Besides, in these other expressions, "I am vine, I am the door," there is no manner of reason, either from the circumstances in which they were spoken, or from the context, to suppose them meant in the literal sense. On the contrary, every thing about them shews that they are parables. But, as we have seen above, there is the most incontestable reason to prove, that the words of the institution could not be meant in any other sense, than the plain, obvious, literal sense of the words.

Q. 22. Is not the Holy Eucharist often called bread and wine in the Scripture, even after consecration? and may not this imply that it is nothing else?

A. By no means; because we find it a very common way of speaking in Scripture, to call one thing by the name of a thing which it is not, on two different accounts; both which take place in the blessed Eucharist, (1.) When it has the external appearance of the thing, by the name of which it is called. Thus angels appearing like men, are on that account called men in Scripture; so also it is said, that "parted tongues, as it were of fire, appeared, and sat upon the apostles on Pentecost;" yet it was not fiery tongues, but the Holy Ghost, under that appearance. (2.) When it is made from that thing by which it is called. Thus God said to Adam, "dust thou art ;" because he was made of dust. So after Aaron's rod was turned into a serpent, it is still called a rod, "and Aaron's rod devoured their rods," Exod. vii. 12. So also in our case, the Holy Eucharist is called bread after consecration; for both these reasons, because it retains all the outward appearances of bread, and because it was bread before consecration: and we may also add, because this divine spiritual bread produces all the same effects in the soul, which natural bread does in the body.

Q. 23. Why did you say above, that our Saviour is truly present, whole and entire under each kind, both under the appearance of bread, and under the appearance of wine?

A. Because though his body be only mentioned at the consecration of the bread; yet his body is not present there alone, as separated from his blood, nor without his soul and divinity; but Christ is present under the form of bread, whole and entire; and the same under the form of wine.

Q. 24. How is this explained?

A. To understand this, we must observe, that death precisely consists in the separation of the soul from the body. But as the blood is so necessary for life, that without it the soul cannot remain to enliven the body; so when the blood is separated from the body, death necessarily ensues, and the soul can be no longer there. Our Saviour, to shew the greatness of his love for us, was pleased to suffer death for our salvation, in the most perfect manner; so that not only was his soul separated from his body on the cross, but he also shed to the last drop of his precious blood for us. And at his resurrection, his blood and his soul were again re-united to his body, and he restored to life. Now, the Scripture positively declares, that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more; death shall no more have dominion over him," Rom. vi. 9. Consequently his body, his blood, and his soul, shall never more be separated from one another; and, as the union of his divine and human nature can never more be broken, so neither can these his two natures, united in his divine person, be ever separated: from this it necessarily follows, that, wherever the body of Christ is, there also his blood, his soul, and his divinity, must of necessity be; and, wherever his blood is, there also his body, and soul, and divinity, must be

VOL. II.

in like manner. Hence, though by the words of consecration, his body only is mentioned as present, under the form of wine; yet, by reason of the indissoluble connexion by which his body and blood, his soul and divinity, are united together, Jesus Christ, whole and entire, is truly, really, and substantially present, both under the form of bread, and under the form of wine.

Q. 25. What difference then is there between the one kind and the other?

A. Not the smallest difference as to what is contained under each kind, which is perfectly the same in both. The only difference is in the outward appearance, which in the one kind is that of bread, in the other of wine.

Q. 26. But how can the same identical thing appear under two different forms? Is there any other example to illustrate this?

A. There is a very striking and apposite example in the different forms under which the Holy Ghost was pleased to appear to men; for, at our Saviour's baptism," the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon him," Luke iii. 22. But when he came down upon the apostles on Pentecost, "there appeared to them parted tongues, as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them," Acts ii. 3. Now the appearances of a dove, and of a tongue of fire, are exceedingly different; and yet it was the self same Holy Ghost that was under both these forms or appearances. In like manner, though the appearance of bread and that of wine be very different, yet it is the self same Jesus Christ who is contained under each, in the Holy Eucharist.

Q. 27. Was this doctrine of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the constant belief of the Christian world from the beginning?

A. It most certainly was, as can easily be shewn by the plainest and most express testimonies of the writers of Christianity in every age, from the

times of the apostles; and, besides, it is proved to be the true doctrine of Jesus Christ, by the infallible authority of his holy Catholic Church, which has again and again decidedly declared it to be a truth revealed by God, and to have been handed down from the beginning, as such, throughout all preceding generations.

Q. 28. WHAT is meant by transubstantiation? A. To understand this, we must observe, that in all the bodily objects about us, there are two things carefully to be distinguished; the outward appearances which they exhibit to our senses, when applied to them, such as their colour, shape, taste, smell, and other such sensible qualities; and the inward matter or substance in which all these sensible qualities reside. These sensible qualities of bodies are the proper objects of our knowledge, of which we are absolutely certain, from the testimony of our senses; but, with regard to the inward matter or substance of bodies, or to its nature or structure, this is altogether imperceptible to us, and hidden from our eyes. Nay, we cannot so much as have any idea, or conceive any notion of it. Now, what our holy faith teaches us concerning transubstantiation is, "that this inward imperceptible substance of the bread and wine, is, at the consecration, entirely taken away by the almighty power of God, and changed into the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which is substituted in its place; but that all the outward sensible qualities of the bread and wine remain entirely the same as before consecration. So that Jesus Christ now present, instead of the bread and wine, exhi

bits himself to us under those very same outward forms or appearances, which the bread and wine had before the change.'

Q. 29. How is this shewn to be true?

A. From the very words of our Saviour, of which it is a natural consequence; for, when he took bread into his hand, it was then bread; but when he gave it to his apostles, he expressly declared, that what he gave them to eat was his body; "Take, eat,' said he, "this is my body;" and, as we have seen above, by thus declaring it to be his body, he made it his body, seeing it is simply impossible that his words should be false. Consequently, since that which, before consecration was bread, did, after consecration, become his body, the bread must undoubtedly be changed into his body; and, as it is manifest to our senses, that there is no change in the outward sensible qualities, therefore, this change must be in the inward substance.

Q. 30. Is there any other example of the like effects of the words of Christ in the holy Scripture ?

A. There is a very striking one in the cure of the ruler's son of Capernaum: for, when the ruler pressed our Saviour to go down with him to cure his son, saying, "Sir, come down before that my son die," John iv. 49. "Jesus saith to him, Go thy way, thy son liveth," vers. 50. He did not com mand the son to be cured, as he expressed himself on other such occasions; but he affirmed he was cured, and immediately the young man was restored to his health; for "it was the same hour that Jesus said to the ruler, thy son liveth, that the fever left him," vers. 53. Which shews the almighty power of the words of Christ, that, when he affirms a thing to be what it was not before, it immediately becomes what he affirms it to be. So, in our case, when Jesus took bread in his hand, and then affirmed, that what he gave his apostles was