life in you. Whoso 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. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many, therefore, of his disciples, when they had heard this, said; This is a hard saying, who can hear it? From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him." John vi. 51, 52, &c.

Here our Saviour declares the true meaning of his doctrine of the Eucharist. If you ask, what is that bread which we receive in this Sacrament? He himself answers, that it is his own flesh; his flesh indeed, and his blood indeed, which is eaten and drank in the Eucharist. And here all Protestants are desired to remark, that our Saviour spoke this with an express design to explain this mystery of our faith, being urged to interpret his doctrine by the Jews, who were highly scandalized at his saying; the bread which I will give is my own flesh; and exclaimed against it as a thing impossible to be done; how can this man, say they, give us his flesh to eat? So that, on the one hand, we cannot doubt but our Saviour here intended to explain this mystery of our faith, and to declare clearly what we are to believe of it: and, on the other hand, we find, that, when he comes to explain it, instead of correcting his doctrine of the real pre

sence by a figurative sense, he repeats the same doctrine again and again in stronger words than before; nor does he once so much as hint that it is figuratively to be understood. Now I appeal to all sincere Protestants, if it be not utterly incredible and impossible, that the Holy Scriptures, in every place where this sacrament is spoken of, should teach in plain words that it is the body and blood of Christ (supposing, as Protestants do, that it is not really his body and blood), and never once unfold the truth of this mystery, by giving us to understand in words as plain, that it is his body and blood in figure only, supposing that were the true meaning of his words.

Third reason, Because St. Paul too explains this mystery of our faith altogether in favour of those who take our Saviour's words in the literal sense. For if the question be put, what the Eucharist is? Whether the true and real body and blood of Christ or not? The Apostle resolves it for Catholics, not for the opinion of Protestants. "The cup of blessing (says he) 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 ?" 1 Cor. x. 16.

Again, if we put the question, Whether the body and blood of Christ are present by faith only to the worthy receiver? The Apostle gives it clearly against the Protestant's opinion: "Wherefore (says he), whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 1 Cor. xi. 27.

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." 1 Cor. xi. 29.

Now, according to this doctrine of the apostle, it is exceeding plain, that the body and blood of our Lord are truly and really received by the unworthy, as by the worthy communicant, and consequently, truly and really present to all who receive; and, not by faith only, to the worthy receiver: for if the unworthy do not receive the true body and blood of Christ in this sacrament, how can they be said to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ? or, not to discern the Lord's body?

Fourth reason, When God, in holy Scripture, speaks with an express design to make known to us some new institution or command upon which our salvation depends; or to discover some high mystery of faith, which was entirely new to the world, which was necessary for the world to know, and which could only be known from his words; then, if ever, we have good reason to believe the word of God speaks plainly, and ought to be taken in the obvious natural sense of the words. Now here our Saviour spoke those words, This is my body, This is my blood, at the institution of a great sacrament, upon which our salvation depends, with an express design to reveal a high mystery of faith, which was entirely new to the world; which was necessary for the world to know; and which could be known to his disciples only from his words: we conclude then, that his words, upon such an occasion, ought in all reason to be understood in the plain, obvious, literal sense. Add to these reasons, that the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, in all ages, has ever expounded these words of our Saviour in the literal sense, and ever condemned those for heretics who have at any time attempted to wrest them to a figure.

The only reply Protestants can make to this weight of proofs for the real presence and transubstantiation, is from the words of our Saviour, Do this in remembrance of me. From whence they pretend to conclude, and the Eucharist is only a sacrament instituted in bread and wine to be taken in remembrance of his death; and that his body and blood are not really and substantially present in it.

To whom we answer, that the words, Do this in remembrance of me, do not furnish the least shadow of a proof against the real presence, because the Eucharist, as it is believed by Catholics, is a much more lively remembrance of Christ than as it is held by Protestants. For Catholics, who hold transubstantiation and the real presence, and firmly believe that, as often as they partake of this sacrament, they really receive the same body of Christ that was crucified, the same blood of Christ that was shed for their redemption, do certainly with much more lively sentiments of devotion renew in themselves the remembrance of our Saviour's death and passion than Protestants can do, who believe, that they only receive bread and wine in their natural substances in remembrance of him. It is, therefore, very bad and false reasoning to conclude that the body and blood of Christ are not really present in the Eucharist, from the words, Do this in remembrance of me, when those words are more clearly consistent with the Catholic belief of the real presence than with the contrary opinion of Protestants.

Is it not enough then to stagger all who are serious among them, when they reflect that the literal, obvious, plain sense of the word of God is in all the four Gospels, and in St. Paul, full and

clear against them in this important controversy; and more full and clear for the Catholic's belief of the real presence, than any text that can be produced by Protestants for the belief even of the Trinity or Incarnation? Especially if they reflect again that all antiquity too is full against them, that the ancient fathers, Greek and Latin, all Christian Churches, both in the East and West, have ever believed the real presence and transubstantiation with Catholics, as Catholic writers have demonstrated beyond reply (see Perron and Mr. Arnaud, Perpetuité de la Foi); and that Protestants have none to uphold them in their unbelief but the unbelieving Jews in the synagogue of Capernaum, who protested against the doctrine of the real presence the moment the mouth of the Eternal Truth had taught it, and disputed with Him, as Protestants do now with his Church, the possibility of it, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Let not Protestants, at least, pretend they have the written word on their side in this great controversy, but let them fairly own the truth, that as for texts from the Word of God they can produce none for their opinion; and that their true and only reason for not holding transubstantiation and the real presence is their natural difficulty in believing a hard and high mystery of faith above their comprehension (which has ever been the case of those that have not faith). But if the incomprehensibility of this mystery be a sufficient reason for them to reject it, they may for the same reason, with free thinkers and infidels, deny the mystery of the Trinity, the incarnation, the eternity of the pains of hell, the resurrection of the dead, and all the fundamental articles of the Christian religion.