coln. The latter, who speaks more precisely on the subject, says: "The idea of Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist was first started in the beginning of the eigth century. In the twelfth century, the actual change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, by the consecration of the Priest, was pronounced to be a Gospel truth. The first writer who maintained it was Paschasius Radbert. It is said to have been brought into England by Lanfranc." (1) What will the learned men of Europe, who are versed in ecclesiastical literature, think of the state of this science in England, should they hear that such positions, as these, have been published by one of its most celebrated Prelates? I have assigned the cause, why I must content myself with a few of the numberless documents which present themselves to me in refutation of such bold assertions. St. Ignatius, then, an apostolical Bishop of the first century, describing certain contemporary heretics, says: "They do not admit of Eucharists and oblations, because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins." (2) I pass over the testimonies, to the same effect, of St. Justin Martyr, (3) St. Irenæus, (4) St. Cyprian, (5) and other Fathers of the second and third centuries; but will quote the following words from Origen, because the Prelate appeals to his authority, in another passage, which is nothing at all to the purpose. He says then, "Manna was formerly given, as a figure; but, now, the flesh and blood of the Son of God is specifically given, and

(1) Elm. of Theol. vol. ii. p. 380. (3) Apolog. to Emp, Antonin,

(2) Ep. ad Smyrn, (4) L. v. c. 11,

is real food." (1) I must omit the clear and beautiful testimonies for the Catholic doctrine, which St. Hilary, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerom, St. Augustin, and a number of other illustrious Doctors of the fourth and fifth ages furnish; but I cannot pass over those of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Ambrose of Milan, because these occurring in catechetical discourses or expositions of the Christian doctrine to their young neophytes, must evidently be understood in the most plain and literal sense they can bear. The former says: "Since Christ himself affirms thus of the bread: This is my body; who is so daring as to doubt of it? And since he affirms: This is my blood; whò will deny that it is his blood? At Cana of Galilee, he, by an act of his will, turned water into wine, which resembles blood; and is he not then to be credited when he changes wine into blood? Therefore, full of certainty, let us receive the body and blood of Christ; for, under the form of bread, is given to thee his body, and, under the form of wine, his blood." (2) St. Ambrose thus argues with his spiritual children; "Perhaps you will say: Why do you tell me that I receive the body of Christ, when I see quite another thing? We have this point therefore to prove.-How many examples do we produce to shew you, that this is not what nature made it, but what the benediction has consecrated it; and that the benediction is of greater force than nature, because, by the benediction, nature itself is changed! Moses cast his rod on the ground, and it became a serpent; he caught hold of the serpent's tail, and it recovered the nature of (1) Ep. 54 ad Cornel. (2) Hom. 7, in Levit, (3) Catech. Mystagog. 4.

a rod. The rivers of Egypt, &c.-Thou hast read of the creation of the world: if Christ, by his word, was able to make something out of nothing, shall he not be thought able to change one thing into another?" (1)But I have quoted enough from the ancient Fathers, to refute the rash assertions of the two modern Bishops.

True it is, that Paschasius Radbert, an Abbot of the ninth century, writing a treatise on the Eucharist, for the instruction of his novices, maintains the real corporal presence of Christ in it: but so far from teaching a novelty, he professes to say nothing but what all the world believes and professes. (2) The truth of this appears when Berengarius, in the eleventh century, among other errors, denied the Real Presence; for then the whole Church rose up against him: he was attacked by a whole host of eminent writers, and among others by our Archbishop Lanfranc; all of whom, in their respective works, appeal to the belief of all nations; and Berengarius was condemned in no less than eleven Councils. I have elsewhere shewn the absolute impossibility, that the Christians of all the nations in the world should be persuaded into a belief that the Sacrament, which they were in the habit of receiving, was the living Christ, if they had before held it to be nothing but an inanimate memorial of Him: even though, by another impossibility, all the clergy of the nations were to combine together for effecting this. On the other hand, it is incontestable, and has been carried to the highest (1) De his qui Myst. Init. c. 9.

(2) "Quod totus orbis credit et confitetur." See Perpetuité

de in Foi.

degree of moral evidence, (1) that all the Christians of all the nations of the world, Greeks as well as Latins, Africans as well as Europeans, except Protestants and a handful of Vaudois peasants, have, in all ages, believed and still believe in the Real Presence and Transubstantiation.

I am now, dear Sir, about to produce evidence of a different nature, I mean Protestant evidence, for the main point under consideration, the Real Presence. My first witness is no other than the father of the pretended Reformation, Martin Luther himself. He tells us how very desirous he was, and how much he laboured in his mind to overthrow this doctrine, because, says he, (observe his motive,) "I clearly saw how much I should thereby injure Popery: but I found myself caught, without any way of escaping: for the text of the Gospel was too plain for this purpose. (2) Hence he continued, till his death, to condemn those Protestants who denied the corporal Presence; employing for this purpose, sometimes the shafts of his coarse ridicule, (3) and sometimes the thunder of his vehement declamation and anathemas. (4) To speak now of former eminent Bishops and

See in particular the last named victorious work, which has proved the conversion of many Protestants, and among the rest of a distinguished Churchman now living.

(2) Epist. ad Argenten, tom. 4. fol. 502, Ed. Witten.

(3) In one place he says, that "The Devil seems to have mocked those, to whom he has suggested a heresy so ridiculous and contrary to Scripture as that of Zuinglians," who explained away the words of the Institution in a figurative way. He elsewhere compares these glosses with the following translation of the first words of Scripture; In principio Deus creavit cœlum et terram: In the beginning the cuckoo eat the sparrow and his feathers. Dens. Verb. Dom.

(4) On one occasion he calls those who deny the Real and cor

divines of the Establishment in this country; it is evident from their works, that many of them believed firmly in the Real Presence; such as the Bishops Andrews, Bilson, Morton, Laud, Montague, Sheldon, Gunning, Forbes, Bramhall and Cosin, to whom I shall add the justly esteemed Divine, Hooker; the testimonies of whom, for the Real Presence, are as explicit as Catholics themselves can wish them to be. I will transcribe in the margin a few words from each of the three last named authors (1)-The near, or rather close approach, of these and other eminent Protestant Di vines, to the constant doctrine of the Catholic poral Presence, “A damned sect, lying heretics, bread breakers, wine drinkers, and soul destroyers." In Parv. Catech. On other occasions he says: "They are indevilized and superdevilized." Finally he devotes them to everlasting flames, and builds his own hopes of finding mercy at the tribunal of Christ on his having, with all his soul, condemned Carlostad, Zuing lius, and other believers in the symbolical presence.

(1) Bishop Bramhall writes thus: "No genuine son of the Church (of England) did ever deny a true, real presence. Christ said: This is my body, and what he said we stedfastly believe. He said neither CON nor SUB nor TRANS: therefore we place these among the opinions of schools, not among articles of faith." Answer to Militiaire, p. 74.-Bishop Cosin is not less explicit in favour of the Catholic doctrine. He says: It is a monstrous error to deny that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist. We confess the necessity of a supernatural and heavenly change, and that the signs cannot become sacraments but by the infinite power of God. If any one make a bare figure of the Sacrament, we ought not to suffer him in our Churches." Hist. of Transub. Lastly, the profound Hooker expresses himself thus: "I wish men would give themselves more to meditate, with silence, on what we have in the Sacrament, and less to dispute of the manner how. Sith we all agree that Christ, by the Sacrament, doth really and truly perform in us his promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions whether by Consubstantiation or else by Transubstantiation ?" Eccles. Polit. B. v. 67.