end to the liberty which every Christian had hitherto enjoyed, of interpreting this presence in the manner he thought most agreeable to the declarations of Scripture, and to decide in favour of the most monstrous doctrine that the phrenzy of Superstition was capable of inventing. This audacious Pontiff pronounced the opinion that is embraced at this day in the Church of Rome relating to that point, to be the only true and orthodox account of the matter; and he had the honour of introducing and establishing the use of the term Transubstantiation, which was hitherto absolutely unknown.*"

5

We will make no apology for the length of our extracts or remarks in the course of this chapter: it is a most important subject, and which we leave to the consideration of our readers.

CHAP. V.-OF COMMUNION IN ONE KIND.

What is the doctrine of the Church as to this point?

We profess, "that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament."

What proof have you for this?

Because, as we have seen in the foregoing chapter, the bread, by consecration, is truly and really changed into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood: now both faith and reason tell us, that the living body of the Son of God cannot be without his blood, nor his blood without his body; nor his body and blood without his soul and divinity. It is true he shed his blood for us in his passion, and his soul at his death was parted from his body; but now he has risen from the dead immortal and impassible, and can shed his blood no more, nor die any more. "Christ being raised from the dead," says the apostle, Rom. vi. 9, "dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him." Therefore whosoever receives the body of Christ, receives Christ himself whole and entire; there is no receiving him by parts.

But does not Christ say, John vi. 53, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you?"

*Mosheim, ut supra. See also Cowell's Account of the present State of the Greek Church, referred to by Dr. Maclaine. This writer was at Constantinople towards the latter end of the 17th century, where the Jesuits used every means of bribing the indigent Bishops of the Greek Church to obtain their assent to their own false assertion, that "Transubstantiation had been practised in the Eastern Churches." These bribes had the desired effect of obtaining signatures, which, Mosheim says, were afterwards invalidated as having been obtained by the artifice of the Jesuits.

True. But according to the Catholic doctrine we do this, though we receive under one kind alone, because under either kind we receive both the body and blood of Christ; whereas our adversaries that make this objection receive neither one nor the other, but only a little bread and wine. Besides, this objection does not sound well in Protestant mouths, because they say those words of Christ were not spoken of the sacrament, but only of faith.

Are all Christians commanded to drink of the cup? Matt. xxvi. "Drink ye all of it."

27,

No: that command was only addressed to the twelve apostles, who were the all that were then present, "and they all drank of it." Mark xiv. 23.

How do you prove that those words are not to be understood as a command directed to all Christians?

Because the Church of Christ, which is the best interpreter of his word, never understood them so; and therefore from the very beginning, on many occasions, she gave the holy communion in one kind, for instance, to children, to the sick, to the faithful in time of persecution, to be carried home with them, &c., as appears from the most certain monuments of antiquity.

But are not the faithful thus deprived of a great part of the grace of this sacrament?

No: because under one kind they receive the same as they would do under both, inasmuch as they receive Christ himself whole and entire, the author and fountain of all graces.

Why then should the Priest, in the Mass, receive in both kinds any more than the rest of the faithful?

Because the mass being a sacrifice, in which, by the institution of our Lord, the shedding of his blood and his death was to be in a lively manner represented; it is requisite that the Priest, who, as the Minister of Christ, offers this sacrifice, should, for the more lively representing of the separation of Christ's blood from his body, consecrate and receive in both kinds as often as he says mass. Whereas, at other times, neither Priest, nor Bishop, nor the Pope himself, even upon their death-bed, receives any otherwise than the rest of the faithful, viz., in one kind only.

Have you any texts of Scripture that favour communion in one kind?

Yes: 1st, All such texts as promise everlasting life to them that receive, though but in one kind; as John vi. 51. "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Ver. 57. "He that eateth me, even he shall live by me." Ver. 58, "He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

2dly, All such texts as make mention of the faithful receiving the holy communion, under the name of breaking of bread, without any mention of the cup; as Acts ii. 42. "They continued stedfastly in the apostolic doctrine of fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in

prayers." Ver. 46. "Continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house." Acts xx. 7. "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread." Luke xxiv. 30, 31. "He took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to them, and their eyes were opened and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight." 1 Cor. x. 17. "We being many, are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread."

3dly, 1 Cor. xi. 27. Where the apostle declares, that whosoever receives under either kind unworthily, is guilty both of the body and blood of Christ. "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink (ǹ wìvn) this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord." Where the Protestant translators have evidently corrupted the text by putting in "and drink," instead of or drink," as it is in the original.

66

What are the reasons why the Church does not give the communion to all her children in both kinds?

1st, Because the danger of spilling the blood of Christ, which could hardly be avoided if all were to receive the cup. 2dly, Because, considering how soon wine decays, the sacrament could not well be kept for the sick in both kinds. 3dly, Because some constitutions can neither endure the taste nor smell of wine. 4thly, Because true wine, in some countries, is very hard to be met with. 5thly, In fine, in opposition to those heretics who deny that Christ is received whole and entire under either kind.

The first and second paragraphs of this chapter are expended in vain efforts of quibbling and twisting to prove that the real blood of our Saviour is contained in a baked wafer, and which we admit is quite as easy as, by a Popish hocus pocus, to show that the wafer itself is substantial flesh*.

*The logic of Popery, according to a favourite phrase of her own, may be defined, the art of proving that that is which is not, and vice versa. Thus, under one kind only, two kinds are received;-the priest changes bread and wine into flesh and blood-flesh contains blood, and, consequently, is flesh and blood-flesh and blood compose a human body-a human body must possess a soul; thus it is as clearly demonstrated that a soul, flesh, and blood, are to be made of a little flour and water, as that a horse-chesnut is a chesnut-horse; or that a cat which has one tail must have three. Either of these, or such propositions, by a parity of Popish reasoning, could be as readily "proved" and would be, did she require them-as any of her other contradictions, in her own way, thus:-" Because, as we have seen," a cat has a tail, and No-cat has two tails; now, both faith and reason tell us," that every cat that has a tail must have one tail more than No-cat; from whence it is evident that every cat with one tail must have three In fine, Saint Feline himself, who flourished seven thousand years before the flood, declared his conviction of this plain fact in opposition to the heretics of his day; and that which has been proved to be the general belief for so many thousand years, is much safer to rely upon than any new doctrine which the modern sects have rashly dared to oppose to it.

This denial of the cup to the laity is another of the subtractions from the doctrines of our Saviour, ordained by Popery, we suppose, as a set-off against the denial of marriage to her clergy. In justice to her, however, it is but fair that, in the outset, we should here admit, independent of the miracle itself of blood and flesh being in baked flour and water, we scarcely know what she means by that which we suppose must be taken as her defence of it. The first quotation of Scripture is in proof that CHRIST can die no more, and which we readily admit; yet, as the Pope says that every individual in partaking of his sacrament "receives CHRIST himself whole and entire," are Papists thus taught to believe they eat up their wafer alive every day!!! This is too contemptible to proceed farther on the subject.

To the next paragraph we agree, viz. that what Papists do is according to the doctrines of the Popish Church; all that we contend for is, that these are directly opposed to the doctrines of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. Our readers have a fair opportunity of judging for themselves; but we must lament that the spirit of rancour is so frequently manifested towards those who take for their Rule of Faith the acknowledged word of God in preference to the dogmas and legends of Popery*.

*Why should " a poor worm of the earth," who calls himself CHRIST'S vicegerent, indulge in such repeated attacks and sneers against those who deny his spiritual authority? Had the Pope set out openly as a controversialist, it would have been all very fair-so he kept it in mind that the object of his championship had been to refute rather than to abuse: but surely, in writing a "Profession of Faith" for the direction of his followers, it was not in such a work that (from one declaring himself or his Church to be an infallible ruler over all Christians) we were to expect to learn what are the tenets which proceed from "Protestant mouths," where his business was to prove the truth of his own? Look at our Protestant prayer-book-wherein does it contain a sneer or a reproof contrary to the language of Christ, towards any men who differ in opinion with those who use it? Wherein does it set forth one single proposition opposed to the Scriptures, from whence the rites of our Church are chiefly taken? This prayer-book is open to attack (as is every other book) if there can be found in it anything to condemn ; but it attacks not any. It clearly expresses what it teaches; and it teaches our ministers to be humble -not that they have the power to damn, but to pray that they may be illuminated "with the true knowledge" of the word of God, and their flocks to forgive their enemies; whilst both clergy and laity pray that God “will have mercy upon all men" -not as is the case, with the Popish approved catechisms which, from infancy, in

Were further confirmation necessary to prove the vast difference between the Popish Church and the Church of Christ, we find it in the reply to the next question proposed. "TRUE-but❞—but what? Why, according to the doctrine of Popery we take in both kinds, although we are aware we receive but in one." Is this not the true sense of the passage? We can understand it in no other. We are then informed that the twelve apostles were the "All"” who were commanded to drink of the cup, and who drank accordingly: -so were they when the bread was eaten, which might, by the same reasoning, be taken away also. We have already noticed this circumstance, (page 88) and therefore will merely add, that Matthew, (chap. xxvi.) Mark, (chap. xiv.) and John, (chap. vi.) assure us Christ told his disciples, the laity, that they were to drink and eat both, in the language quoted by the Pope himself. The next question is solved in the usual manner; viz. because Popery chooses so to solve it; or rather, as it is a negative matter-because she never understood it otherwise. In this, however, she is mistaken, as we will show presently by her own words. It is some

1

culcate the doctrine of invidious distinction between Papists themselves and the rest of God's creatures (a).

(a) Q. Who are our neighbours?

A. All mankind-especially (Roman) Catholics.

Q. Why especially (Roman) Catholics?

A. Because they are members of the mystical body of Christ, "the Church." These questions and replies are extracted from the Douay Catechism (chap. 7), entitled Charity Expounded. The following is a further illustration of the charitable tenets inculcated by the Romish Church, and extracted from the same approved

source:

Q. What are the points of faith we are taught by the (Roman) Catholic Church? A. Such only as God has revealed to her (!!!) [The Twelve New Articles are here forgotten?]

And then, in the same (2d) chapter :

Q. What vice is opposite to (the Romish) faith ?

A. Heresy, which is an obstinate error in matters of faith.

Let us see who are those whom Roman Catholic children are taught from earliest infancy" charitably" to consider in a state of damnation.

Q. In what manner is Christ present in the Eucharist?

A. By the true and real presence of his divine and human nature, and not in figure only, as heretics would have it.

Thus are infants taught that the comparatively few of God's creatures who profess Popery are the only beings in existence who can escape eternal perdition !— So much for Papal charity.