The Council of Florence, in the Decree of Union for the Greeks, decrees, "that the body of Christ is truly consecrated (veraciter confici) in bread of wheat, either leavened or unleavened."

11. It is proved, sixthly, by the perpetual and uniform tradition of the Holy Fathers. St. Ignatius the Martyr (6) says: "Eucharistiam non admittunt, quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi." St. Iræneus (7): "Panis percipiens invocationem Dei jam non communis panis est sed Eucharistia." And in another place he says (8): "Eum, panem in quo gratiæ sunt actæ, corpus esse Christi, et calicem sanguinis ejus." St. Justin, Martyr, writes (9): "Non hunc ut communem panem sumimus, sed quemadmodum per verbum Dei caro factum est J. C. carnem habuit," &c. He, therefore, says, that the same flesh which the Word assumed is in the Eucharist. Tertullian (10) says: "Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur." Origen writes (11): "Quando vitæ pane et poculo frueris, manducas et bibis, corpus et sanguinem Domini." Hear St. Ambrose (12): "Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ; ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi." St. Chrysostom says (13): "Quot nunc dicunt vellem ipsius formam aspicere...... Ecce eum vides, Ipsum tangis, Ipsum manducas." St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and St. Gregory of Nazianzen, express the same sentiments (14). St. Augustin says (15): "Sicut mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Jesum, carnem suam nobis manducandam, bibendumque sanguinem dantem fidei corde suspicimus." St. Remigius (16) says: "Licet panis videatur, in veritate corpus Christi est." St. Gregory the Great writes (17): "Quid sit sanguis agni non jam audiendo sed libendo didicistis qui sanguis super utrumque postem ponitur quando non solum ore corporis, sed etiam ore cordis hauritur." St. John of Damascus (18) writes: "Panis, ac vinum, et aqua qua per Spiritus Sancti invocationem et adventum mirabili modo in Christi corpus et sanguinem vertuntur." Thus we see an uninterrupted series of Fathers for the first seven centuries proclaiming, in the clearest and most forcible language, the doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.

12. By this we see how false is the interpretation which Zuinglius put on that text, "This is my body," when he said that the word is means signifies, founding his heresy on a verse of Exodus (xii. 11): "For it is the phase (that is the passage) of the Lord." Now, said he, the eating of the paschal lamb was not itself the

(6) St. Ignat. Ep. ad Smirn. ap. Theodor. Dial. 3. (7) St. Iræn. l. ad Hær. c. 18, (8) Idem, l. 4, c. 34. (9) St. Justin. Apol. 2.

al 34.

(10) Tertul. 7. Resur. c. 8. (11) Orig. Hom. 5, in divers. (12) St. Amb. l. 4, de Sacram. c. 4. (13) St. Chrys. Hom. ad Pop. Antioch. (14) Apud. Antoin. de Euch. Theol. Univer. c. 4, 1. (15) St. Aug. 1. 2, con. adver. legis. c. 9. (16) St. Remig. in Ep. ad Cor. c. 10. (17) St. Greg. Hom. 22, in Evang. (18) St. Joan. Damas. l. 4, Orthodox. c. 14.

passage of the Lord; it only meant it, or signified it. The Zuinglians alone follow this interpretation, for we never can take the sense of the word is for the word means or signifies, unless in cases where reason itself shows that the word is has a figurative meaning; but in this case the Zuinglian explanation is contrary to the proper literal sense in which we should always understand the Scriptures, when that sense is not repugnant to reason. The Zuinglian explanation is also opposed to St. Paul, relating to us the very words of Christ: "This is my body, which shall be delivered up for you' (1 Cor. xi. 24). Our Lord, we see, did not deliver up, in his Passion, the sign or signification of his body, but his real and true body. The Zuinglians say, besides, that in the Syro-Chaldaic or Hebrew, in which our Redeemer spoke, when instituting the Eucharist, there is no word corresponding in meaning to our word signify, and hence, in the Old Testament, we always find the word is used instead of it, and, therefore, the words of Christ, "This is my body," should be understood, as if he said, "This signifies my body." We answer: First. It is not the fact that the word signifies is never found in the Old Testament, for we find in Exodus: "Man-hu! which signifieth What is this" (Exod. xvi. 15); and in Judges (xiv. 15): Persuade him to tell thee what the riddle meaneth;" and in Ezechiel (xvii. 12): "Know you not what these things mean." Secondly.-Although the words mean or signify are not found in the Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic, still the word is must not always be taken for it, only in case that the context should show that such is the intention of the speaker; but in this case the word has surely its own signification, as we learn, especially from the Greek version; this language has both words, and still the Greek text says, "This is my body," and not "This means my body."

66

13. The opinion of those sectarians, who say that in the Eucharist only a figure exists, and not the body of Christ in reality, is also refuted by these words of our Lord, already quoted: "This is my body, which shall be delivered up for you" (1 Cor. xi. 24); for Jesus Christ delivered up his body to death, and not the figure of his body. And, speaking of his sacred blood, he says (St. Matt. xxvi. 28): "For this is my blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." Christ, then, shed his real blood, and not the figure of his blood; for the figure is expressed by speech, or writing, or painting, but the figure is not shed. Piceninus (19) objects that St. Augustin, speaking of that passage of St. John, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man," says that the flesh of our Lord is a figure, bringing to our mind the memory of his passion: "Figura est præcipiens Passione Dominica esse communicandum." We answer, that we do not deny that our Redeemer instituted the Holy Eucharist in memory of his death, as

(19) St. Aug. l. 3, de Doct. Christian. c. 16.

1

we learn from St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 26): * For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord until he come;" but still we assert, that in the Eucharist there is the true body of Christ, and there is, at the same time, a figure, commemorative of his death; and this is St. Augustin's meaning, for he never doubted that the body and blood of Christ were in the Eucharist really and truly, as he elsewhere expresses it (20): "Panis quem videtis in Altari, sanctificatus per verbum Dei, Corpus est Christi."

14. There is, I should say, no necessity of refuting Calvin's opinions on the Real Presence, for he constantly refutes himself, changing his opinion a thousand times, and always cloaking it in ambiguous terms. Bossuet and Du Hamel (21) may be consulted on this point. They treat the subject extensively, and quote Calvin's opinion, who says, at one time, that the true substance of the body of Christ is in the Eucharist, and then again (22), that Christ is united to us by Faith; so that, by the presence of Christ, he understands a presence of power or virtue in the Sacrament; and this is confirmed by him in another part of his works, where he says that Christ is just as much present to us in the Eucharist as he is in baptism. At one time he says the Sacrament of the Altar is a miracle, and then again (23), the whole miracle, he says, consists in this, that the faithful are vivified by the flesh of Christ, since a virtue so powerful descends from heaven on earth. Again, he says, that even the unworthy receive in the Supper the body of Christ, and then, in another place (24), he says that he is received by the elect alone. In fine, we see Calvin struggling, in the explanation of this dogma, not to appear a heretic with the Zuinglians, nor a Catholic with the Roman Catholics. Here is the Profession of Faith which the Calvinist ministers presented to the prelates, at the Conference of Poissy, as Bossuet gives it (25): "We believe that the body and blood are really united to the bread and wine, but in a sacramental manner-that is, not according to the natural position of bodies, but inasmuch as they signify that God gives his body and blood to those who truly receive him by Faith." It was remarkable in that Conference, that Theodore Beza, the first disciple of Calvin, and who had hardly time to have imbibed all his errors, said publicly, as De Thou (26) relates, "that Jesus Christ was as far from the Supper as the heavens were from the earth." The French prelates then drew up a true Confession of Faith, totally opposed to the Calvinists: "We believe," said they, "that in the Sacrament of the Altar there is really and transubstantially the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, by the power of the Divine Word pronounced by the priest," &c.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE REAL PRESENCE ANSWERED.

15. THEY object, first, the words of Christ: "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. These words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John, vi. 64). See there, they say, the words which you make use of to prove the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are figurative expressions, which signify the celestial food of life, which we receive by faith. We answer, with St. John Chrysostom (1), that when Christ says the flesh profiteth nothing, he spoke not of his own flesh, God forbid! but of those who carnally receive it, as the Apostle says: "The sensual man perceiveth not those things that are of the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. ii. 14), and those who carnally speak of the Divine Mysteries; and to this St. John refers when he says: "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John, vi. 64), meaning that these words refer not to carnal and perishable things, but to spiritual things and to eternal life. But even supposing these words to refer to the flesh of Christ itself, they only mean, as St. Athanasius and St. Augustin explain them, that the flesh of Christ, given to us as food, sanctifies us by the Spirit, or the Divinity united to it, but that the flesh alone would be of no avail. These are St. Augustin's words (2): "Non prodest quidquam (caro), sed quomodo; illi intellexerunt, carnem quippe sic intellexerunt, quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur, aut in macello venditur, non quomodo spiritu vegetatur. Caro non prodest quidquam, sed sola caro; accedat spiritus ad carnem, et prodest plurimum."

16. They object, secondly, that when Jesus Christ said: "This is my body," the word this in the sentence has reference to the bread alone, which he then held in his hand, but bread is only a figure of the body of Christ, but not the body itself. We answer that if we do not consider the proposition "This is my body" as complete in itself, that might be the case if he said, for example, this is, and did not say any more, then the word this would have reference to the bread alone, which he held in his hand; but taking the whole sentence together, there can be no doubt but that the word this refers to the body of Christ. When our Lord changed water into wine, if he had said, this is wine, every one would understand that the word this referred not to the water but to the wine, and in the same way in the Eucharist the word this, in the complete sense of the sentence, refers to the body, because the change is made when the whole sentence is completed. In fact the word this in the sentence has no meaning at all, till the latter part is pronounced, is my body-then alone the sense is complete.

17. They object, thirdly, that the sentence, "This is my body," is just as figurative as other passages in the Scriptures, as for example,

(1) St. John Chrysos. Hom. in Joan. (2) St. Aug. Tract. 27 in Joan.

when Christ says: "I am the true vine," "I am the gate," or when it is said he is the Rock. We reply that it is a matter of course that these propositions should be taken figuratively, for that Christ should be literally a vine, a door, or a rock is repugnant to common sense, and the words "I am," therefore, are figurative. In the words of consecration, however, there is nothing repugnant to reason in joining the predicate with the subject, because, as we have remarked already, Christ did not say This bread is my body, but "This is my body;" this, that is what is contained under the appearance of this bread, is my body; here there is nothing repugnant to

reason.

18. They object, fourthly, that the Real Presence is opposed to the words of Christ himself, for he said (John, xii. 8): "The poor you have always with you, but me you have not always." Our Saviour, therefore, after his ascension, is no longer on earth. Our Lord, we reply, then spoke of his visible presence as man receiving honour from Magdalen. When Judas, therefore, murmured against the waste of the ointment, our Lord reproves him, saying, you have not me always with you, that is, in the visible and natural form of man, but there is here nothing to prove that after his ascension into heaven he does not remain on earth in the Eucharist, under the appearance of bread and wine, invisibly, and in a supernatural manIn this sense we must understand also all similar passages, as, "I leave the world and go to my Father" (John, xvi. 18): " He was taken up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God" (Mark, xvi. 19).

ner.

19. They object, fifthly, these words of the Apostle: "Our fathers were all under the cloud...... and did all eat the same spiritual food" (1 Cor. x. 1-3); therefore, they say, we only receive Christ in the Eucharist by Faith, just as the Hebrews received him. We answer, that the sense of the words is, that the Hebrews received spiritual food, the Manna, of which St. Paul speaks, the figure of the Eucharist, but did not receive the body of Christ in reality, as we receive it. The Hebrews received the figure, but we receive the real body, already prefigured.

20. Sixthly, they object that Christ said: "I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new, in the kingdom of my Father" (Matt. xxvi. 29), and these words he expressed, after having previously said, "This is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins" (ver. 28). Now, say they, take notice of the words, fruit of the vine, that is a proof that the wine remains after the consecration. We answer, first, that Christ might have called it wine, even after the consecration, not because the substance, but because the form of wine was retained, just as St. Paul calls the Eucharist bread after the consecration: "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily,