flesh profits nothing, in the samo manner as it is said, * knowledge puffeth up.' 1 Cor. viii. 1. Must we then fly from knowiedge? God forbid: what then means knowledge puffeth? That is, if it be alone without charity,- therefore the Apostle added, but charity edifieth. Join therefore charity to knowledge, and knowledge will be profitable not by itself, but through charity: so here also the flesh profiteth nothing, viz. the flesh alone: let the spirit be joined with the flesh, as charity is to be joined with knowledge, and then it profits much. For 'd the flesh profiteth nothing, the W^ord would not have been made flesh, that he might dwell in us. So far St. Augustine.

Besides, according to the usual phrase of scripture, flesh and blood are often taken for the corruption of our nature, as for man's natural sense and apprehension, &;c. As when it is said, 1 Cor. XV. 50. ' That flesh and blood cannot inherit the| kingdom of God.' And St. Matt. xvi. 17. 'flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, &c.' •And in this sense the flesh profiteth nothing, but it is the spirit and grace of God that quickeneth and giveth life to our souls. And as the words which our Lord had spoken to them tended to insinuate to them so great a sacrament in which they should receive this spirit, grace and life in its very fountain; therefore he tells them, the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Section III. Other Proofs of the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Blessed Sacrament

Q. Have you any other proofs from scripture of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the blessed sacrament?

A. Yes, 1 Cor. x. where the Apostle, to discourage christians from having any thing to do with the sacrifices offered to idols, tells them, ver. 16. ^That the cup of blessing, which we bless, is the communion of the blood of Christ, and the bread which we break, is the communion of the body of Christ.'

Secondly, 1 Cor. xi. 27. ^ Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.' How so, if what the unworthy receiver takes be no more than bread and wine?

Thirdly, 1 Cor. xi. 29. 'He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.' How shall he discern it, if it be not there really present?

Q. Have you any thing more to add by way of proof out of Scripture?

A. Yes, from the ancient figures of the Eucharist, which demonstrate that there is something more noble in it than bread and wine, taken only in remembrance of Christ.

Q. What are those ancient figures?

A. There are many; but I shall take notice chiefly of three, viz. The paschal lamb, the blood of the testament, and the manna from heaven.

Q. How do you prove that these three were figures of the Eucharist?

A, I prove it with regard to the paschal lamb, (which is acknowledged at all hands to have been a type of Christ) because it is visible, that the rites and ceremonies of it, prescribed Exodus xii. had chiefly relation to eating of it; and consequently to this typical lamb in the Old Testament, corresponds in the New Testament the lamb of God, as eaten by his people in this sacrament: which for this reason was instituted immediately after our Lord had eat the passover with his disciples, that the figure might be both explained and accomplished, and might make way for the truth. See concerning this figure the current sense of the fathers in Tertuliian, L. 4, in Marcionem; St. Cyprian, L. de unitate Ecclesise; St. Hierome in c. 26. St. Matthsei; Chrysostom, Homil. de Proditione Judse; St. Augustine, L. 2. contra Literas Petiliani, c. 37; St. Gaudentius, Tract. 2. in Exod. St. Cyril of Alexandria, contra Nestor, p. 112; Theodoret in 1 Cor. xi; St. Leo Serm. 7. de Passione Domini; Hesychius in c. 23. Levit. St. Gregory Horn. 22, in Evang.

Secondly, that the blood of the testament with which Moses sprinkled the people, Exod. xxlv. and Heb. ix. saying, ' This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined to you,' was a figure of the blood of Christ in this sac^-ament, our Lord himself sufficiently declared, by evidently alluding to this figure, when he gave the cup to his disciples, saying, 'This is my blood of the New Testament,' St. Matt. xxvi. 28. St. Mark xiv. 24, or,

'This cup is the New Testament in my blood.' St. Luke xxii. 20. 1 Cor. xi. 25.

Thirdly, that the manna was a figure of this sacrament, appears from St. John vi. 58. 'Your fathers did eat manna and are dead, he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.' And i'rom 1 Cor. X. where the Apostle speaking of the figures of our sacraments in the old law, and taking notice of the cloud, and the passage of the Red Sea, as figures of baptism, ver. 1. and 2., in the 3d and 4th verses, gives the manna and the water from the rock as figures of the Eucharist. The same is the current doctrine of the holy fathers, and is sufficiently demonstrated from the analogy which is found between the manna and this blessed sacrament. For which see the annotations, in the Do-way Bible, upon the XVI chapter of Exodus.

Q. How do you prove from these ancient figures the real presence of Christ's body and blood in this sacrament?

A. Because if in this sacrament there were nothing more than bread and wine, taken in remembrance of Christ, and as types and figures of his body and blood, then would the figures of the old law equal the sacraments of the new law, yea, far excel them. For who does not see that the paschal lamb was a more noble type, and far better representing Christ than bread and wine? who does not perceive that the blood of victims solemnly sacrificed to God was a better figure of Christ's blood than the juice of the grape? Who can question but the heavenly manna, which is called the bread of angels, and was so many ways miraculous, was far beyond the bread of men? Who will not acknowledge that it is something more excellent and divine to foretell things to come, than only to commemorate things past: it must therefore be visible to every Christian, that if the paschal lamb, the blood of the testament, and the manna were types of Christ, given to us in this sacrament; that this sacrament itself must be something more than a type, figure or remembrance of Christ; and consequently must contain and exhibit him really to us.

Q. But why may not a person suppose that the figures of the Old Testament might equal or excel the sacrament of the new?

A. No one that pretends to the name of Christian can suppose this: since the Apostle assures us that the old law had nothing but ' a shadow of the things to come;' Heb. x. 1. that all its sacrifices and sacraments were but ' weak and beggarly elements,' Gal. iv. 9. and that it was annulled by reason of 'the weakness and unprofitableness thereof,' Heb. vii. 18. And does not the very nature of the things assure us, that the figure must be inferior to the things prefigured?

Q. Have you any other argument from scripture in favour of the real presence of our Lord's body in the blessed sacrament?

A. Yes. Those innumerable texts of scripture, which prove the unerring authority of the Church of Christ, and the indispensable obligation of the faithful to follow the judgment of the church, and to rest in her decisions, plainly demonstrate that to be truth which the church has so long ago declared with relation to this controversy; and that all Christians are obliged to yield to this decision.

Q. When did the church decide this matter?

-4. As soon as ever it was called in question, that is about seven hundred years ago, in the days of Berengarius, who was the first that openly attacked the doctrine of the real presence, and was thereapon condemned by the whole church, in no less than fourteen councils held during his life-time in divers parts of Christendom; and the determination of these councils was afterwards confirmed by the general councils of Lateran, Constance and Trent.

Q, What scripture do you bring to show that all christians are obliged to submit to these decisions of the councils and pastors of the church?

A, St. Matt, xviii. 17. 'If he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.' St. Luke X. 16. 'He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.' St. John xx. 21. 'As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you.' Heb. xii. 7. 'Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God, whose faith follow, ver. 17. 'Obey them that have the rule over you, submit yourselves.' St. John iv. 6. ' He that knoweth God heareth us, (the pastors of the church) he that is not of God heareth not us! by this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.' And what wonder that Christ shouM require this submission to his church, and her pastors, and teachers, whom he has given for the perfecting of the saints, &c. that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine. — Since even in the old law, he required under pain of death, a submission to the Synagogue and her ministers, in their decisions relating to the controversies of the law; as may be seen, Deut. xvii. 8, 9, &c.

Q. What scripture do you bring to show that the church is not liable to be mistaken in these decisions?

A. This is evidently proved from a great many-texts both of the Old and New Testaments: in which we are assured, first, ' that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth,' and consequently not liable to error, 1 Tim. iii. 15. Secondly, ' that Christ has built his church upon a rock, and that the gates of hell (the powers of darkness and error) shall not prevail against her, St. Matt. xvi. 18. Thirdly, that Christ (who is 'the way, the truth, and the life,' St. John xvi. 6.) 'will always be with the teachers of his church, even to the end of the world,' St. Matt, xxviii. 20. Fourthly, that the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, shall abide for ever with these same teachers of the church,' St. John xvi. 16, 17. 'and guide them into all truth,' c. xvi. 13. Fifthly, 'that God has made a covenant with the church, that his Spirit, and his words, which he has put in her mouth at the time when our Redeemer came, should not depart out of her mouth, nor out of the mouth of her seed, nor out of the mouth of her seed's seed, from henceforth and for ever,' Isaiah lix. 20, 21. Sixthly, that God has made a solemn oath to his church, like that which he made to Noah, that he would not be wroth with her, nor rebuke her,' Isaiah liv. 9, 10. 'that he has promised to be her everlasting light, Isaiah Ix. 18, 19, &c.' 'and to set his sanctuary in the midst of her for evermore,' Ezek. xxxvii. 26. and which is inconsistent with her being led astray by damnable errors,- and thus the scripture, by plainly giving testimony to the church and church authority, plainly also gives testimony to the truth of Christ's real presence in the Eucharist, which has been so often declared by that authority.

Q. Besides these arguments from scripture and 7* church authority, have you any thing else to al-ledge in proof of the real presence?

A, First, the authority of all the ancient fathers, whose plain testimonies may be seen in an appendix to a book entitled, a specimen of the spirit of dissenting teachers, &c. anno 1736.

Secondly, the perpetual consent of the Greeks, and all the oriental christians, demonstrated by Monsieur Arnauld and the Abbe Renaudot in their books bearing title, 'la perpetuite de la foi^ &c. confirmed by the authentic testimonies⁵ of their patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots, &c. by the decrees of their synods,⁶ against Cyril Lucar, by the writings of their ancient t and modern divines; and by all their liturgies: and cicknowiedged by -many t Protestant witnesses. Now what can be a

Maronites, and Nestorians, touching the real presence and transubstantiation.⁷⁸

more convincing evidence of this doctrine's having been handed down by tradition from the Apostles, than to see all sorts of Christians, which have any pretensions to aniiquity, all agreeing in it?

Thirdly, both ancient and modern church history furnish us with many instances of miracles the best attested, which from time to time have been wrought in testimony of thQ same truth: of which in divers parts of Christendom there are standing monuments to this day. It would be too tedious to descend to particulars, and so much the less necessary, because all the miracles of Jesus Christ himself, as they prove that he could not be a liar, so they demonstrate, that what he gives us in this sacrament, is verily and indeed his body and blood, as he has so clearly told us.

Section IV. Transubstantiation Proved. Objections Answered

Q. What do you understand by transubstantiation?

A. That the bread and wine in the blessed sacrament are truly, really, and substantially, changed by consecration into the body and blood of Christ.

Q. In what then does the catholic doctrine of transubstantiation differ from the consubstantiation maintained by the Lutherans?

A. It differs in this, that Luther and his follow ers maintain the real presence of the body aiA blood of Christ in the bread and wine, or with the bread and wine: whereas the catholic church believes that the bread and wine are converted into the body and blood of Christ, so that there remains nothing of the inward substance of the bread and wine after consecration, but outward appearances or accidents.

Q. How do you prove this transubstantiation?

A. First, from the texts of scripture above quoted, especially from the words of institution, St. Matt. xxvi. 26, &;c. and from the words of Christ, St. John vi. 51, &c. for our Lord, when he first gave the blessed sacrament, did not say, 'In this, or with this, is mj body and blood;' but he said, *This is my body, and this is my blood.' Neither did he say, St. John vi. 51. 'In the bread that I will give, will I give you my flesh, &;c.' but he said, 'The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.'

Secondly, from the tradition of the ancient fathers, whose doctrine may be seen in the books above quoted.

Thirdly, from the authority and decision of the church of God in her general councils of Lateran, Constance and Trent.

And indeed supposing that the words of Christ, in the institution of the blessed sacrament are to be taken according to the letter, as both Catholic: and Lutherans agree, the most learned Protestants have often urged against Luther and his followers, that the catholic transubstantiation is more agreeable to the letter of Christ's words, than the Lutheran consubstantiation. See the bishop of Meaiix's Histoire des Variations, L. 2, Num. 31, 32, 33.

Q. But does not St. Paul, 1 Corinth, x. and xi speaking of the sacrament after consecration, call it bread?

A. He does; and so do we, first, because it is the bread of life, the food and nourishment of the soul:

Secondly, because it still retains the qualities and accidents of bread: and has the whole outward appearance of bread: and therefore, according to the scripture-phrase is called bread, as angels in the shape of men, are oftentimes in scripture called men. See St. Luke xxvi. 4. Acts i. 10, &c. Thirdly, because it was consecrated from bread, and therefore, according to the method of speaking usual in scripture, is called bread, because it was made from bread; as man is called dust. Gen. iii. 19. because made out of dust; and the serpent is called a rod, Exod. vii. 12. because made from a rod, &c.

Besides, we have two very good interpreters, that inform us what this bread is, of which St. Paul is there speaking, viz. the same Apostle when he tells us, 1 Cor. v. 16. that 'the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ;' and our Saviour himself, when he tells us, St. John vi. 61. 'The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.'

Q. But what will you say to our Saviour's calling the sacrament the fruit of the vine, St. Matt. xxvi. 29?

A. If it were certain our Saviour had so called the consecrated wine of the blessed sacrament, it would prove no more than St. Paul's calling the other kind bread; that is, it would only show that the name of wine, or the fruit of the vine, might be given to it, from having the accidents and appearances of wine, and having been consecrated from wine. But there is all the reason in the world to think, that this appellation of the fruit of the vine was given by our Saviour, not to the consecrated cup or chalice, but to the wine of the paschal supper, which they drank before the institution of the sacrament, this appears evident from St. Luke, who thus relates the whole manner, chap. xxii.

Ver. 14. ' When the hour was come he sat down and the twelve Apostles with him.'

15. 'And he said unto tljem, with desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.'

16. ' For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God:'

17. 'And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gaid, take this and divide it amongst yourselves.'

18. 'For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.'

19. 'And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, this is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me?

20. 'Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you.'

21. 'But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table, &;c.'

Where it is visible, that it was not the sacramental cup, but that which was drunk with the passover, to which our Saviour gives the name of the fruit of the vine.

Q. But if the bread and wine do not remain after consecration, what then becomes of them?

A, They are changed by the consecration into the body and blood of Christ.

Q. How can bread and wine be changed into the body and blood of Christ?

A, By the Almighty power of God, to whom nothing is hard or impossible, who formerly changed water into blood, and a rod into a serpent, Exod. vii. and water into wine, St. John ii. and who daily changes bread and wine by digestion into our body and blood.

Q. But do not all our senses bear testimony^ that the bread and win% still remain?

A. No: they only bear testimony that there remain the colour and taste of bread and wine aa indeed there do: but as to the inward substance, that is not the object of any of the senses, nor can be perceived by any of them.

Q. Are not our senses deceived in this case?

A. Properly speaking they are not, because they truly represent what is truly there, viz. the colour, shape, taste, &c. of bread and wine. But it is the judgment is deceived when upon account of this colour, shape, taste, &c. it too hastily pronounces that this is bread and wine.

Q. But are we not sufficiently authorized, by the testimony of the senses to make a judgment of a thing's being in effect, that which it has all the appearances of?

A, Regularly speaking we are, when neither reason nor divine authority interposes itself, to oblige us to make another judgment. And thus the miracles and resurrection of Christ were demonstrated to the Apostles by the testimony of their senses. But the case would have been altered if God himself had assured them that what appeared to be flesh and bones, were indeed another thing: for in such a case they ought certainly to have believed the testimony of God, rather than their own senses.

Q. Can you give me any instances in which the testimony of man's senses has represented one thing, and the divine authority of God's work has assured us, that it was not indeed what it appeared to be, but quite another thing?

A, Yes, we have many such instances in scripture; as when angels have appeared in the shape of men, Gen. xviii. St. Matt, xxviii. St. Mark xvi. &c. and the Holy Ghost, in' the shape of a dove, St. Luke iii. 22, &c.

Q. Is there not then any of our senses that we may trust to, in relation to the judgment that we are to make concerning the inward part of the sacrament of the Eucharist?

A, Yes, we may safely trust to the sense of hearing; which informs us by the word of God, and the authority of the church of God, that what appears to be bread and wine in this sacrament, is indeed the body and blood of Christ; now faith comes by hearing, saith St. Paul, Rom. x. 17. and hearing by the word of God.

Q. But if the substance of the bread and wine be not there, what is It then that gives nourishment to our bodies when we receive the sacrament?

A. This sacrament was not ordained for tho nourishment of the body, but of the soul: though I do not deny but the body also is nourished, when we receive the blessed eucharist, not by the substance of bread and wine, which is not there, nor by the body and blood of Christ, which are incorruptible, and therefore cannot be digested for our corporal nourishment; but by the quantity and other accidents of the bread and wine (if with the Aristotelian philosophers you suppose them really distinguished from the matter and substance) or by another substance, which the Almighty substitutes, when by the ordinary course of digestion the sacramental species are changed, and the body and blood of Christ cease to be there.

Q. But how can the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substance?

A, By the almighty power of God: which answer if it satisfy you not, I remit you to the Cartesian philosophers, who will tell you, that as the body and blood of Christ, in the sacrament, are contained precisely in the same circumscription and dimensions as the bread and wine were before the consecration, it follows of course that they must affect our senses in the same manner* now colour, taste, &c. according to modern philosophy are nothing but the affections of our senses. See Purchot, Part 1. Phys. 2. Sect. 5. cap. 1.

Q, How can the whole body and blood of Christ be contained in so small a space as that of the host; nay, even in the smallest sensible particle of it?

A, By the same almighty power by which a camel can pass through the eye of a needle: with men that is impossible, says our Saviour, St. Matt, xix. 26. and St. Mark x. 27. 'but not with God, for with God all things are possible.'

Q. How can the body of Christ be both in heavfen, and at the same time in so many places upon earth?

A, By the same almighty power of God, which we profess in the very first article of our creed when we say, 'I believe in God the Father Almighty.' So that it is a question better becoming an infidel than a Christian to ask, ' How this can be?' when we are speaking of a God to whom nothing is impossible; and who would not be God indeed, if he could not do infinitely more than we can conceive. It is like the Jewish question, St. John vi. 62. 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' As if the power of God were not as incomprehensible as himself; and as if it were not worse than madness for weak mortals to pretend to fathom this immense depth of the power of the Almighty, by the short line and plummet of human reason.

Q. But is it not an evident contradiction for the same body to be at once in two places?

A. Not at all; no more than for one God to subsist in three distinct persons; or one person in two natures; or one soul to be at once both in the head and in the heart, or two bodies to be at once in the self-same place? as when Christ's body came into the disciples, the doors being shut, St. John xx. 26. or the same body, after having returned to dust, to be many ages after restored at the resurrection.

Q. How do you prove that there is no evident contradiction in any of these things?

A. Because thousands of as good philosophers and divines as any are, cannot see any such contradiction; which is a plain demonstration there is no evidence in the case; and consequently, it would be the highest rashness to deny the possibility of these things, to the power of the Almighty.

Q. But what need was there that Christ should leave us his real body and blood in this sacrament; since without this real presence he might have bequeathed the self-same graces to our souls?

A, He might iiideed, if so he had pleased; as he might also have brought &bout the salvation of mankind, if he had so pleased, without becoming man himself and dying upon a cross for us: but he chose these wonderous ways as most suitable to his love, and most proper to excite us to love him. And who shall presume to call him to an account why lie has condescended so far?

Q. But are not the body and blood of Christ liable to be hurt and abused in the.sacrament?

A, The body and blood of Christ are now immortal, impassible and incorruptible, and consequently not liable lo be hurt, nor divided, nor corrupted: though it may be said indeed, to be abused by the the unworthy communicant; and upon that account St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 27, says, that such a one is * guilty of the body and blood of Christ:' but this abuse no more hurts the immortal body of Christ, than this or any other crime can hurt or violate his divinity.

Section V. Of the Bread and Wine Made Use of in This

SACRAMENT.

Q. What kind of bread does the Church make use of for the sacrament of the eucharist?

A, The Church of Rome makes use of wafers of unleavened bread; that is, of bread made of fine wheaten flour, with no other mixture but pure water.

Q. Why does not the Church make use of common bread for this sacrament?

A. Because she follows the example of Christ, who at his supper, when he first instituted and gave the blessed sacrament to his disciples, made use of unleavened bread.

Q. How do you prove that?

A. I prove it, because the day in which Christ first gave the blessed sacrament, was according to St. Matt. xxvi. 17. St. Mark xiv. 12, and St. Luke xxii. 7. 'the first day of unleavened bread. Now upon that day, and for the whole following week, there was no other bread to be found in Israel; and it was even death to use any other but unleavened bread, as we learn from Exod. xii. 15. 'Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread, even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel;' ver. 19. 'Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your, houses, &;c.' So that it is plain that our Saviour made use of unleavened bread at his last supper, and that there was no other bread used at that time.

Q. Is there any other reason why we should prefer unleavened bread?

A, Yes, unleavened bread is an emblem or symbol of sincerity and truth. Hence St. Paul admonishes us, 1 Cor. V. 7, and 8, to ' purge out the old leaven of malice and wickedness, and to feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.'

Q. What kind of wine do you make use of for this sacrament?

A, Wine of the grape, with which, by apostolical tradition, we mingle a little water.., Q. Has the practice of mingling water with wine been always observed from the Apostles' days?

J[. It certainly has, and that throughout the whole Church: see St. Justin, Apolog. 2. St. IrensDus, L. 5. c. 2. St. Cyprian, Epistola 63. ad Caecilium, dz;c.

Q. Did Christ when he gave the cup to his disciples mingle water with the wine?

A. It is probable he did; though the scripture neither mentions the water nor the wine; but only speaks of his giving them the cup: however, the ancient and universal practice of the Church, in all probability, comes originally from the exaniple of Christ.

Q. Is there not some mystery or secret mean- 8* ing in the mingling the water with the wine in the chalice?

A, Yes, it represents to us, first, the union of the human and divine nature, in the person of the Son of God; secondly, the union of the faithful with Christ their head. Thirdly, the water and the blood that flowed fi;om the side of Christ.

Q. Why did our Lord appoint bread and wino for the matter of this sacrament?

A, First, because bread and wine being most nourishing to the body were the most proper to represent the grace of this sacrament, which is the food and nourishment of the soul. Secondly, because bread and wine are both composed of many individuals, (viz. grains or grapes) made one by a perfect union of them all; and therefore, as the holy fathers take notice, are, a most proper type or symbol of Christ's mystical body the Church, and of that unity which our Lord would recommend to the faithful by this sacrament. According to that of St. Paul, 1 Cor. x. 17. 'We being many are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread.'

Q. What other things are signified or represented by the outward forms of bread and wine in this sacrament?

A, They are chiefly designed to signify or represent to us three things; the one now past, viz. the passion of Christ, of which they are the remembrance: another really present, viz. the body and blood of Christ, of which they are the veil: a third to come, viz. everlasting life, of which they are the pledge.

Section VI. Of Communion in One Kind

Q. Why do not the faithful in the Catholic Church receive under the form of wine, as well as under the form of bread?

A. The Catholic Church has always looked upon it to be a thing indifferent, whether the faithful receive in one kind or in both; because she has always believed that they receive Jesus Christ himself the fountain of all grace, as itiuch in one kind as in both: but her custom and discipline for many ages have been to administer this sacrament to the laity only in one kind, viz. under the form of bread, by reason of the danger of spilling the blood of Christ, if all were to receive the cup; which discipline was confirmed by the general Council of Constance in opposition to the Hussites, who had the rashness to condemn in this point, the practice of the universal Church.

Q. Did the Catholic Church never allow of the communion in both kinds?

A She did, and may again, if she pleases; for this is a matter of discipline, which the Church may regulate oi' alter, as she shall see most expedient for the good of her children.

Q. What do you mean, when you say, this is a matter of discipline; I thought communion of one kind had been looked upon in the Catholic Church as a matter of faith?

A. You must distinguish in this case between that which is of faith, and that which is of discipline only. It is a matter of faith, that under one kind we receive Christ whole and entire, and the true sacrament; and that there is no command of mimM

M' ^

Christ for all the faithful to receive in both kinds, so far both is and ever was the faith of the Catholic Church; for her faith is unalterable. But then, whether the blessed sacrament should actually be administered to the laity in one kind or in both, that is to say, what is most proper or expedient for the Church to practice or ordain in this particular, considering the circumstances of time, place, &c. this is what I call a matter of discipline, which may be different in different ages, without any alteration of the faith of the Church.

Q. But did not Christ command the receiving in both kinds, St. Matt. xxvi. 27. 'Drink ye all of it?'

A. These words were addressed to the twelve Apostles, who were all that were then present; and the precept was by them all fulfilled; 'And they all drank of it.' St. Mark xiv. 23. Now it is certain, that many things were spoken in the gospel to, the Apostles, in quality of pastors of the Church, which were not directed to the laity; as when they were commissioned to preach and baptize, St. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. and to absolve sinners, St. John xx. 22. and upon this very occasion to do what Christ had done; that is, to consecrate and administer this sacrament in remembrance of him, St. Luke xxii. 19. And consequently, it is no argument that all are obliged to drink of the cup, because Christ commanded all the Apostles to drink of it; no more than that all are obliged to consecrate the sacrament, because Christ commanded all the Apostles to do it. For both these commands were delivered at the same time, upon the same occasion, Wid to the same persons.

Q. But why should the Apostles, and thei/ successors, the bishops and priests of the Chui'ch, be commanded to drink of the cup rather than the laity? Or why should Christ, at the first institution of this sacrament, consecrate and give it in both kinds, if all Christians were not always to receive it in both kinds?

A, To satisfy both these queries at once, you are to take notice that the blessed eucharist, according to the faith of the Catholic Church, and as we shall show hereafter, is a sacrifice as well as a sacrament; and of this sacrifice, by the institution of Christ, the Apostles and their successors, the bishops and priests of the Church, are the ministers, whom he has commanded to offer it in remembrance of his death, St. Luke xxii. 19. Now this sacrifice in remembrance of Christ's death, for the more lively representing the separation of Christ's blood from his body, requires the separate consecration of both kinds, and therefore the priests, that are the ministers of this sacrifice, receive at that time in both kinds; and Christ, in the first institution of this sacrifice, consecrated and gave both kinds, designing without doubt that it should be so received, at least by the ministers.

Q. But why should not the nature of the sacrament as much require both kinds to be received by all, as' the nature of the sacrifice requires both kinds to be consecrated?

A. Because the nature of the sacrament consists in being the sign and cause of grace; now under either kind there is both a sufficient sign of grace, viz. of the nourishment of the soul, and at the same time the fountain and cause of all grace, by the real presence of Christ, in whom are locked up all the treasures of grace; so that the nature of the sacrament sufficiently subsists in either kind. But the nature of the sacrifice particularly requires the exhibiting to God, the body and blood of hia mmh fl'.ff

Son, under the veils that represent the shedding of his blood, and his death; and therefore, the nature of the sacrifice requires the separate consecration of both kinds; which, being consecrated, most be received by some one, and by no one more properly than by the minister.

Q. Does not Christ say, St. John vi. 63. 'Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you.'

A. He does: and in the same chapter, ver. 67, 58, he tells us, ' He that eateth me, even he shall live by me; and, he that eateth of this bread, shall live for ever?' Which texts are easily reconciled, if we consider, that according to the Catholic doctrine, and according to the truth, whosoever receives the body of Christ, most certainly receives his blood at the same time; since the body, which he receives, is a living body, (for Christ can die no more, Rom. vi. 9.) which cannot be without the blood. There is no taking Christ by pieces; whoever receives him, receives him whole.

Q. But, are not the faithful deprived of a great part of the grace of this sacrament, by receiving only in one kind.

A, No: because the grace of this sacramen* being annexed to the real presence of Christ, who is the fountain of all grace; and Christ being as truly and really present in one kind as in both, consequently he brings with him the same grace to the soul, when received in one kind, as he does when received in both.

Q. Is it not then a privilege, granted to the priests above the laity, to receive in both kinds? f

A, No: their receiving in both kinds, as often as they say Mass, is no privilege, but the consequence of the sacrifice which they have been offering, as you may gather from what I have told you already: for, as for other times, when they are not saying Mass, no priest, bishop or pope, even upon his death-bed, ever receives otherwise than in one kind.

Q. Have you any thing more to add in favour of communion in one kind?

A. Yes; first, that the scripture in many places, speaking of the holy communion, makes no mention of the cup. See St. Luke xxiv. 30, 31; Acts ii. 42, 46. XX. 7; 1 Cor. x. 17. Secondly, that the scripture promises life eternal to them that receive in one kind, St. John vi. 51, 67, 58. Thirdly, that te ancient church most certainly allowed of communion in one kind, and practised it on many occasions. See Tertullian. L. 2. ad Uxorem, c. 5; St. Denis of Alexandria, Epist. ad Fabium Antioch, recorded by Eusebius, L. 6. Histor. c. 34; St. Cyprian, L. de Lapsis; St. Basil, Epist. 269; St. Ambrose de Satyro Fratre. Paulinus in Vita Ambrosii, &c. Fourthly, that many learned Protestants have acknowledged, that there is no command in scripture for all to receive in both kinds. See Luther, in his epistle to the Bohemians; Spalatensis de Rep. Eccles. L. 5. c. 6; Bishop Forbes, L. 2. de Eucharist, c. 1, 2; White, bishop of Ely, Treatise on the Sabbath, p. 79; Bishop Montagu, Orig. p. 79.

Q. But what would you say further to a scrupulous soul, which, through the prejudice of a Protestant education, could not be perfectly easy upon the article?

A, I should remit such a person to the church and her authority, and to all those divine promises recorded in scripture, by which we are assured, that in hearing the church and her pastors, we are secure; that Christ and his holy Spirit shall be

HitoHiitfMiMMiilHMMMMiiili always with them, to guide them into all truth and that the gates of hell shall never prevail against this authority. So that a christian soul has nothing to fear, in conforming herself to the authority and practice of the church of God; but very much in pretending to be wiser than the Church, or making a scruple to hear and obey hei spiritual guides.

Section 7

of the manner of adbiinistering this blessed sacrament: of devotion before and after communion: of the obligations of receiving it; and of its effects.

Q. In what manner is the blessed Eucharist administered to the people?

A, After the communion of the priest in the Mass, such of the people as are to communicate, go up to the rail before the altar, and there kneel down; and taking the towel, hold it before their breasts, in such manner, that if in communicating, it should happen that any particle should fall, it may not fall to the ground, but be received upon the towel. Then the clerk, in the name of all the communicants, says the Confiteor, or the general form of confession, by v/hich they accuse themselves of all their sins to God, to the whole court of heaven, and beg the prayers and intercession of all the triumphant and militant church. After which the priest, turning towards the communicants, says,

' May the Almighty God have mercy on you, and forgive you your sins, and bring you to everlasting life. Amen.'

*May the Almighty and merciful Lord grant you pardon, absolution, and remission of all your sins. Amen.'

Then the priest taking the particles of the blessed sacrament, which are designed for the communicants, and holding one of them which he elevate* a little over the pix or paten, pronounces the following words: ' Ecce Agnus Dei, <^c.' that is, * Behold the Lamb of God: behold him who taketh away the sins of the world.' Then he repeats three times, Domlne non sum dignus, SfC? that is, *Lord! I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof; speak but only the word, and my soul shall be healed.' After which he distributes the holy communion, inaking the sign of the cross with the consecrated particle upon each one, and saying to each one, ' Corpus Domini nostri, SfC? 'The body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto life everlasting. Amen.'

Q. In what manner is the blessed sacrament administered to the sick?

A, The catholic church has always practised the reserving some consecrated particles of the blessed eucharist for communicating the sick; and where she enjoys free exercise of religion, takes care that this blessed sacrament be carried to them with a religious solemnity, attended with lights, &c. When the priest comes into the chamber where the sick person lies, he says, ' Peace be to this house.' Answ. 'iVnd to all that dwell therein,' Then setting down the ^pix with the blessed sacrament upon the table, which must be covered with a clean linen cloth, he takes holy water and sprinkles the sick person and the chamber, saying, ^Aspergcs, &c.' 'Thou shalt sprinkle me, O Lord! with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: thou shalt

^^:f^ wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.' Psal. 1. 'Have mercy on me, O God! according to thy great mercy. Glory be to the Father, &c.' Then he again repeats the Anthem, ' Thou shalt sprinkle me, &c.' After which he adds, ' Our help is in the name of the Lord.' Answ. 'Who. made heaven and earth.' Priest. 'O Lord! hear my prayer.' Answ. ' And let my cry come unto thee.' Priest. 'The Lord be with you.' Answ. ' And with thy spirit.' Priest. * Let us pray.'

The Prayer.

O holy Lord, Almighty Father, everlasting God! graciously hear us; and vouchsafe to send thy holy angel from heaven, to guard, to cherish, protect, visit and defend all that dwell in this habitation, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then the priest coming to the sick person, endeavours to dispose him, and prepare him for receiving the blessed sacrament; and, if he has any sin upon his conscience, hears his confession, and absolves him. After which the sick person, or some other in his name, says the Confiteor; and the priest says, 'May the Almighty God have mercy on thee, &;c.;' as above. 'Behold the Lamb of God, &c.' 'Lord! I am not worthy, &c.' And in giving the blessed sacrament, if it be by the way of Viaticum, or preparation for death, he says, 'Receive, brother! (or sister!) the Viaticum of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, who may guard thee from the wicked enemy, and bring thee ^^o everlasting life. Amen.' But if the sick person be not in danger of death, the priest, in giving the blessed sacrament, pronounces the usual form; 'May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul to life everlasting. Amen.'

After which the priest says the following prayer:

O holy Lord, Almighty Father, eternal God! we beseech thee with faith, that the sacred body of our Lord Jesus Christ thy Son may be available to this our brother (or sister) that he has received it as a medicine to eternity, both for body and soul; through the same Lord Jesus Christ thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever. Amen.

Then, if there remain in the pix any other particles of the blessed sacrament, the priest gives the benedicton therewith to the sick person: otherwise he pronounces the usual blessing, making the sign of the cross, and saying, 'May the blessing of Almighty God, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost descend upon thee, and remain always with thee. Amen.'

Q. In what disposition of soul is a person obliged to be, in order to receive worthily the blessed sacrament?

A. He is obliged to be in the state of grace, and free at least from the guilt of mortal sin; that is to say, from the guilt of any wilful transgression in any matter of weight, of the commandments of God, or his church. The reason of this is, because a soul that is under the guilt of mortal sin is an enemy to God, and a slave to the devil; and therefore it would be a grievous crime for a soul in that state to presume to receive the body and blood of Christ, which, according to the docti^e of St. Paul, would be receiving damnation to herself.

Q. What then is a person to do in order to prevent so great an evil?

A, St. Paul tells you, 1 Cor. xi. 28. that he is to *try himself;' that is, to search and examine dill-gently his own conscience before he ventures to approach to this blessed sacrament.

Q. And what, if upon examination, he finds his conscience charged with any weighty matter?

A, He must take care to discharge it, in the manner that Christ has appointed, viz. by a hearty epentance and sincere confession; laying open the tate of his soul to those sacred judges to whom Christ said, St. John xx. 23. ' Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins you «hall retain, they are retained.'

Q. What else is required of a person that is to receive the blessed sacrament?

A, He must be fasting, at least from midnight; far so the church commands, agreeable to a most ancient and apostolical tradition. So that if through inadvertence a person has taken any thing, though it were no more than one drop or crumb, aft«r twelve o'clock at night, he must by no means receive that day; it would be a crime to attempt it.

Q. Is there no exception from this rule?

A, Yes, the case of danger of approaching death is excepted; for then persons are permitted to receive the blessed sacrament by way of Viaticum, though they are not fasting.

Q. What kind of devotion do you recommend to a christian that is preparing himself for the holy communion?

A, Besides his clearing his conscience from sin by a good confession, I recommend to him, first, to thinl^^well on the great work he has in hand, to consider attentively who he is, and who it is that he is preparing to receive, and earnestly to beg of God to make him worthy. Secondly, to propose to himself a pure intention, viz. the honour of God, and the health of his own soul, and in particular, that by worthily receiving Christ he may come to a happy union with, him, according to that of St. John vi. 56. 'He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.' Thirdly, to meditate on the sufferings and death of his Redeemer, in compliance with that command of our Lord, St. Luke xxii. 19. 'Do this in remembrance of me.' Fourthly, to prepare himself by acts of virtue, more especially of faith, love and humility; that so he may approach to his Lord with a firm belief of his real presence in this sacrament, and of his death and passion; with an ardent affection of love to him who has so much loved us, and with a great sentiment of his own unworthiness and sins, joined with a firm confidence in the mercies of his Redeemer.

Q. What ought to be a christian's behaviour at the time of receiving this blessed sacrament?

A. As to the interior, he ought to have his soul at that time full of the sentiments we have just now mentioned of faith, love and humility. And as to the exterior, he ought to have his head erect, his eyes modestly cast down, his mouth moderately upon, and his tongue a little advanced on his under-lip, that so the priest may conveniently put the sacred host on his tongue, which he must gently convey into his mouth, and after having moistened it for a moment or two on his tongue, swallow it as soon as he can, in all which he is carefully to avoid, first, the putting his mouth to the towel; secondly, the chewing with his teeth, or raising the host to the roof of his mouth; thirdly, the letting the sacred particle quite dissolve in his mouth; fourthly, the spitting soon after communion. But if the particle should happen to stick to the roof of his mouth, let him not be disturbed, nor put his finger in his mouth to remove it; bill gently remove it with his tongue as soon as he can, and so convey it down.

Q. What devotion do you recommend after communion?

A, First, adoration, praise and thanksgiving, in order to welcome our dear Saviour upon his coming under our roof. Here then let the soul cast herself at the feet of her Lord: let her, like Magdalen, wash them in spirit with her tears; or, if she dares presume so high, let her embrace him with the spouse in the Canticles, and say, 'I have found him whom my soul loves; I will hold him, and shall not let him go.' Let her, like the royal prophet, invite all heaven and earth to join with her in praising her Lord; and let her excite all her powers to welcome him. Secondly, I recommend to the devout communicant to make a present or offering to Christ, in return for his having given himself. The present that he expects is our heart and soul, which, with all its faculties, ought on this occasion to be offered and consecrated to our Lord. Thirdly, at this time the soul ought to lay all her necessities before her Redeemer, and not neglect so favourable a conjuncture of sueing for his mercy and grace, both for herself and the whole world; for those more especially whom she is in particular obliged to pray for: and above all things let her pray, that nothing in life or death may ever separate her from the love of him whom she has here received, and chosen for her Lord and spouse for ever.

Q. What do you think of those that spend little or no time in recollection and devotion after communion?

A. I think they put an affront upon Christ in so quickly turning their backs upon him; and that they wrong their own souls, which by this neglect are robbed of those graces and comforts which they would have received if they had staid in his company.

Q, Have you any thing more to recommend after communion?

A, I have this to recommend with regard to the whole following day, that a person take care to be more than ordinarily recollected, and vefi-y much upon his guard against the snares of the enemy, who is never more busy than upon this occasion to fiing some temptation or provocation in a Christian's way, by which he may disturb the soul, and rob her of the treasure which she has received; and therefore it behoves Christians to be cautious against this wicked enemy and all his stratagems, lest by putting us into a passion, or otherwise drawing us into sin, he quickly put Christ out of our souls.

If you desire to be more perfectly instructed in what relates to this blessed sacrament, and the devotion that is proper before and after communion, I refer you to Father Lewis de Granada's Memorial of a Christian life, book III. Dr. Gobinet's second volume of the Instruction of Youth; or Mr. Gother's little book of Instructions and Devotions for Confession and Communion.

Q. Are all Christians that are come to the years of discretion, under an obligation of receiving this sacrament?

A, They certainly are, first, by a divine precept or commandment of Christ, St. John vi. 64. * Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.' Which precept obliges to the receiving sometimes at least in our life, and at our death. Secondly, by a precept or commandment of the church published in the great council of Lateran, anno 1215: by which all the faithful are obliged to receive at least once a year, and that within the Easter-time, (which begins on Palm-Sunday and lasts till Low-Sunday) except the person, by the advice of his pastor, should, for some just reason be permitted to put off his communion till another time.

Q. What is the penalty imposed by this council on such as neglect their Easter communion?

A. The council orders, that such offenders should be excluded the church, and, if they die in this transgression, be deprived of Christian burial.

Q. Are persons then actually excommunicated that neglect their Easter communion?

A. No, they are not, till superiors pronounce the sentence of excommunication against them: because the council does not actually inflict this penalty, but only orders or authorizes the inflicting of it.

Q. If a person has passed by the time of Easter, or was hindered from communicating at that time, is he obliged to communicate afterwards, as soon as he can?

A. Yes he is; at least if you speak of one that has been a whole year without communicating; for the church-precept obliges to the receiving at least once a year. For the same reason, a person that has not been at communion within a year, and foresees that he shall be hindered at Easter, ought to anticipate Paschal communion, by receiving beforehand.

Q. And what if a person has made a sacrilegiou. communion at Easter, has such a one satisfied the precept of the church?

A, No certainly. (See the 55th proposition conlemned by Innocent XI.) And therefore such a ♦ne remains obliged to communion, in the same.ftianner as if he had not communicated at all.

Q, At what age are christians obliged by the precept of the church to communicate?

A. As soon as they come to the years of discretion, as it is expressed in the council of Lateran: that is, when they have that perfect use of reason, and are so well instructed in their duty as to be able to discern the body of the Lord, and to receive it with due reverence and devotion. Now this happens in some earlier, in others later: but seldom earlier than about ten years of age,

Q. But what if a child, that is between seven and ten years of age, should be in evident danger of death?

A. Many divines are of opinion, if such a one be come to the use of reason (which is commonly presumed after seven years of age) that he may, ©r even ought to receive, because of the command of Christ, St. John vi. 64. So Saurez, Navarrus, &;a

Q. What are the effects of this blessed sacrament in the worthy receivers?

A. It is the food, nourishment, strength and life of the soul, by supplying it with sanctifying grace, by repairing its forces, by arming it against its passions and concupisciences, by maintaining it at present in the life of grace, and bringing it to life and glory everlasting; according to that of St. John vi. 61. ^ The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world;' and ver. 68 *He that eateth of this bread, shall live for ever.'

Section VIII. Of the Worship of Christ in This Sacrament: Where Also of Benedictions and Processions

Q. What kind of honour is due to this blessed sacrament?

A. Divine honour and adoration, inasmuch as it contains truly and really the divine Person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; who, as he is truly God, ought most certainly to be adored, wherever he is.

Q. Is there no danger of idolatry in this practice?

A, No certainly; because this honour is not paid to the outward veil, or the sacramental signs, but to Jesus Christ, who lies hidden there: now Jesus Christ is no idol, but the true and living God.

Q. But if the doctrine of the real presence and transubstantiation should not be truo, should we not then at least be guilty of idolatry?

A. We are as positively certain, by divine faith, of the truth of the doctrine of the real presence, and of transubstantiation, as Protestants can be of the divinity of Jesus Christ; and therefore we are as much out of the reach of the danger of idolatry, in worshipping Christ in this sacrament, as they are in worshipping him in heaven. I shall add, for their further satisfaction, that some of their best divines have discharged us from all danger of idolatry in worshipping Christ in this sacrament; as they may find in Dr. Jeremy Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying, sect. 20. numb. 26. and Mr, Thorn-dike's Just Weights and Measures, c. 19.. p. 125. Dr. Taylor's words on this subject deserve to be remarked. He writes as follow, " Idolatry is a forsaking the true God, and giving divine worship

^ a creature, or to an idol; that is, to an ima- /inary God. — Now it is evident that the object of heir (the Catholics) adoration, in the blessed sairament, is the only true and eternal God, hypostatically joined with his holy humanity, which Humanity they believe actually present, under the veil of the sacramental signs. And if they thought nim not present, they are so far from worshipping the bread in this case, that themselves profess it idolatry to do so. Which is a demonstration that the soul has nothing in it that is idolatrical; the will has nothing in it but what is a great enemy to to idolatry; and nothing burns in hell but proper will." So far this learned Protestant prelate.

Q. Why does the Catholic church reserve the blessed sacrament in her churches?

A, She reserves the blessed sacrament in tabernacles, upon her altars, partly that she may have it there to carry to the sick at all hours, whenever they shall be in need of it; and partly for the comfort of her children, who by this means have Jesus Christ always amongst them, and may come when they please to visit him. This custom, of reserving the blessed sacrament, is as ancient as Christianity, as appears from the most⁹ certain monuments of antiquity. And it is upon account of the blessed sacrament, reserved in the tabernacle, that a lamp hangs before the altar to burn there day and night, and that we kneel a^ often we pass before the tabernacle.

Q. Why is the blessed sacrament, upon certain days, exposed to the view of the people in a remonstrance set up upon the altar?

A. It is to invite the people to come there to adore Jesus Christ, and to excite in them a greater devotion by the sight of their Lord, veiled in these sacred mysteries.

Q. What is the meaning of the benediction given on certain days?

A. It is a devotion practised by the church, in order to give adoration, praise and thanksgiving to God, for his infinite goodness and love, testified to us in the institution of this blessed sacrament, and to receive at the same time the benediction or blessing of our Lord there present.

Q. Why is the blessed sacrament sometimes carried in solemn procession through the streets?

A. To honour our Lord there present with a kind of triumph, and thereby to make him some sort of amends for the injuries and affronts v^hich are so frequently offered to this divine sacrament; and to obtain his blessing for all those places through which he passes.

Footnotes

1. Philip, iv. 7. ↩

2. St. Justin, in Apolog. 2. St. Irenaeus, 1. 4. c. 34. Tertullian L. de Cor. militis, c. 3. St. Cyprian Epist. 64, First Council of Nice, Can. 18. ↩

3. Dr. Harris's sermon on transubstantiation, p. 7, 8. ↩

4. It was the case of Luther himself, as we learn from his epistle to his friends at Strasburg, torn. 5. fol. 502. nnd of Zuinglius, as we learn from his epistle to Pomeranus, fol. 256. ↩

5. See the testimony of seven archbishops of the Greek church, Perpetuite^ vol. iii. p. 569. the testinionies of the archbishops and clergy of the isles of the Archipelago, &c. of dive.rs abbots and religions, chap. iv. and v. of four patriarchs of Constantinople, of the patriarch of Alexandria, and of thirty-five metropolitans or archbishops, anno 1762. chap. vi. p. 623. of the churches of Georgia and Mingrelia, chap. vii. p. 634. of the patriarch of Jerusalem, and of several other archbishops, abbots, &c. p. 703. Of Macarius and Neophytus patriarchs of Antioch, p. 723, &c. of Mecroditus, patriarch of Constantinople, Responst generale^ p. 151. See also the orthodox confession of the oriental church, signed by the four patriarchs and many other bishops, ibidem, p. 138. That the same is the faith of the Armenians, is proved by the testimonies of Havia-:dour, an Armenian prelate, of Uscanus, bishop of St. Serjgius; also of David, the patriarch, and other bishops and -priests of the Armenians given at Aleppo, anno 1668. In the appendix to the first volume of the Perpetidte\ p. 78, -81, 82. Of James patriarch, of the greater Armenia, and and other bishops and priests. Response gcnerale, L. I. chap, xviii. Of the archbishops of the Armenians in ConBtantinople, Adrianople and Amasaea, ibid. Of Cruciadorus, patriarch of the lesser Armenia, with other bishops and priests, anno, 672. tom. 3. Perpetuite, p. 774. Of the Armenians of grand Cairo, anno, 1678. And of several bishops, at Ispahan, the same year, ibid. p. 775 and 778. See also in the first and third volume of the Perpetuite and in the Response generalc, many other attestations of the belief of the. Moscovites, Jacobites or Surians Cophts, ↩

6. See the acts of the synod of Constantinople under the patriarch Cyril, of Beraea, anno, 1639. And of the synod under the patriarch, Parthenius, anno, 1642. And of the synod of Cyprus, anno, 1668. ↩

7. See (besides the testimonies of the Greek fathers of the first six centuries) Anastasius, of Sina, in his Odegos, Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople in his Theoria, St. John Damascene Orat. 3. de Imaginibus, Lib. 2. Parallel. c. 5. L. 4. Fidei Orthodoxae, c. 13. The second Council of Nice, of 350 bishops. Act 6. Elias Crer. Comment, in Orat. I. St. Greg. Naz. Niccephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Antiheretico 2. Theodorius Stuites, Antiheretic 1. Num. 10. Theophylactus ad Cap. 26. Samonus, Bishop of Gaza, in Discep. contra Achmet Saracenum, Nicholas of Methone. de Corp. and Sang. Christi. Nicholas Cabafilas. Mark of Ephesus and BefFarion; qui omnes in suis optisculis^ says Bishop Forbes de Euch. L. 1. c. 3. aperlissime iransubsiarUialio7iem confitentur. Jeremias, Patriarcho in Resp. 1 and 2. ad Lutheranos. Gabriel Philadelph. de Sacrament. The Greeks of Venice, in Resp. ad Cardinal. Guis. Agapius, &c. See also in the additional volumes of Renaudot to the Perpetuite de la Foi, &c. the concurrent testimonies of the divines of the other oriental sects, and of all their liturgies. ↩

8. Sir Edwin Sandy's relation of the Religions of the West, p. 233. Dr. Potter's Answer to Charity mistaken, p. 225. Bishop Forbes de Euch. L. 1. c. 3. p. 412. Crufius in Germanio-graecia. L. 5. p. 226. Danawerus, L. de Eccles. Grasc. hodierna, p. 46, &c. Hence Dr. Philip Nicholas a Protestant, in his first book of the Kingdom of Christ, p. 22. writeth thus: *' Let my christian readers be assured, that not only the churches of the Greeks, but also the Russians, and the Georgians, and the Armenians, and the Indians, and the Ethiopians, as many of them as believe in Christ, hold the true and real presence of the body and blood of the Lord, &c." ↩

9. Tertullian 1. 2. ad Uxorem c. 5. St. Cyprian, 1. do Lapsie, &,c. ↩