tive evidence that he has done so on other sixteenth century; by which constant, uni- is incapable of error, as God the Father is would I desire of the truth of the real preunerring. Hence, admit that he has left us in sence than those adduced by several eminent uncertainty and doubt-establish the princi- writers of the Lutheran as well as of the ple that he has led us into this fatal error-the Episcopalian Church. To commence with belief of the real presence (as we admit and the real doctrine of the Catholic Church on believe it on his own express and unrevoked the subject of the holy eucharist. In the work testimony) and you aim a deadly blow at called the "Faith of Catholics," page 184, the very existence of Christianity, in falsify- you will find the following statement, which ing the words of Christ, its founder. Hence, contains in few words the belief of the Church my dear friends, you will admit with me the on this point: "It is an article of Catholic be great importance of the investigation on which lief that in the most holy sacrament of the eu we are about to enter. Deem me not tedious charist there is truly and really contained the in my prefatory remarks, and hold me guilt-body of Christ which was delivered for us, and less, I pray you, of any such charge as so-his blood which was shed for the remission of phism or "begging the question;" for I assure you I feel within me the cheering hope that, ere the close of our friendly correspondence, you will admit the truth of every proposition therein asserted. But to the point. You ask me for some of the proofs of the real presence, as you have been accustomed from early infancy, in common with most of those who differ from our Church, to look upon this doctrine as the most flagrant violation of reason, positive sense and experience. You ask me if it is not in direct opposition to the testimony of Scripture; and whether the Catholic is not guilty of idolatry in worshipping as God the mere creatures, bread and wine? That I may observe some order in replying to your questions, permit me to mark out the following course, which will meet, I hope, your approbation, while it will enable me to meet more effectually the objections which may arise from time to time during the progress of our examination. I propose then to lay before you the real doctrine of the Catholic Church on the subject of the holy eucharist, that you may have a clear and distinct knowledge of what I am about to vindicate; also to give you some of the many proofs from the sacred Scriptures and from the constant, uniform, and universal belief of the ancient Church, anterior to the sins; the substance of the bread and wine being, by the power of God, changed into the substance of his blessed body and blood, the species and appearances of bread and wine, by the will of the same God, remaining as they were. This change has been properly called transubstantiation." Here then you find the express doctrine of the Church on this important point. To this and to this alone do I call your attention: leaving aside the frivolous and absurd doe trines laid to our charge by ignorant and de signing men. To substantiate this our belief, we adduce a two-fold argument from the sacred Scrip ture. The first, from the words of our blessed Saviour, as recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John, where he promises to give to his disciples his sacred body and blood to be their spiritual food and nourishment. The other from the fulfilment of this sacred promise as recorded by the other evangelists, and by St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians To each of these sources of Scriptural proof I now claim your undivided attention. Open the sacred volume. Turn to the sixth chapter of St. John, the beloved disciple. You will find on its perusal that it treats of three distinct subjects. The first, the miraculous multiplication of the five loaves and the two (as all admit the true body of Christ was,) it was to be eaten under the mild and attractive form of bread. "And the bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world,” (52.) fishes, with which our Saviour fed and satisfied commencement the superiority of that "bread" the five thousand who had followed him to which he was to give them, that "bread of listen with pious avidity to the sacred truths life which cometh down from heaven,” (verse be taught them. The second speaks of that 50,) which was no other than himself since he interesting fact in the life of Jesus, when mid was the bread of life, (verse 48,)—over the the raging storm and fearful tempest which figurative food of which their fathers in the fossed the frail bark in which his disciples desert had eaten; but which preserved them were crossing the sea to Capharnaum. Jesus not from death, (verse 49.) Now, permit me walked upon the angry waters to join his to ask, what was it that came down from faithful followers. The third and most im-heaven? Was it the real or the figurative Jeportant portion of this very interesting chap-sus Christ? If it was the latter, then are we ter treats of the subject of which we are all in error. If you admit the former, pray, is about to speak. Commencing at the twenty- it not that former real Jesus Christ who came ixth verse, you will find that he converses down from heaven, and who is called in the with those who had diligently sought him from 48th, 50th, and 51st verses "the bread of life, place to place, until they found him at Ca- the bread which cometh down from heaven”—is pharnaum. There he entertains them with he not, I ask, the very "bread" whose manimportant instructions; points out to them theducation imparts eternal life, (verses 50, 52;) necessity of laboring for that other food which and which, though given in the form of bread, *endureth unto life everlasting," and urges is in reality Christ's "flesh for the life of the upon them the absolute necessity of faith in world?” "And the bread which I will give is Him who had been sealed of "God the my flesh for the life of the world,” (verse 52.) Father." Continuing the chapter until you Now, what was given for the life of the world? arrive at the forty-seventh verse you read: Was it bread-simple material bread? Who *Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in will maintain the gross absurdity? It was me hath everlasting life." In this solemn and then the adorable body of Jesus Christ. But impressive manner, Christ is pleased to pre- that which was given for the life of the world face the important announcement he is about was to be eaten, (verses 50 and 52:) therefore to make, in order to fix more effectually the the adorable body of Jesus was to be eaten in attention of his hearers, and assure them of as true a manner, by all who wished to live the impossibility of their erring in believing for ever, (verse 52,) as he had truly come all that he is about to reveal to them. He con-down from heaven, (verse 50.) That his tinues: "I am the bread of life. Your fathers hearers might not be scandalized at the docdid eat manna in the desert and are dead. This trine he was then inculcating, he tells them the bread which cometh down from heaven-that, though given for the life of the world, that if any man eat of it he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever; and the bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world." Here, my dear Unable or unwilling to admit his sacred friends, let us for a moment pause and exa- teachings, the incredulous Jews strove among mine the meaning of this mysterious an-themselves, and in a proud, supercilious mannouncement. Christ is the bread of life-the ner asked: "How can this man give us his bread which imparts to those who eat thereof the glorious privilege of a happy immortality: That if any man cat thereof he may not die," (verse 50.) Here he places that "bread" which he is to give them in direct opposition to that other institution, the manna, which as being merely corporal food did not impart this quality, (verse 49.) Thus manifesting at the flesh to eat?” (v. 53.) With equal propriety did I and save my faithful disciples? But to the impious question proposed, despite the positive testimonies they had witnessed of his omnipotence, and the express assurance they had received that whoever believeth in him hath eternal life, (v. 47.) Jesus deigns not to reply but in a manner which makes "assurance doubly sure" that the Catholic interpretation of his words is the only correct one: " Then Jesus said to them, Amen, amen, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you, (54.) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life and I will raise him up in the last day, (55.) For my flesh is 》 meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, (56.) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him," (57.) Without condescending to explain to the haughty Jews the manner in which this wondrous truth was to be operated, he confirms, with all the solemnity of an oath, his former assertion: that unless they ate and drank of his adorable body and blood they should be deprived of eternal life. Is it not evident, from the question proposed by the Jews, that they understood Jesus to speak of a real manducation of his body? If not, why did they ask: "How is this man to give us his FLESH to eat?" If they who heard him understood him to speak of eating simply bread, would they have discovered any difficulty in the manner in which, by eating thereof and deriving sustenance from that simple bread, they would profess their dependence upon him for the spiritual support of their souls, as he had told them, in verse 47, that whoso believed in him had everlasting life? Surely, in this view of the subject, the manducation of the material bread would have been a seemly emblem of their lively faith and firm reliance on him. But was this the view they took of the express words of Christ-". :—“Amen, amen, I say to you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. For my flesh is meet indeed and my blood is drink indeed? (verses 54—56.) If so, why, again I ask, did they exclaim: "How can this man give us his FLESH to eat?" (v. 53.) It is evident, I think, that they understood Jesus to speak of his real body and blood. And why should they not so construe his words? Had he given them any reason differently to understand them? Had he told them that he spoke of the eating of simple bread? Could they in any manner draw such a conclusion from his words-" I am the bread of life, (48). I am the living bread which came down from heaven, (51,) that if any one eat of it he may not die, (50.) Amen, amen, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you, (54.) He that cateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life, (55.) For my flesh is meet indeed and my blood is drink indeed, (56.) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him?” (57.) Is there in all these positive assurances the smallest possible ground for the opinion that Jesus Christ spoke of any other than of his real, substantial, and identical body which was then and there visibly manifest to the listening crowd? That they who were then present so understood him, the question they proposed, the obvious meaning of the whole context, and reason itself prove sufficiently to my mind. And the difficulty to them was not whether Christ intended to give them a sim ple emblem or an empty figure of his body; but "how" he was to give them his “flesh" to eat; although, had they but listened with the spirit of humility to his words, they might have remembered that he had already told them, the BREAD which I will give is my FLESH for the life of the world," (52.) Thus had he previously explained to them that the sacred banquet which he intended to prepare for them, was to be eaten under the seemly appearance of bread. But, alas! the blind ignorance and the restless spirit of his un happy hearers rendered their minds impervi ous to the gentle influence of this new and heavenly dogma. They were more unwilling than unable to understand or believe what was then told them. And to me it appears evident that, though they were proudly resolved not to submit their faith to the words of Jesus Christ, they expressly understood him in the sense in which he spoke when he said, that his flesh was meat indeed and his blood was drink indeed. Not in figure, in spirit, of in emblem, but really and indeed. But pause for a moment, I pray you, at truths, we will begin to doubt the reality of the 58th verse: "As the living Father hath the manducation of his sacred body, the mosent me and I live by the Father, so he that eat-ment we harbor the doubt of his mission and union with his Father. Again, comparing, in the following verse, the food which he was to give his disciples with that which the Jews had received, Jesus shows the superiority of the former over the verse and here again repeats,) being but an emblem of the former, imparted not the privilege of immortality. "This is the bread that came down from heaven-not as your fathers did eat manna and died. He that eateth this bread shall live forever"-(verse 59.) What he was to give them was not manna, which was but an emblem, but that bread which was to enable them to live forever; therefore, it was no emblem-no figure; consequently, it was the reality which alone could impart that miraculous efficacy. But what was that mysterious bread? He himself tells us, when he says expressly: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever. And the BREAD which I will give is my FLESH for the life of the world"—(verses 51 and 52.) Surely, my dear friends, you can no longer doubt the truth of the Catholic exposition. eth me, the same also shall live by me." Now, let me ask, how was Jesus Christ sent by the eternal Father? Was he sent in figure, in spirit, in fancy, or in reality, in person and indeed? Had he no positive mission? or rather, was he not sealed of God the Father, and com-latter; since the latter, (as he says in the 49th missioned by the Father to reveal his saving truths to man-to redeem the world, and to do "not his own will, but the will of him that For sent him?" (verse 38.) We all agree that Christ was really sent by the "living Father" and that he lived really by that same father, being one in nature, and one in essence with him. (St. John xi. 30.) You admit equally › with the Catholic this reality of mission and of existence on the part of Christ with God the Father. Well then, see you not that our Divine Redeemer places on the same basis, the manducation of his sacred body and the truth and reality of his mission from God the living Father, and of his existence by the same eternal Father? "As the living Father has sent me," says Jesus Christ, “and as { I live by the Father, so he that eateth me the same also shall live by me," (v. 58.) Destroy first the reality of Christ's mission; pull down the standard of Christianity, which for so many eenturies has floated over adoring millions who believed in the infinite atonement of Christ for a sinful world; persuade all chris-pounding. What would have been the emotendom that Christ was but an impostor, a selfconstituted teacher, usurping the glorious prerogative of heaven's ambassador near the human family; in a word, disprove the ancient prophecies as they were all so minutely ful-assurance inspired by his sacred words: "He filled in the person, the office and the mission that believeth in me hath everlasting life?” (47.) of Jesus Christ; tear from the sacred volume Yes, I know that you would have hushed the many express testimonies of his divine into silence every doubt, every difficulty which mission, and that undying testimony which, the pride of opinion might have suggested, in letters of light, forever settled the truth of and that with the few who remained faithful his divinity, contained in the first chapter of to Jesus, you would have adored the tremenSt. John. Destroy all these; perform all these dous though incomprehensible mystery. You moral impossibilities, and we will begin, at would not have said with those stiff-necked least, to doubt the reality of Christ's mission, Jews: "This saying is hard and who can hear and the reality of his existence by God the it?" (verse 61.) Yet alas! how often is this Father. And as the Saviour himself compares heartless reply made in our days, by many the reality of the manducation of his own who, like the incredulous Jews, either cannot body with the reality of these two fundamental) or will not subject their proud opinions to the Imagine yourselves present in the synagogue of Capharnaum, and listening to the sacred mystery your Saviour has been ex tions of your soul-what the feelings excited by the wondrous mercy of God? Would you not have bowed with perfect submission to the doctrine of Christ, and acted with all the firm 66 How often do we hear it ushered in with a flourish of trumpets and exulting shouts, by the veriest sciolists in the community, while the " grave and reverend signors" of the land, in sombre garb and still more sombre countenance arrayed, consign to the deepest shades the gross absurdity of Christ's real presence in the eucharist! If we repeat the various texts before quoted in favor of our doctrine, and to show them that it is the real body and blood of Christ in the blessed sacrament, they exultingly exclaim: "It is the Spirit that you there have, not the real flesh; for this, says Christ, profiteth nothing. The words of Christ are not to be taken in a literal but in a spiritual manner. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life,' (verse 64.) And so falls before the bright effulgence of Scripture proof that old and shattered error of Catholicity, the real presence!" But let us examine a little this redoubtable champion which is made, Don Quixotte like, to attack the wind-mill, which it mistakes for some less resisting foe. Let us see the meaning of these words of our divine Saviour, which are made to bear so unsparingly upon all our arguments; and let us positive revelations of the Redeemer? Despite the express words which they have in the whole portion of the chapter from which I have deduced thus much of my argument; notwithstanding the positive assurance of Him who is "the way, the truth, and the life," that the bread which he was to give them was his flesh for the life of the world, (verse 52,) and that "unless they eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drank of his blood, they should not have life in them," (verse 54,) still they echo back the infidel cry: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat," (verse 53,) "This is a hard saying and who can hear it?" (verse 61.) Impious question! Equally blasphemous doubt! Still, however, does our merciful Redeemer condescend to treat with his unbelieving hearers, and strive to win them over to his belief. "Doth this scandalize you?" (verse 62,) asked he. If then you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" (verse 63.) "It is the spirit that quickeneth-the flesh profileth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life," (v. 64.) The Jews understanding our Saviour to speak of his sacred flesh as it then appeared before them, were under the erro-analyze the matter to discover the component neous impression that Jesus Christ intended parts. Christ says expressly: "It is the Spiril to give it to them to be eaten in the gross ap- that quickeneth. The flesh profileth nothing." prehension of the term-in a vulgar, carnal (64.) These words must have some signifi manner. In the fact, they were evidently cation, and that signification must be true; right, as I think you will admit I have proved; consequently, it cannot be contradictory to but in the manner, they were grossly mis- any thing previously revealed by Jesus Christ. taken. It was to correct this erroneous opin- "It is the Spirit that quickeneth." You mainion, that Christ addressed them in these words tain that Christ here speaks of the spiritual already quoted: "Doth this scandalize you? manner in which his words are to be takenIf then you shall see the Son of Man ascend up that they imply only a spiritual presence in where he was before?" Thus showing them the institution he was to leave his disciples. that whilst by this act of his own omnipotence And, to substantiate this your view of the he would subsequently confirm the truth of subject, you add that Christ himself assures all that he had before stated, he would, at the us that his flesh profiteth nothing; consequentsame time, take with him to heaven his wholely it cannot be really present. Have you living body, and not distribute it, as they sup-ever seriously considered the sad results of posed, to be divided, mangled, and grossly this erroneous, almost wicked conclusion? consumed on earth. Instead of discovering here any objection against the reality of the real presence, I find an argument in its favor! But now comes the grand objection—the powerful lever, with which the opponents of the real presence strive to overthrow the fabric of Catholic faith in this adorable dogma! You represent Jesus Christ as saying that his flesh profiteth nothing. This must be your construction of the sentence; for there is question of no other flesh than that of Christ. If so it be that the sacred and immaculate flesh of the Saviour profiteth nothing to man, avails us nought in securing the grand affair |