Christ to be where he is not; and nothing but uncharitable calumny, or gross inattention, could accuse us of the heinous crime of Idolatry. To illustrate this argument, let me suppose, that, being charged with a loyal address to the Sovereign, you presented it by mistake, to one of his courtiers, or even to an inanimate figure of him, which, for some reason or other, had been dressed up in royal robes, and placed on the throne: would your heart reproach you, or would any sensible person charge you, with the guilt of treason in this conduct? Were the people who thought in their hearts that John the Baptist was the Christ, Luke iii. 15, and who probably worshipped him as such, Idolaters in consequence of their error? The falsehood, as well as the uncharitableness of this calumny, is too gross to escape the observation of any informed and reflecting man; yet, in order to keep alive their prejudices against us, it is upheld and vociferated to the ignorant crowd, by Bishop Porteus (1) and the Protestant Preachers and writers in general; while it is perpetuated by the Legislature, for the purpose of defeating our civil claims! (2)- -It is not, however, true, that all Protestant Divines have laid this heavy charge at the doors of Catholics, for worshipping Christ in the Sacrament; and all those eminent prelates in the reigns of Charles I. and II. must be excepted, who generally acquitted them of the charge of idolatry, and more especially the learn ed Gunning, Bishop of Ely, who reprobated the Declaration, when it was brought into the House

(1) He charges Catholics with 'senseless idolatry,' and with 'worshiping the creature instead of the Creator.' 'Confut. P. ii. c. 1.

(2) The Declaration against Popery, by which Catholics were excluded from the Houses of Parliament, was voted by the latter during that time of national frenzy and disgrace, when they equally voted the reality of the pretended Popish Plot, which cost the Catholics a torrent of innocent blood, and which was hatched by the unprincipled Shaftesbury, with the help of Dr. Tongue, and the infamous Oates, to prevent the succession of James II. to the Crown. See Echard's Hist. North's Exam.

of Lords, protesting that his conscience would not permit him to make it. (1) The candid Thorndike, Prebendary of Westminster, argues thus on the present subject: 'Will any Papist acknowledge that he honours the elements of the Eu'charist for God? Will common sense charge 'hin with honouring that in the Sacrament, ' which he does not believe to be there? (2) The celebrated Bishop of Down, Dr. Jeremy Taylor, reasons with equal fairness, where he says, "The ' object of their (the Catholics') adoration in the 6 Sacrament is the only true and eternal God, hy'postatically united with his holy humanity, 'which humanity they believe actually present ' under the veil of the Sacrament. And if they 'thought him not present, they are so far from 'worshipping the bread, that they profess it idol atry to do so. This is demonstration that the 'soul has nothing in it that is idolatrical; the will 'has nothing in it, but what is a great enemy to 'idolatry.' (3)

The other instance of disingenuity and injustice on the part of Protestant Divines and Statesmen, consists in their overlooking the main subject in debate, namely, whether Christ is or is not really and personally present in the Sacrament; and in the mean time directing all the force of their de clamation and ridicule, and all the severity of the law, to a point of inferior, or at least secondary consideration, namely, to the mode in which he is considered in one particular party as being present. It is well known that Catholics believe, that when Christ took the bread and gave it to his Apostles, saying, THIS IS MY BODY, he changed the bread into his body, which change alled Transubstantiation. On the other hand, the Lutherans, after their master, hold that the bread and real body of Christ are united, and bo

trnet's Hist. Own Times. (2) Just Weights and Measures, & (3) Liberty of Prophesying, Sect. 20.

ruly present in the Sacrament, as fire and iron are united in a red-hot bar. (1) This sort of presence, which would not be less miraculous ind incomprehensible than Transubstantiation, is called Consubstantiation: while the Calvinists and Church-of-England-men in general (though many of the brightest luminaries of the latter have approached to the Catholic doctrine) maintain that Christ is barely present in figure, and received only by faith. Now the alleged absurdities, and the pretended impiety and idolatry attributed to Transubstantiation, equally attach to Consubstantiation and to the Real Presence professed by the eminent Divines of the Established Church above alluded to. Nevertheless, what controversial preacher or writer ever attacks the latter opinions? What law excludes Lutherans from Parliament, or even from the Throne? So far from this, a Chapel Royal has been founded, and is maintained in the Palace itself, for the propagation of their Consubstantiation and the participation of their Real Presence! In short, you may say with Luther, the bread is the body of Christ, or with Osiander, the bread is one and the same person with Christ, or with Bishop Cosin, that Christ is present really and substantially by an incomprehensible mystery,' (2) or with Dr. Balguy, that there is no mystery at all, but a mere federal rite, barely signifying the receiver's acceptance of the benefit of redemption.' (3) In short, you may say any thing you please concerning the Eucharist, without obloquy or inconvenience to yourself, except what the words of Christ, this is my body, so clearly imply, namely that he changes the bread into his body. In fact, as

(1) De Capt. Babyl. Osiander, whose sister Cranmer married, taught Imponation, or an hypostatical and personal union of the bread with Christ's body, in consequence of which a person might truly say This bread is Christ's body. (3) Charge vii.

(2) Hist, of Transub. p. 44.

the Bishop of Meaux observes, 'the declarations ' of Christ operate what they express; when he speaks, nature obeys, and he does what he says: thus he cured the Ruler's son, by saying to him, Thy son liveth; and the crooked woman, by say ing, Thou art loosed from thy infirmity.' (1) The Prelate adds, for our farther observation, that Christ did not say, My body is here; this contains my body, but, this is my body: this is my blood. Hence Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, and the defenders of the figurative sense in general, all except the Protes tants of England, have expressly confessed, that, admitting the Real Presence, the Catholic doctrine is far more conformable to scripture than the Lutheran. I shall finish this letter with remarking, that as Transubstantiation, according to Bishop Cosin, was the first of Christ's miracles, by changing water into wine; so it may be said to have been his last, during his mortal course, by changing bread and wine into his sacred body and blood.

I am, &c.

J. M.

LETTER XXXVII.

To JAMES BROWN, Esq. &c.

ON THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE BLESSED
SACRAMENT.

DEAR SIR,

Ir is clear, from what I have stated in my last letter to you, that the first and main question to be settled between Catholics and Church Protestants is concerning the real or figurative presence of Christ in the Sacrament. This being determined, it will be time enough, and in my opinion (1) Variat. T. ii, p. 34.

will not require a long time, to conclude upon he manner of his presence, namely, whether by Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation. To conider the authorised exposition or Catechism of he Established Church, it, might appear certain hat she herself holds the Real Presence, since she leclares that 'The body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.' To this declaration I alluded, in the first place, where I complained of Protestants disguising their real tenets by adopting language of a different meaning from their own sentiments, and conformable to the sentiments of Catholics, in consequence of such being the language of the sacred text. In fact, it is certain and confessed, that she does not, after all, believe the real body and blood to be in the Supper, but mere bread and wine, as the same Catechism declares. This involves an evident contradiction; it is saying, you receive that in the sacrament which does not exist in the sacrament: (1) it is like the speech of a debtor, who

(1) Dryden, in his Hind and Panther, ridicules this inconsistency as follows:

'The literal sense is hard to flesh and blood;
'But nonsense never could be understood.'

Even Dr. Hey calls this an unsteadiness of language and a seeming 'inconsistency. Lect. vol. iv. p. 338.

N. B. It is curious to trace, in the Liturgy of the Established Church, her variations on the most important point of Christ's presence in the Sacrament. The first communion service, drawn up by Cranmer, Ridley, and other Protestant Bishops and Divines, and published in 1548, clearly expresses the Real Presence, and that the whole body of 'Christ is received under each particle of the Sacrament.' Burnet, P. ii. b. 1.

Afterwards, when the Calvinistic party prevailed, the 29th of the 42 Articles of Religion, drawn up by the same Prelates, and published in 1552, expressly denies the Real Presence, and the very possibility of Christ being in the Eucharist, since he has ascended up to heaven. Ten years afterwards, Elizabeth being on the throne, who patronized the Real Presence, (see Heylin, p. 124,) when the 42 Articles were reduced to 39, this declaration against the Real and Corporal Presence of Christ, was left out of the Common Prayer Book, for the purpose of comprehending those persons who believed in it, as was also the whole of the former Rubric, which explained that by kneeling at the sacra 'ment no adoration was intended to any corporal presence of Christ's