Chapter IV. Of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation

What is the doctrine of the Catholic Church in relation to this article f

We believe and profess, that in the most holy* sacrament of the eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. And that there is a conversion (or change) of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood; which conversion (or change) the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation.

What proofs have you for this?

1st. Matt. xxvi. 26, “ As they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; This is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of "the

NEW TESTAMENT WHICH IS SUED FOR M NY for the remission of sins.” Mark xiv. 12, c 2

30 The Real Presence,

24, u Take, eat: This is my body — This is my # blood of the New Testament which is shed for many.” Luke xxii. 19, “ This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me — This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you.” 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25.

“ Take, eat: This is my body which is broken for you — This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” Which words of Christ, repeated in so many places, cannot be. verified without offering violence to the text, any other way than by a real change of the bread and wine into his body and blood.

2ndly. 1 Cor. x. 16, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break,* is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” Which interrogation of the apostle is -certainly equivalent to an affirmation; and evidently declares, that in the blessed sacrament we really receive the body and blood of Christ.

3rdly. 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29, “ Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty op the body and blood op the Lord — He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the body op our Lord.” Now how should a person be “ guilty of the body and blood of our Lord,” by receiving unworthily; if what he received were only bread and wine, and not “ the body and blood of our Lord?” Or where should be the crime of “ not discerning the body of our Lord,” if the “ body of our Lord ” were not there?

and Iran substantiation. 31

4thly. John vi. 51, &c., “ The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove amongst themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Yerily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 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, dwelleth 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."

Hence the Protestants, in their Catechism in the Common Prayer Book, are forced to acknowledge, “ that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Now, how that can be verily and indeed taken and received, which is not verily and indeed there, is a greater mystery than transubstantiation.

“ The literal sense is hard to flesh and blood:

But nonsense never can be understood."

Dryden's Hind and Panther.

Are we not commanded, Luke xxii. 19, to receive the sacrament, in remembrance of Christ?

Yes, we are: and St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 26, let®

32 Of Communion us know what it is that is to be the object of oui remembrance when we receive, when he tells us, 44 Ye do shew (or shew forth) the Lord's death till he comes." But this remembrance is no ways opposite to the real presence of Christ’s body and blood: on the contrary, what better remembrance can there be of Christ’s death and passion, than to receive under the sacramental veils the same body and blood in which he suffered for us?

Why then do you blame Protestants for taking this sacrament in remembrance of Christ?

We do not blame them for taking it in remembrance of him: but we blame them for taking it as a bare remembrance, so as to exclude the reality of his body and blood. That is, we blame them- for taking the remembrance and leaving out the substance; whereas the words of Christ require that they should acknowledge both.

But how is it possible that the sacrament should contain the real body and blood of Christ?

Because nothing is impossible to the Almighty; and it is the highest rashness, not to say blasphemy, for poor worms of the earth to dispute the power of God.