the Incarnation itself. With equal reason the Jews said of Christ, Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary Matt. xiii. 55. Hence

they concluded that he was not what he proclaimed himself to be, the Son of God. In like manner Joshua thought he saw a man, Joshua v. 13, and Jacob that he touched one, Gen. xxxii. 24, and Abraham that he eat with three men, Gen. xviii. 8, when, in all these instances, there were no real men, but unbodied spirits present, the different senses of those patriarchs misleading them. Again, were not eyes of the disciples, going to Emmaus, held so that they should not know Jesus? Luke xxiv. 16. Did not the same thing happen to Mary Magdalen and the Apostles? John xx. 15. But, independently of Scripture, philosophy and experience shew that there is no essential connexion between our sensations and the objects which occasion them, and that, in fact, each of our senses frequently deceive us. How unreasonable then is it as well as impious, to oppose their fallible testimony to God's infallible word! (2).

But the Bishop, as you remind me, undertakes to shew that there are absurdities and contradictions in the doctrine of Transubstantiation; he ought to have said of the Real Presence: for every one of his alledged contradictions is equally found in the Lutheran Consubstantiation, in the belief of which our gracious Queen was educated, and in the corporal

(2) For example, we think we see the setting sun in a line with our eyes; but philosophy demonstrates, that a large por tion of the terraqueous globe is interposed between them, and that the sun is considerably below the horizon. As we trust more to our feeling than any other sense; let any person cause his neighbour to shut his eyes, and then crossing the two first fingers of either hand, make him rub a pea, or any other round substance between them, he will then protest that he feels two such objects.

presence, held by so many English Bishops. He accordingly asks, how Christ's body can be contracted into the space of a host? How it can be at the right hand of his Father in heaven, and upon our altars at the same time? &c. I answer first, with an ancient Father, that if we insist on using this HOW of the Jews, with respect to the mysteries revealed in Scripture, we must renounce our faith in it? (3). 2dly, I answer, thet we do not know what constitutes the essence of matter and of space. I say, 3dly, that Christ transfigured his body, on Mount Thabor, Mark ix. 1, bestowing on it many properties of a spirit, before his passion; and that after he had ascended up to heaven, he appeared to St. Paul on the road to Damascus, Acts ix. 17, and stood by him in the castle of Jerusalem, Acts xxiii. 11. Lastly, I answer, that God fills all space, and is whole and entire in every particle of matter; likewise, that my own soul is, in my right hand and my left, whole and entire; that the bread and wine, which I eat and drink, are transubstantiated into my own flesh and blood; that this body of mine, which some years ago was of a small size, has now increased to its present bulk; that soon it will turn into dust, or perhaps be devoured by animals or cannibals, and thus become part of their substance: and that, nevertheless, God will restore git it entire, at the last day. Whoever will enter into these considerations, instead of employing the Jewish HOW, will be disposed with St. Augustin, to admit that God can do much more than we can understand,' and to cry out with the Apostles, respecting this mystery, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.

(3) Cyril, Alex. 1. 4, in Joan.

I am,

&c. J. M.

TETTER XXXIX.

TO JAMES BROWNE, ESQ.

COMMUNION UNDER ONE KIND.

DEAR SIR,

I TRUST you have not forgotten what I demonstrated in the first part of our correspondence, that the Catholic Church was formed and instructed in its divine doctrine and rites, and especially in its Sacraments and Sacrifice, before any part of the New Testament was published, and whole centu ries before the entire New Testament was collected and pronounced by her to be authentic and inspired. Indeed, Protestants are forced to have recourse to the Tradition of the Church, for determining a great number of points, which are left doubtful by the Sacred Text; particularly with respect to the two Sacraments, which they acknowledge. From the doctrine and practice of the Church alone they learn, that, although Christ, our pattern, was bap tized in a river, Mark i. 9, and the Ethiopian Eunuch was led by St. Philip into the water, Acts viii. 38, for the same purpose, the application of it. by infusion or aspersion, is valid; and that, although Christ says, He that BELIEVETH and is baptized shall be saved, Mark xvi. 16, infants are susceptible of the benefits of baptism, who are incapable of making an act of faith. In like manner respecting the Eucharist, it is from the doctrine and practice of the Church alone, Protestants learn, that, though Christ communicated with the Apostles, at an evening supper, after they had feasted on a lamb, and their feet had been washed, a ceremony which he appears to enjoin on that occasion with the utmos

strictness, John xiii. 8. 15. none of these rites are essential to that ordinance, or necessary to be practised at present. With what pretension to consistency then can they reject her doctrine and practice in the remaining particulars of this mysterious institution? A clear exposition of the institution itself, and of the doctrine and discipline of the Church, concerning the controversy in question, will afford the best answer to the objections raised against the latter.

It is true that our B. Saviour instituted the Holy Eucharist under two kinds; but it must be observed, that he then made it a Sacrifice as well as a Sacrament, and that he ordained Priests, namely, his twelve Apostles, (for none else but they were present on the occasion) to consecrate this Sacrament, and offer this Sacrifice. Now, for the latter purpose, namely, a Sacrifice, it was requisite that the victim should be really present, and, at least, mystically immolated; which was then, and is still performed in the Mass, by the symbolical disunion, or separate consecration of the Body and the Blood. It was requisite, also, for the completion of the Sacrifice, that the Priests, who had immolated the victim, by mystically separating its body and its blood, should consummate it in both these kinds.— Hence it is seen, that the command of Christ, on which our opponents lay so much stress, drink ye all of this, regards the Apostles, as Priests, and not the laity, as communicants. (1)-True it is, that

(1) The acute Apologist of the Quakers has observed, how inconclusively Protestants argue from the words of the institution. He says, "I would gladly know how from the words, they can be certainly resolved that these words (Do this) must be understood of the Clergy. Take, bless, and break this bread, and give it to others; but to the laity only: Take and eat, but do not bless," &c.-Barclay's Apology, Prop. xiii. p. 7.

D

when Christ promised this Sacrament to the faithfuì in general, he promised, in express terms, both his Body and his Blood, John vi.: but this does not imply that they must, therefore, receive them under the different appearances of bread and wine.— For as the Council of Trent teaches: He who said: "Unless you shall eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you,' has likewise said, 66 If any one shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever." And he who has said: "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting," has also said: "The bread which I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world." And lastly, he who has said: "He who eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him,” has nevertheless said: "He who eateth this bread shall live for ever." (1)

The truth is, dear Sir, after all the reproaches of the Bishop of Durham, concerning our alleged sacrilege, in suppressing half a Sacrament, and the general complaint of Protestants, of our robbing the laity of the cup of salvation, (2) that the precious body and blood, being equally and entirely present under each species, is equally and entirely given to the faithful, whichever they receive: whereas the Calvinists and Anglicans do not so much as pretend to communicate either the real body or the blood; but present mere types or memorials of them. I do not deny, that in their mere figurative system, there may be some reason for receiving the liquid as well as the solid substance, since the former may appear to represent more aptly the blood, and the latter

(1) Sess. xxi. c. 1.

(2) Conformably to the above doctrine, neither our Priests nor our Bishops receive under more than one kind, when they do not offer up the Holy Sacrifice.