Tenth Thousand.'

THE HEAL PRESENCE.

BY

Rev. C. F. Smarius, S. J.
(DECEASED.)

“The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the com-

munion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break,

is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ? ” 1 Cor. x. 16.

The Catholic Truth Society
OF AMERICA.

Pamphlet No. IT.

ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA.





The Real Presence,
BY

REV. C. F. SMARIUS, S. J.
(Deceased.)

[Reprinted from “ Points of Controversy,” and by permission of the
Publisher, P. O’Shea, New York City.]

“ The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the com-
munion of the blood of Christ ? And the bread which we break, is
it not the partaking of the body of the Lord ? ” 1 Cor. x. 16.

[The authorized Protestant version reads as follows:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of
the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the
communion of the body of Christ ? ”]

This question of the Apostle St. Paul, to the Corin-

thians, it is our intention to answer in the present

lecture. Read the question again, so that you may un-

derstand its meaning. The Apostle asks, whether the

cup of blessing, which, in those days, as in our own,

was blessed by the ministers of God, is, or is not, truly,

verily, substantially, the blood of Christ, so that who-

ever receives that cup, receives the blood of Christ;

and whether the bread which is broken, is, or is not,

verily and substantially, the body of the Lord
;
so that,

whoever receives that consecrated bread, receives the

body of the Lord, the very same body and blood, that

were conceived of the Holy Ghost, in the Virgin’s

womb; the same body that suffered, and the same blood

that was shed for us, from the garden to Calvary. The

question here put by the Apostle, is put oratorically.

There is this difference between a question, properly so



2

called, and the figure of speech called interrogation*

that the former always implies or expresses real doubt

in the mind of the questioner, whereas an interrogation

expressed in a negative form, supposes not *only the in-

terrogator, but the interrogated to be thoroughly con-

vinced of the truth or the principle, concerning which

they are interrogated. This manner of impressing

certain ulterior conclusions upon the mind of man, ie

not confined to the orator and logician. It is in daily

use among all. Thus, for instance, suppose, you have

laid down the principle for your children, that they

shall never stay out after sunset, and it happens that

one of them returns home at ten o’clock, or mid-night.

What more natural for you, than to address your child

as follows: Did I not tell you, my son, that every one
of the children should be home at sunset? Do you ask

your son this question by way of doubt? By no means;

you appeal, by way of interrogation, to the conviction

of his mind concerning the well-known truth, in order

that you may the better impress upon him the griev-

ousness of his offense, and the necessity of avoiding it

for the future.

It was, evidently, in this sense that the Apostle St.

Paul, put the question to the Corinthians. He knew

full well, that they were convinced of the truth of the

real presence, as explained by him, in the next chapter;

he knew that they believed, as we still do, that by the

words of blessing, or consecration, spoken by the priest

of God, the substance of bread becomes the flesh, and

the substance of wine the blood of Christ; so that, after

the words of consecration, there are no longer present

real bread and wine, but only the appearances of bread

and wine,—there are present, truly, substantially, and
really, the body and blood, together with the soul and

divinity, of Jesus Christ; the same that was born of

the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was

crucified, died, and was buried; the same that rose

again from the dead, ascended into Heaven, is there

seated at the right hand of His Father, and shall thence

come again, to judge the living and the dead. But, the

Apostle’s object was to draw from this well-known truth

/



3

some practical inferences for the Corinthians. Thence

he inferred, in the first place, the necessity of their

abstaining from things which were offered in sacrifice

to idols; for, he concludes, “you cannot drink the chal-

ice of the Lord and the chalice of devils; you cannot

be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table

of devils.” (Ibid. x. 20, 21.) Secondly, he desired to

show them (as is evident from the next chapter) the

sinfulness of the abuse which some of them made of

their Agapes, or love-feasts, in connection with the re-

ception of the body and blood of Christ.

“When you come, therefore, together in one place,

it is not now to eat the Lord’s supper. For every one

taketh before his own supper to eat. And one indeed

is hungry, and another is drunk.”

And he concluded: “If any man be hungry, let him

eat at home; that you come not together unto judg-

ment.”

It is in a similar sense that we ask and answer this

question for ourselves personally, and our Catholic

friends; but for the sake of our separated brethren,

who deny the real presence, we ask it in doubt; and we

pledge ourselves, to the best of our limited ability, to

clear up their doubt, and to convince them that the doc-

trine of the Real Presence was always believed in the

Roman Catholic Church, is clearly taught by the Scrip-

tures, and by the fathers and doctors of Christianity \
throughout the Christian ages.

The Scriptural argument may be brought under three

several heads.

First, Christ promised to institute the Sacrament of

His body and blood.

Secondly, He instituted it.
Thirdly, St. Paul testifies to the truth of that insti-

tution.

In the first place: Our Saviour promised, in the

plainest and most unmistakable terms, to institute the

sacrament of His body and blood. This promise is

found in St. John’s Gospel, the sixth chapter.

Before entering upon a detailed proof of this propo-

sition, it may not be amiss to remark with his eminence



4

Cardinal Wiseman, that “it was a practice with our

Saviour, to adapt His discourse to the circumstances in

which He was placed, and, more especially, to draw them

from the miracles which He had wrought.” If this

was His practice, He could not have a “more appro-
priate and favorable opportunity to propound the doc-

trine of the Real Presence, than the miracle which He
had just wrought, of feeding five thousand men, with-

out counting the women and children, with five barley

loaves, and after sating the cravings of their hunger,

gathering twelve basketfuls of fragments. But before

He introduces the topic of the Real Presence, He calls
their attention to the necessity of believing in Him.

Indeed, the doctrine of the Real Presence is of its own

nature so mysterious, so impervious to human sense,

that without faith in Christ, who promises and institutes

it, no one could possibly accept it as an article of belief

necessary unto salvation. Hence He concludes that

portion of His discourse by saying: “Amen, amen, I

say unto you, he that believeth in Me, hath everlasting

life.”

After establishing the absolute necessity of faith in

Him, as the unerring Truth, who can neither be de-

ceived Himself, nor lead others into error, He continues

(vi. 48), “I am the bread of life.”

The Jews, during Christ’s discourse on faith in Him,

had said to Him: “What sign, therefore, dost Thou

show that we may see and believe Thee ? What dost

Thou work? Our Fathers did eat manna in the desert,

as it is written, He gave them bread from Heaven to
eat” Then Jesus said to them: “Amen, amen, I say

unto you, Moses gave you not bread from Heaven, but

My Father giveth you the true bread from Heaven.”
(Ibid. 30, 32.)

Now, which is that true bread which cometh down

from Heaven, and giveth life to the world? Listen: “

I

am the bread of life.”

Y. 49. “Your Fathers did eat manna in the desert

and they are dead.”

50. “This is the bread which cometh down from

Heaven, that if any man eat of it, he may not die.”



5

51. “I am the living bread which came down from

Heaven.”

But, Lord, why hold us any longer in suspense?

What meanest Thou by, “

I

am the bread of life,” and

again, “I am the living bread which came down from

Heaven.” We see Thee standing before the Jews, a
true, a veritable man, made up of flesh and blood and

a living soul; tell us what Thou meanest when Thou

sayest, I am the bread of life, I am the living bread.

Look at Jesus again, look at Him, as He stands there,

the Son of man, the Son of Mary, with His real flesh,

and His real blood, His real soul, truly God, though

His divinity is hidden under His humanity, truly God

as well as mam; and listen:

52. “And the bread that I will give, is my flesh for

the life of the world.” It is no figurative, no symboli-

cal flesh
;

it is His flesh, the very flesh, the personal

flesh of the God-man, Jesus,—“My flesh.”
And well did the Jews understand Him to speak of

His own, His real, His substantial, His personal flesh.

Bor, turning Protestants at once, they strove among

themselves, saying: “How can this man give us His
flesh to eat?” Notice the emphasis—this man, the
man who speaks, the man who stands before' us—the
man of whom they had said, a while before, “is not this

Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we

know?” (42.) How can He give us His flesh, His
own, identical flesh, the flesh which we see, which is

within the reach of our touch—how can this man give
us His flesh to eat ?

We Catholics understand the words of Christ, so far
as the reality of the identical flesh of Jesus is concern-

ed, in precisely the same way. Our separated brethren

understand them in a figurative or symbolical sense.

Which of us is right? Let us listen to the answer of

the Saviour. «

Previously, however, it is well to remark, after Car-

dinal Wiseman, and other controversialists, “that when-

ever our Lord’s hearers found difficulties, or raised

objections to His words, from taking them in their

literal sense, while He intended them to be taken fig-



8

uratively, His constant practice was to explain them

instantly, in a figurative manner, even though no great

error could result from their being misunderstood.”

Thus, when Nicodemas conversed with Christ, the lat-

ter, among other things, told him: “Amen, amen, I say

to thee, unless a man be born again
,
he cannot enter

the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus understood Christ

literally; hence he said: “How can a man be born
when he is old ? ” Our Saviour continues to explain

His words in a figurative meaning, by repeating them

with such a modification as could leave no further doubt

of the sense in which he spoke them. “Amen, amen, I

say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and

the Holy Ghost
,
he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

(John, iii. 3-5. See other examples, Matt. xvi. 6; xix.

24; John, xv. 23; xi. 11; viii. 21; v. 32; v. 40; vi. 33.)

On the other hand, when His words were rightly un-

derstood in their literaltsense, and they objected to the

doctrine ^contained under the literal sense, it was His

custom to stand to His words, and repeat again the

very sentiment which had given offense. ‘ Thus on a

certain occasion, our Lord said: “Abraham, your Fa-

ther, rejoiced that he might see my day; he saw it, and

was glad.” His hearers understood Him to say what

He meant,—that He was as old as Abraham; and mur-
muring, they said: “Thou art not yet fifty years old,

and hast Thou seen Abraham?” The Saviour, because

they understood His words rightly in their literal sense,

repeats the same, saying: “Amen, amen, I say unto

you, before Abraham was made, I am.” (John, viii.

57, 58. See other examples, Matt. ix. 2; John, vi. 42.)

Assuming these facts, as the rules for interpreting

the sense of the words of Christ, in His answer, to the

objections of the Jews: “How can this man give us

His flesh to eat?” let us carefully analyze the text

which follows.* We shall take the text of the authorized
Protestant version:

“54. Then Jesus said unto them, Amen, amen, I

say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of

man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in



7

Does this look like a figurative presence? “ Except

you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His

blood.”

Again: “ Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My

blood, hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the

last day; for My flesh is meat (food) indeed, and My

blood is drink indeed.”

How can it be food indeed
,
and drink indeed

,
if it be

figurative only ? Surely, symbolical or figurative flesh

and blood were never food and drink indeed!

“57. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My
blood, dwelleth in Me and I in him.”

Could there be anything stronger than this indwell-

ing of Jesus in man, and of man in Jesus?

“As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by

the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by

Me.”

We know that the Son lives by the Father in the
oneness of their nature, the identity of their essence

;

so, in a similar manner, as far as human nature can be-

come one with the divine nature, he who eats the flesh,

and drinks the blood of Christ, becomes one with

Christ, and Christ one with him. This strong expres-

sion evidently says much more than the mere moral or

spiritual union, which would result from a figurative

eating of the flesh, and drinking of the blood of Christ.

The fact is, the language of our separated brethren is

grammatically, as well as theologically, unintelligible.

They tell us, that in the Lord’s Supper, the flesh of

Christ is eaten figuratively by faith, which takes hold

of the real body and blood of the Redeemer, through

the medium of their symbols, or signs, the bread and

wine. But, who ever heard of eating or drinking any

real substance, figuratively, or by faith ? Suppose you

invite me to a dinner-party, the meats of which, you
announce to me will consist of roast veal and mutton.

I accept the invitation
;
but, behold, when I am seated

at the table, I find only a piece of bread, You beg me

to eat my veal, and mutton. I look around in astonish-
ment, and my searching eye seems to ask the question:
“But, where are they?” And you answer me, serious-



8

ly, and without a smile: “They lie before you, sir.

The bread which is on your plate, is your veal, and

mutton—only remember, that eating the bread, you
must make up your raind, by faith, that it is meat you

eat, not bread merely.” Could you invent so absurd a

farce as this, without laughing or smiling at your own

silliness ? Yet this very same thing, you tell me, the

Saviour of the world did, when, by promise, and even

threat, He invited and pressed us to eat His flesh, and
drink His blood, Ulrich he tells us, are food and drink,

indeed. Could any thing be more absurd, than to put

a figurative construction on words so frequently, so em-

phatically repeated, which, of their own nature, and

from the circumstances under which they are spoken,

convey no other than a literal sense to the hearer and

the reader?

Let us, for a moment, suppose, that Christ spoke

figuratively—how, then, should we read His answer to
the Jews? Our Scriptural comment would, mentally,

be the following:

Yerily, verily I say unto you: except ye eat (figura-

tively) the (figurative) flesh of the Son of Man, and

drink (figuratively) His (figurative) blood, ye have no

(figurative) life in you.

Whoso eateth (figuratively) My (figurative) flesh,

and drink (figuratively) My (figurative) blood, hath
eternal life (of course figuratively).

For My (figurative) flesh is (figurative) meat, in-

deed (figuratively), and My (figurative) blood is (fig-

urative) drink, indeed (figuratively). He that eateth

(figuratively) My (figurative) flesh, and drinketh (fig-

uratively) My (figurative) blood, dwelleth (figurative-

ly) in Me (figurative), and I (figurative) in him

(figurative).

As the living Father hath sent Me (why not add,

with the Socinians, figuratively!) and I live (also

according to them, figuratively) : so, he that eateth Me

(figurative, figuratively) even he shall live (figurative-

ly) by Me (figurative).

May we not conclude with Horace, on an other topic

of absurdity,
“ Bisum. ieneati-amici?”

/



9

Which of yon, my friends, on reading your own com-
ment on the text of St. John’s Gospel, concerning the

promise of the Real Presence, can help smiling at its

palpable silliness?

Still, many among you, we fear, will do as the Jews

did in the synagogue at Capharnaum. Unwilling to

believe, although you plainly understand the doctrine

of the Saviour, your only answer is: “This is a hard

saying, and who can hear it?”

Does this saying cause the Redeemer, finally, to ex-

plain Himself, in a figurative, rather than a literal

sense? By no means. When He knew in Himself,
that His disciples murmured at it, “He said unto them,

doth this offend you? What, and if ye shall see the

Son of Man ascend up where he was before?” As

though he were to say: “If now, wdiile I am person-

ally before you, while you can see My flesh and blood,
and touch it with your hands, you are unwilling to be-

lieve Me and My words
;
how much more difficult will

it be, when you will see Me no more; when I shall hide
My flesh and blood under the appearance of bread and
wine; when your sight, your taste, your touch, when

all your bodily senses will be at a loss to discover the

reality of My Presence
;
when I shall be seated at the

right hand of My Father, in My Heavenly Kingdom?
‘It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth

nothing.’ You Jews understand My words in the lit-
eral sense in which you should understand them, so far

as the reality of the flesh and blood, which I am to
give you, is concerned

;
but you blend your carnal views

with this spiritual and heavenly doctrine. You imagine

that it is dead flesh an^J. clotted gore, such as you buy

in the shambles of the meat market, which I am to give

you, and that it is to be eaten, after the same carnal

manner, in which the cannibal devours human flesh;

you are mistaken. It is the spirit which quickeneth

that flesh: I shall be there, the living Christ, as you

see Me now—the God-man, whom I proved Myself to
be by My miracles; the flesh alone profiteth nothing.
It is My soul, My Divinity, together with My flesh,
which are to quicken you, which are to raise you up,



10

on the last day, and give you life eternal; understood

in this sense,
4

the words that I spake unto you, are

spirit and life.’ ” (Ibid. 64.)

In vain does our Saviour endeavor to enlighten their

darkened intellects, and to move their stubborn hearts.

They reject His grace, and “from that time many of

His disciples went back, aud walked no more with Him.”

(Ibid. 67.)

Was it not then, at least, high time for the Teacher

of all truth, to undeceive His own disciples, if they had

really misunderstood His words ? Did He not owe it
to Himself, to His credit, as a plain, straightforward,

out-spoken evangelist of the new revelation, to call them

back, and to speak to them after some such fashion : 4
4

See

here, my friends, you have misunderstood my meaning:
you think that I meant to say, that I am about to give

you, and the world that will believe in Me, My real
flesh to eat, and My real blood to drink. Not so. All
I wished to say was, that I shall give you a morsel of

bread, and a sip of wine, which will be commemorative,

symbolical, figurative of My real flesh, and My real
blood, which no man shall ever eat or drink, indeed,

but only by faith, in a sign, a symbol.” Is He honest

enough to do so? It would seem not; for, instead of

calling back His sceptical disciples, He turns to the

Twelve, whom He had chosen to be the columns of His

Church, the apostles, the messengers, the evangelists of

His new doctrine, and He says unto them: 44 Will you,

also go away?” (Ibid. 68.) That is to say: “Rath-

er than to change a word of what I have said
;
rather

than sacrifice the least tittle of the truth which I have

just now taught you, I am willing to sacrifice even you,

and to choose others in your place, who will believe My
doctrine, and My words.”
Then it was, that Simon Peter, who was destined to

be the head of those Apostles, the immovable rock on

on which Christ was to build His Church, against

which the gates of hell should never prevail, anticipat-

ing the expression of the faith of his colleagues, and,

as we may piously suppose, dropping on his knees,

adoring that same flesh and blood, now visible before



11

his eyes, but soon to be hidden under the mystic veils

of bread and wine, exclaimed: “Lord, to whom shall

we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” (Ibid.

69.)

Peter believed. He, no more than the rest, could

fathom the depths of this stupendous mystery—he, no
more than the Jews, could explain the how

,
the manner

of the Real Presence. But, it was enough for him,

that Incarnate Wisdom had spoken: he knew that, in

believing Christ, he could not be deceived, though sense

should fail to see, and reason to comprehend, the in-

trinsic nature of the mystery. Blessed wert thou,

Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed

these things to thee, but the Father of that same Christ,

who is in Heaven. Blessed still, all they, who, like

Peter, have not seen, and have yet believed.

What the Saviour so clearly and solemnly promised,

He, with equal accuracy and solemnity fulfilled.

It was the eve of His cruel passion. The gloom of

Gethsemani and Calvary was already upon His soul.

He spoke of His being betrayed by one of His disciples

;

of His not drinking of the fruit of the vine till He

should drink it new in the kingdom of His Father.

He had eaten the Passover, the Paschal lamb, with His
Apostles. He had washed their feet, and now, seated
once more at table, “while they were at supper, Jesus

took bread, and blessed and broke, and gave to His

disciples, and said: Take ye and eat. This is My body.
And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave to
them, saying: Drink ye all of this; for this is My
blood o£ the new Testament, which shall be shed for

many, for the remission of sins.” (Matt. xxvi. 26-28.)

How shall we construct an argument on these words
of the Saviour? They are so plain, so simple, they

carry their own conviction with them in the bare read-

ing, for all those who are not wilfully blind, and incor-

rigibly obstinate. Recall the fact that the Apostles

had heard the full explanation of the words of the prom-

ise. They had remained faithful. When others refused
to believe, they, through Peter, had made an open pro-

fession of their belief in the future institution of the



12

Eucharist; all they expected was the fulfilment of the

promise, that their Master would give them His flesh

to eat, and His blood to drink. That Master is now on

the eve of His death. He is about to make His last
will, or testament. It was now no time to speak in fig-

ures or parables. A dying man does not busy himself
with the language of poetry or rhetoric. If ever, it is

then he speaks in plain, unvarnished prose, which every

one can understand. Moreover, those who hear the

Saviour on this solemn occasion, are simple, uneducated

fishermen. They can scarcely understand the common-

est expressions of their own language. Their reason,

like their speech, is untutored, and uncultivated. They

would scarcely think of such nice distinctions as the

difference, in a given instance, between a figurative and

a literal expression of speech. How much less were
they capable of nicely sifting out the certainly concealed

figurative expression of Christ’s thought, which our

separated brethren appear to have discovered in the

text. If what we have premised seems plausible, then

I ask you, how, think you, did the Apostles understand

the words of Christ above cited? Think you they

understood them to mean what they obviously, and on

first hearing of them, convey to the mind, or the very

opposite? If the former, then they believed Christ to

have changed the bread, which He broke, into the real,

substantial flesh of His own personal body, and the

wine, which He blessed, into His own real and personal

blood; and, consequently, they believed in what we call

transubstantiation, and the Real Presence. And
4
how

could they believe otherwise ? They had heard Him

say that He would give them His flesh to eat
,
and His

blood to drink; for that His flesh was food indeed and

His blood was drink indeed. Now they hear him say

—take ye, eat ye; this is My body. Drink ye all of
this: this is My blood. True, they had heard from
His lips—I am the door, the vine; the field is the
world; and«the like figurative expressions; but what

resemblance could they discover between those obviously

metaphorical sayings, and the words: this is My body;
this is My blood? To do so they must have been



13

immediately struck with the perfect parallelism not

only of the words, but of the things. Where is that

similarity? Not surely in the fact that bread was a

well known type or figure of the human body; for who

ever heard that bread was assumed as an object of sim-

ilarity or resemblance with the human body ? Certain-

ly, Christ’s body did not in any imaginable way resemble

bread—nor could bread in any' possible way represent
His body. Christ’s words were, therefore, understood

by the Apostles in their literal sense.

Moreover, Christ, as St. Luke says, added to the

words “this is My body” which is delivered for you,”
“this is My blood which shall be shed for you.” (Luke,
xxii. 19, 20. ) Did not Christ give His real, substan-

tial flesh, shed His real, substantial, personal blood for

us? And yet it is that flesh, of which He says: “Take

ye, and eat;” it is that blood of which he says: “Drink

ye all of it.”

Let us illustrate the whole argument by an example.

Suppose you are father of a family, and about to die.

You wish to make your last will in behalf of your

children. In the presence of the notary public and

two witnesses you dictate as follows: “To my daughter

Mary, I leave this house with all its appurtenances.

To my daughter Sarah, I leave the block of houses
situated on Yerona street. To my son John, I leave
my farm of 150 acres, and all the improvements on the
same.” Suppose further that you are dead, and that

your children go to the Probate Court to settle the

question of their inheritance. There they are told by

the judge: “Well, Mary, you doubtless imagine that

your father left you the real, substantial brick-and-

mortar house in which he died?” “Most certainly,

your honor,” replies the girl. “Yet, I am sorry to

say,” returns the judge, “that you are mistaken. The

words of the last will of your father mean, that some-

time before he fell sick, he had a photograph taken of

his house, which must be somewhere hanging or lying

in a room, and that is the portion of your inheritance.”

“As to your share, Sarah, he left you a birdseye-view

of the block of houses mentioned in the codicil, which,



14

upon diligent search, you will probably find somewhere

in the house.” “To you, John, he left a landscape-

view of the farm and its scenery, which you will find

in some corner of the attic or the garret.” Now, sup-

pose these children go home in search of their respect-

ive heirlooms, and hug them to their bosoms, as a rich

fortune left them by their departed father
;
would you

not say, that both the judge and the children, had lost

their senses? Yet this is what our good friends have

dona During sixteen hundred years the Church of

Borne had never ceased to transmit to her dear children

the legacy which she herself had received on the eve of

the death of her divine spouse; His flesh as food, His

blood as drink for their hungry souls. Then come

Carlstadt and Zwingle, and tell these children: “Your

mother and you are mistaken : Christ, her sponse, did

not leave her or you His real flesh, as food, nor His real

blood, as drink; but only a piece of bread and a sip of

wine, as the images, the signs, the symbols, the figures

of His real flesh and blood.” Which, think you, is

right, the Church or the sacramentarians
;
Borne or

Zwingle ?

Our separated brethren cannot but admit, that,

whether real or figurative, Christ instituted a new rite;

propounded, on that occasion a new law; inculcated a

new practice, to be kept by the faithful throughout all

time. But, it would be unreasonable to suppose, that

a wise and prudent lawgiver would make use of terms

which would be open to cavil, on account of their vague-

ness and ambiguity. That is contrary to all experience

;

much less could that be supposed of our Saviour, on so

important a subject, and on so solemn an occasion.

Now, it is evident, that the whole terminology of the

Bedeemer, from the words of the promise to those of

the institution, as related by the several evangelists,

favors the Boman Catholic, rather than the Protestant

interpretation
;

so, that nothing less than the most in-

genious sophistry could possibly construct an argument

on those words, which would incline us to think that

He spoke figuratively, rather than literally. Nor did

our Divine Saviour, as on other occasions, when He was



15

misunderstood, vouchsafe an explanation, which could

induce His Apostles to believe the words in any other

than the literal and obvious sense, which they, at first

sight, convey. Every reason therefore, compels us to

believe, that Christ, at the Last Supper, gave His

Apostles His real flesh to eat, and His real blood to drink.

Nor did He stop here. He, moreover, added: “Do

this for a commemoration of me.” (Luke, xxii. 19.)

Our Lord, then, commanded' His Apostles to do the

very same thing that they had seen Himself do. What

had He done ? He had taken bread, and blessed it,

and in the blessing, made it His own body, and given

it as food to them. In the same manner, He had taken

the chalice, blessed it, and made it His blood, giving it

to them as drink; He commands them to do the very

same. This
,
namely, that you have seen Me do, do ye,

for a commemoration of Me. In what that commemor-

ation was chiefly to consist, we are told by the Apostle

St. Paul, who writes: “for as often as you shall eat

this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the

death of the Lord, until He come.” (1 Cor. xii. 26.)

The unbloody presence of Christ in the sacrament, un«

der the appearances of bread and wine, was, then, to be

a memorial, commemorative of the bloody presence of

Jesus on the cross; and the invisible reality of the one,

the memorial of the visible reality of the other.
*

*

We now proceed to the testimony of St. Paul, who,
though he was present neither at the promise nor at the

institution of the sacrament, bears the most striking

evidence in the case. Besides the text which we have

already quoted, in which he says: “the cup of bless-

ing which we bless, is it not the communion of the

blood of Christ
;
and the bread which we break, is it

not the communion of the body of Christ?” he writes

as follows, in the eleventh chapter:

“For I have received of the Lord, that which also I

delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night

in which He was betrayed, took bread,
“And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye and

eat: this is My body, which shall be delivered for you;
this do for the commemoration of Me.



“In like manner, also, the chalice, after He had sup-

ped, saying: This chalice is the new Testament in My
blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the

commemoration of Me.

“For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink

the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until

He come.
“Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink

the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of

the body and of the blood of the Lord.

“But, let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of

that bread, and drink of the chalice.

“For, he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth

and drinketh judgment [Protestant version, damnation]

to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” (1

Cor. xi. 23-29.)

Observe first that Saint Paul repeats the formula of

the institution, in nearly the very same words in which

it is recorded by the Evangelists. If St. Paul under-

stood those words in a figurative sense, how comes it,

that he does not give a turn to his phraseology which

would express that figurative sense? Did not honesty

require him to do it
;
the more so, as he was instruct-

ing a promiscuous multitude of church members, many

of whom, were, perhaps, less capable of finding a figur-

ative sense under these words, than were the Apostles

themselves ? Moreover, he wrote after the descent of

the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, and he himself was

imbued with the same Spirit, so that his understand-

ing, now, at least, was fully opened to the real sense of

the doctrines of Christ.

But how will you explain in a figurative sense, the

following strong language of the Apostle to the Corin-

thians? “Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread or

drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be

guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, if there are

no such body and blood, as our separated brethren

teach ? It is true, there would still be the symbols,

the signs, the images; but will anyone say that who-

ever is guilty of an outrage or assault upon a portrait

or image of the king, is really and actually guilty of an



17

assault upon his person? Yet this is the strength of

St. Paul’s expression, which cannot possibly be under-

stood, except on the Catholic ground, that under the

appearances of bread and wine, Christ’s body and blood

are really, substantially and personally present.

The same must be said of the following: “For he

that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drink-

eth damnation to himself, not discerning the body of

the Lord.” (Ibid. 29.) What more fearful punish-

ment could be inflicted in consequence of any crime

than eternal damnation? The crime, then, of eating

and drinking unworthily, must be an exceedingly out-

rageous one. But this extraordinary degree of guilt

can scarcely be incurred in profaning the mere symbols

or signs of Christ’s body; for then there would have

been the same reason for punishing the Jews, if they

had eaten the Paschal lamb or manna unworthily, since

both these were types and symbols, even more striking

and impressive, than those which the Saviour institu-

ted. The only way, therefore, to account for this

severity, is the reason given by the Apostle: because

those who eat and drink unworthily, do not discern the

body of the Lord: that is, they profane the body of

the Lord, really present in the sacrament. It is true,

that the Apostle mentions the words bread and wine in

connection with the subject, but that fact is easily ac-

counted for; first, because this form of language is

familiar to the penmen of Holy Writ. Thus the rod of

Aaron was still called rod after it had been changed in-

to a serpent (Exod. vii. 12), and in the New Testament
the blind are said to see. Men are called blind after

sight is restored to them (Matt. xi. 5; Luke, viii. 22.)

Secondly, we often name things by appearances, the

shape, and color, which they present. Thus, angels are

often called men, in the Scriptures. (Gen. xviii. 2;

Josh. v. 13; Dan. ix. 21; Acts, i. 10.) These modes of

expression are adopted in order to avoid a repetition of

the same phraseology; thus, in verse 27, the Apostle

would have written: Therefore, whosoever shall eat

this body or drink this blood of the Lord, shall be

guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. Nor



18

was there any longer the same danger, as at the insti-

tution, of being misunderstood. The doctrine of the

Eeal Presence was already established; its practice had

been in existence for twenty-four years, so that the

faithful fully understood the sense in which the Apostle

used the words bread and wine, in connection with this

mystery.

It now remains for us briefly to show how this doc-

trine has been uniformly taught and believed through-

out the Catholic Church ever since the commencement

of Christianity. St. Ignatius, the Martyr, who was a

disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and bishop of

Antioch, speaking of the Gnostics of his time, writes:

“They abstain from the Eucharist, because they do not

acknowledge it to be the flesh of our Saviour, Jesus

Christ, ’which suffered for our sins, and which the

Father, by His* goodness, resuscitated. (Epis. ad

Smyrn.

)

According to this Father of the Church, it was a

heresy, an error, not to believe in the Eeal Presence.

St. Justin, the Philosopher, suffered martyrdom at

Eome, about the year 166. He says: “As Jesus Christ,

made man by the word of God, took flesh for our sal-

vation, in the same manner, we have been taught that

the food which has beeil blessed by the prayer* of

the words that He spoke, and by which our blood and

flesh, in the change, are nourished, is the flesh and

blood of that Jesus incarnate. (Apol. i., ad imper.

Anton.) St. Justin does not look upon the fact which

he sets forth in his Apology as a mere opinion, but as

a real dogma of the Church: “We have been taught.”
What that dogma was, is too plain to need any com-

ment.

St. Irenaeus, expostulating with the heretics of his

day, says: “How can they prove that the bread, over

which the words of thanksgiving have been pronounced,

is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood”

while they do not admit that He is the Son
;

that is,

the Word of the Creator of the world’? (Advers. Haer.,

lib. iv.

)

How could these men, St. Ignatius at Antioch, Justin



19

at Rome, IrensBus at Lyons, agree so accurately on the

same doctrine, if it was not the doctrine of the Univer-

sal Church!

St. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, in the fourth century,

writes

:

“There is no room to doubt the truth of Christ’s

flesh and blood
;
for now, by the profession of the Lord

Himself, aud according to our belief, it is truly flesh

and truly blood.” (De Trin., lib. viii.)

St. Ephrem, of Edessa, says: “ His body
,
by a new

method, is mixed with our bodies, and His most pure

blood is transfused into our veins. He is wholly incor-
porated with vs.” (Hymn xxxiv., de Virginitate.)

And again: “Believe, then, and with a firm faith re-

ceive the body and blood of our Lord. Abraham placed

earthly food before the celestial spirits, of which they

ate. This was wonderful. But what Christ has done

for us greatly exceeds this and transcends all speech

and all conception. To us that are in the flesh, He
has given to eat His body and blood” (De Nat. Dei,

tom. iii.

)

But nothing could be clearer than the testimonies of

St. Cyril, of Jerusalem, in his catechetical explanations

on this subject:

“ The bread and wine, which, before the invocation

of the adorable Trinity, were nothing but bread and

wine, become, after this invocation, the body and blood

of Christ.” (Cat. Mystag., i., N. iii.) “The Euchar-

istic bread, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is

no longer common bread, but the body of Christ.”

(Ibid., Cat. iii., N. iii.)

“The doctrine of the blessed Paul alone is sufficient

to give certain proof of the truth of the divine myster-

ies; and you, being deemed worthy of them, are become

one body and one blood with Christ. For this great

Apostle says: That our Lord, in the same night where-

in He was delivered, having taken bread, and given
thanks, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying to

them—take and eat, this is My body. Afterwards He
took the cup, and said: take and drink, this is My
blood. As then Christ, speaking of the bread, declared,



20

and said : ‘ This is My body/ who shall dare to doubt
it? And, as speaking of the wine, He positively assured
us, and said: ‘ This is My blood/ who shall doubt it

y

and say that it is not His bloodf’ (Cat. Mystag., iv.,

N. i.

)

How beautifully and forcibly the same holy Father
refutes the objection, which the unbeliever and those

who deny this Christian doctrine make to the possibil-

ity of this mystery, may be learned from the following

passage

:

“Jesus Christ, at Cana, of Galilee, once changed

water into wine by His will only
;
and shall we think

Him less worthy of credit, when He changes wine into
blood? Invited to an earthly marriage, He wrought
that miracle; and shall we hesitate to confess, that He
has given to His children His body to eat, and His

blood to drink? Wherefore, with all confidence, let

us take the body and blood of Christ. For in the type

or figure of bread His body is given to thee
;
and in

the type or figure of wine His blood is given; that so

being made partakers of the body and blood of Christ,

you may become one body and one blood with Him.

Thus, the body and blood of Christ being distributed

in our members, we become Christophori
,
that is, we

carry Christ with us
;
and thus, as St. Peter says, we

are made partakers of the divine nature.” (Ibid., N.

iii.)

“Wherefore I conjure you, my brethren, not to con-
sider them [bread and wine] any more as common

bread and wine, since they are the body and blood of

Jesus Christ, according to His words; and although

your sense may suggest that to you, let faith confirm

you. Judge not of the thing by your taste, but, by

faith; assure yourself, without the least doubt, that

you are honored with the body and blood of Christ.

This knowing, and of this being assured, that what

appears to be bread, is not bread, though it be taken

for bread by the taste, but is the body of Christ; and

that which appears to be wine, is not wine, though the

taste will have it so, but is the blood of Christ.” (Ibid.,

N. iv., v., vi., ix.

)



21

Could human language be stronger or clearer to prove

to neophytes, to those who have just been received into

the Church by baptism, the reality of Christ’s flesh

and blood in the Eucharist? Remember, such was the

faith of the whole Christian Church during the fourth

century. Who, then, are the innovators, the Catholics,

or the so-called reformers of the sixteenth century ?

Instead of believing as the latter did, that Christ’s

body is present figuratively, typically, in real bread,

and His blood figuratively and typically in real wine,

those Christians were taught that Christ’s real body

was present in typical bread, and His blood in typical

wine, because they believed, that after the words of

blessing, or, as we generally express it, after the con-

secration, the substance of the bread and wine has be-

come the body%nd blood of Jesus Christ, so that the

appearances only of bread and wine remain.

Add to these testimonies, a well-known fact, in the

history of the first four centuries of Christianity;

namely, the discipline of secrecy ( disciplina arcani
),

which was practised* by the Church in the celebration

of her mysteries, especially the mystery of the Eucha-

rist. What reason or motive could the primitive

Church have had for celebrating, with closed doors the

mysteries of the altar, if she had not believed in the

Real Presence ? Why should her writers have been
so careful in speaking of this mystery in such of their

works as were destined to be made public? Why were
catechumens and unbelievers forbidden to remain in

the houses of assembly, when the mystic offering was

about to commence? Why did the Apologists of the
Catholic religion abstain from plainly and openly stat-

ing the nature of these mysteries ? Why did they allege,
as a reason for their not divulging them, the command

of their Master, that pearls should not be cast before

dogs and swine ? Why did, even, the martyrs, when they
were put to the rack for practising in private cruel and

bloody crimes, such as feasting upon the flesh of a new-

born babe, content themselves with denying the accu-

sation, without explaining the real nature of the prac-

tise for which they were condemned ? Can you account



22

for these facts on the supposition, that they believed in

the figurative presence only? What was there so

mysterious, so sacred, in the practise of eating a bit of

bread, and drinking a sip of wine, in remembrance of

the Saviour, who had, Himself, done so on the eve of

His death, and ordered His followers to do the same?

Was there any danger of ridicule or calumny on that

score, from their most bitter and inveterate enemies?

Was there any danger of persecution unto death for

following a doctrine and a practise which had nothing

in it contradicting sense ? No, my friends
;

this se-

crecy, so stubbornly maintained in the midst of the

jeers of infidel writers; in the midst of the most cruel

persecutions of tyrants, can be accounted for only on

the hypothesis, that the first Christians believed in the

real presence, whose sublime doctrine# were too pro-

found for carnal-minded men; whose nature was too

sacred and holy to be exposed to the impious sneers of

godless antagonists.

To suppose, as some of our adversaries have done,

that the doctrine of the Beal Presence was gradually

introduced into the Church of Borne, is a hypothesis

opposed alike to fact and reason. That it is opposed to

fact, we have already proved, by citing the testimonies

of the leading writers of the first ages of Christianity.

Nor is there any reason for admitting such a supposition.

But, if the Church of Borne had introduced this doc-

trine into her creed, how comes it that her enemies not

only never objected this fact to her, but retained the

same doctrine when they left her bosom ? How comes
it that Nestorius, who apostatized from Borne in the

fourth century, carried with him the doctrines and

practices of the Church concerning the Beal Presence?

How do you account for its existence among the
Entychians, Jacobites, Copts, or Syrians? Why did
not the Greek schismatics; who quarreled with Borne

about trifles, remonstrate with her on the score of the

Beal Presence? How will you make this universal
agreement of all the churches, during one thousand

years, tally with your assumption, that it was gradually

introduced into the Church?

I



23

To introduce a new doctrine into the Church, espec-

ially a doctrine which, according to our adversaries

themselves, is too deep for human wit, and impervious

to human sense, would require more ingenuity and craft

than the keenest intellect is capable of. By what pro-

cess of sophistry could any individual, or individuals,

however gifted, have convinced millions of Christians,

that bread could, by a few words spoken over it, become

the flesh, and wine the blood of the Son of God? No

matter how gross the ignorance of the multitude, no

matter how dark the age in which they lived, can we

believe that there would have been no opposition made,

no remonstrance uttered against the novelty! Ignor-

ance favors self-interest, passion, sensuality, ambition;

but, what was ignorance to gain by the doctrine of the

Beal Presence ? A hidden God not only to be adored,
but to be received in the Eucharist, humbles human

pride, because it confounds human reason; requires the

sacrifice of pride and sensuality, as a necessary dispo-

sition, to receive Him worthily. Moreover, universal
ignorance is a chimera. There never was an age, there

can be none, so entirely dark as not to possess any light

at all. This is certainly true of the successive ages of

the Christian era. Would no one see—no one expose
the novelty? When other heresies sprang up, the

learned doctors of the Church arose at once, and, with

prolific pens, asserted the majesty and power of the an-

cient truth, against the abject slavery and weakness of

error; and was there none to wield that same pen

against the daring innovator, who, for the first time

since the foundation of Christianity, taught the mys-

terious doctrine of the Beal Presence? No, notone;

or if there was, let his name be given—his arguments
made known. On the contrary, no sooner did Beren-

garius, in the eleventh century, deny the doctrine of

the Beal Presence, than the whole Christian Church

rose up to refute and condemn his innovation. Learned

bishops and doctors, like Lanfranc, Quitmond, Algerus,

and others, overwhelmed him with argument, and no

fewer than fifteen Councils, solemnly anathematized

him. The uninterrupted and undisturbed possession,



24

therefore, of this doctrine by the Church of Rome dur-
ing sixteen centuries, previous to the so-called Refor-

mation, is a demonstrative argument, that the doctrine

is a doctrine of Christ, and that, therefore, it forms a

part of that creed which it is necessary to believe unto

salvation.

Luther himself, eagerly as he desired to do away

with this doctrine, never denied the Real Presence, yea,

denounced, with his usual violence and vulgarity, the

Zwinglians, who taught the figurative presence. “I

clearly saw,” says he, “how much I should thereby”

(viz., by overthrowing the Real Presence) “injure

Popery
;
but I found myself caught, without any way

of escaping
;
for, the text of this Gospel was too plain

for this purpose.” (Epist. ad Argent.
) Of the Zwing-

lians, he writes: “The devil seems to have mocked

those to whom he has suggested a heresy so ridiculous,
and contrary to Scripture, as that of the Zwinglians.”

And, speaking of their comments on the words, “this is

My body, this is My blood,” he remarks, that “their
translations and glosses on these texts have as much

sense, as if one should translate the first words of Gen-

esis:
6In the beginning God created heaven and earth y

—In the beginning the cuckoo eat the sparrow and his
feathers.” (Def. Verb. Dom.

)

Furthermore, he calls those who deny the Real

Presence, “a reprobate sect, lying heretics, bread-

breakers, wine-drinkers, and soul-destroyers.” (In

Parv, Cat. ) “They are indevilized and superdevilized”

—they have the devil in them, and above them. Fi-
nally, he devotes them all to the flames of hell.

The authorized Catechism of the Church of England,

declares that, “the body and blood of Christ are verily

and indeed taken”—and received by the faithful in the
Lord’s Supper. But it may be said: We have changed
all this

;
wre no longer believe as did Luther, or such

lights of the Establishment as Ridley, Hooker, Andrew,,

Casaubon, Montague, Belson, Taylor, Forbes, Cosin,,

Samuel Parker, and others. And yet it is certain, my
friends, that the truth of Christ’s religion changeth not.

“ Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My word shall



25

not pass away,” “ Christ—yesterday, to-day, and the
same forever. ’* You must needs conclude, that either

Luther, and the Anglican Church, were wrong when

they taught the Real Presence, or else, that you your-

selves are wrong, in denying it. And, in either instance,

your Reformation was not, and could not be, the work

of God
;
nor your pretended Christianity, the Christian-

ity of Christ
;
for Christianity knows no change.

Here we might, strictly speaking, leave the matter.

For, writing as we do, for Christians, we have appealed

to such proofs of the Real Presence, as they, in virtue

of their own principles, are bound to receive as conclu-

sive evidence in the case. According to our separated

brethren, the Bible is the only rule of the Christian’s

faith. We have appealed to that Bible for any evi-
dence of a figurative presence in the Eucharist. In

strict logic, the question is here at an end. Consist-

ently with their own principles, they cannot claim a

change of ground in the argumentation. But consist-

ency is a jewel, whose precious worth our adversaries

do not always properly value. Defeated in their en-

counter on the field of the Scriptures, they retreat into

the byways of infidelity—into the haunts of sense, and
the dark rocks, of solitary reason. Conquered by the

sword of the Spirit, they grasp the dagger of the im-

pious. Abandoning Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,

and Paul, they appeal to Hobbes, Paine, Voltaire, Dide-

rot, Rousseau, Bratscheider, and Wegschneider, for

weapons of attack against the Church, and her doctrine

of the Real Presence.

Boasting no longer of the Bible as their only guide

to faith, they set up reason and the senses as the sole

judges competent to decide the question of the Eucha-

rist, and with greater pomp of speech than show of rea-

son, they object to our doctrine as follows:

“The phenomenal only can lead us to the knowledge

of the real; but the phenomena of the Eucharist pre-

sent only bread and wine; therefore, the Eucharist

contains but bread and wine.”

Stripping the objection of all the accoutrements of

language, they mean to say: “Nothing is true to us



26

but what we know by the aid of the senses
;
but by the

aid of the senses we discover in the Eucharist only

bread and wine; therefore, in truth, there are but

bread and wine in the Eucharist.”

If our adversaries are really convinced of the truth

of the principle laid down in the above premises, then

I fear that logic will lead them further than they imag-

ine or wish.

Is it true, that we are not capable of coming to the

knowledge of truth save by the aid of our bodily senses

;

that is to say, unless we see, hear, taste, touch, or smell,

the objects of our knowledge? If so, my friends, then
you must deny not only the doctrine of the Real Pres-

ence, but the very first and fundamental doctrines of

Christianity itself; then you must not only borrow

arguments from, but take side with the infidel against

the Christian religion and its doctrines. Are you a

Trinitarian, that is, do you believe in one God and three

persons ? By the aid of which of your five bodily senses

have you come to know that mystery ? Have you ever

seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched the triune

nature of the Deity ? If not, then, according to your

own showing, you must deny the Trinity and become a

Deist. Do you believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ?

Have you ever seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched

the mystery of His incarnation ? If not, then renounce

His Divinity, and take your stand on the platform of

the Socinian. Do you believe in baptism as the sacra-

ment of regeneration, by which, from children of wrath,

we become the children of God,—by which we pass
from the state of sin to that of righteousness? Has

any one of your senses penetrated the mystery of that

regeneration? Not your eyes, for they saw at most

the effusion of a certain quantity of water upon the

body, and not the interior cleansing or purification of

the soul from sin. Much less did you discover that

mystery by any one of the other bodily senses. You

are bound to go further still, in virtue of your principle.

Have you ever seen God ? Have you ever heard Him,

tasted Him, smelled Him, touched Him? If not, then

farewell not only to Christianity, but to Deism, and



27

profess yourself, at once, an Atheist. Hail infidelity,

with all its fearful consequences for time and for eter-

nity ?

When or where did Christ teach that our senses are

to be the guides to our faith ? Did He not rebuke

Thomas Didymus, because he made those senses the

conditions of his faith in the resurrection? “Except I

shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put

my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand

into His side, I will not believe.” (Jo. xx. 25.) And

when our Saviour had allowed him the privilege of

seeing and touching the prints of the nails and the

wound of the side, what does he add: “Because thou

hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are

they that have not seen
,
and have believed.” (Ibid.

29.)

Our friends confound faith with knowledge. We are
not asked to know, either in virtue of the testimony of

our senses, or the intuitions or argumentative processes

of reason, the nature of any mystery or doctrine of

religion; but we are commanded to receive its truth

upon the unerring testimony of the God-man, who can

neither be deceived Himself, nor deceive us. The

mysteries of faith are to be believed by us not on the

evidence of the senses or of reason, but on the evidence

of the fact of their revelation. We must not ask, “Can
I see?” or even “Can I understand what I am asked

to believe?” but,
“
is it revealed?” It is a fact that

Jesus Christ has taught those mysteries. When I have

convinced myself cf that fact, I follow the example of

St. Peter: I bow my stubborn neck under the sweet
yoke of faith, and I exclaim: “Lord, I believe: for to

whom shall we go if not to Thee, who hast the words

of eternal life?”

“But my senses are deceived in this mystery. I see,
taste, and touch only bread and wine

;
and I am made

to believe there is neither bread nor wine, but the body

and blood of Christ.”

Suppose, for argument’s sake, that your senses are

deceived. It would not be the first, nor probably the

last time in your life and experience. Are there no



28

instances in which the bare testimony of your senses

must be corrected by the dictates of your reason, en-

lightened by science? When you judge that the oar
of the boatman is not bent, as it appears to be, under

the water, do you rely for your judgment on the testi-

mony of your sight only ? Witnessing the setting of

the sun, you would say that the king of day descends

in a line with your eyes, while philosophy teaches you

that he has sunk already several degrees below the

horizon.

Instances of the deception of the senses are numerous

in the Scriptures. When Abraham entertained the
three angels in the Yale of Mambre, and gave them to

eat, were not his eyes deceived concerning their real

nature? (Gen. xviii.
)

When Jacob wrestled with the
angel who touched the sinew of his thigh, were not

both his sight and touch deceived concerning the real

substance of the spirit? (Gen. xxxii.
) When, in the

field of the city of Jericho, Josue saw a man standing

over against him with a drawn sword, was he to believe

the testimony of his eyes only, and refuse to believe

that it was an angel ? How, guided by his senses of

sight or hearing only, could he fall on his face to the

ground, and worshipping say: “What saith my Lord
to his servant?” (Josue, v. 13, 15.) Were the Jews

excusable for not believing in the divinity of Jesus

Christ, when their senses reported Him only as the
carpenter’s son, the son of Joseph and Mary. Were

not the eyes of the disciples bound, so that they should

not know Jesus, when they were going to Emmaus ?

Did their ears perceive by the sound of His voice that

it was He, while “He expounded to them, in all the

scriptures, the things that were concerning Him?”

(Luke, xxiv. 27) Did not Mary Magdalene see Jesus

standing at the sepulchre, and yet knew not that it was

Jesus, but believed Him to be the gardener? (Jo. xx.

15.)

In all these instances the manner of appearing was

evidently different from His usual, His natural way, so

that, till He resumed His natural appearance, voice,

etc., they did not recognize Him by the aid of their



29

senses. And yet during all that time, He was substan-

tially the same Jesus, who walked among them, who

spoke to them, on other occasions. You are all ac-

quainted with the Saviour’s transfiguration on mount

Thabor. Suppose that the Apostles Peter, John, and

James, had not accompanied their Master on that

occasion, but, without any previous knowledge of His

presence, had come to the the mountain, while Etis gar-

ments were white like snow, and His countenance shone

like the sun; is it probable that they would have

recognized Him ? And yet, if they had been told then
to make an act of faith in the reality of His presence

on the mountain, could they have refused to do so wfith

impunity, merely because their eyes did not see Jesus

in His usual natural form? Why, then, should you

or I refuse to believe Him really present under
the appearances of bread and wine, when wre are plainly

told by Him that He is really and truly present under
the accidents or appearances of bread and wine ? Is

not Jesus now seated at the right hand of His Heavenly

Father—the same Jesus who was born of the Virgin,
and died upon the cross ? Are you not bound to believe

this truth as an article of the Christian faith? Yet,

every one of your bodily senses fails to prove it—faith,
in this case, as in the case of the Real Presence in the

sacrament, supplies the defect of the senses.

But you tell me, human reason cannot understand

how it is possible, that bread and wine should be

changed into the body and blood of Jesus. Do you
mean to say, that we are to believe only what reason

can comprehend and fathom? Then, why do you

believe any mystery of religion at all? Can your

reason understand how there are three distinct persons,

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in one and the same un-

divided and indivisible Godhead; so that the Father is

not the Sod, nor the Son the Holy Ghost, nor the Holy

Ghost the Father or the Son, and yet all three are God,

and have one and the same identical essence? Is it

more easy for reason, to understand, how God drew all

existing substances out of notfnng, than how He changes
one substance into another? Can you explain the mir-



30

aculous change of water into wine, at the feast of Cana

in Galilee, more clearly and definitely than the change

of bread into flesh, or wine into blood? How do yon
account for the mystery of the incarnation, of the union

of two distinct natures and wills, in one and the same

hypostasis, or person ? How do you account for the
action of justifying grace in the human soul; yea more,

how do you account for the actions of the soul on the hu-

man body ? Are not all these secrets, which it is not given

to the human mind to discover ? And indeed, where

would be the merit of our faith, if we could fathom all

its objects, by the aid, either of our bodily senses, or

the faculties of our mind ? We should no longer be-
lieve, but know

;
and knowledge, as such, was never

required unto salvation
;
but faith, which, as the Apostle

says, is “the substance of things to be hoped for; the

evidence of things that appear not.” (Heb. xi. 1)

Our separated brethren forget that, in their anxiety

to refute the doctrine of the Real Presence, they fur-

nish their own coreligionists with weapons which, like

a two-edged sword, cut both ways, and prove as fatal

in causing them to reject all other mysteries of faith,

as to reject the Real Presence. We acknowledge that
the testimony of the senses, applied to their proper

objects, in a proper way, is an infallible criterion of

truth
;
and that reason, within her sphere, can decide

with infallible certitude, upon all truths that belong to

that sphere
;
but we deny that either of them was in-

tended as the infallible criterion or judge of all truth.

There are many things in Heaven and on earth, which,

man has not dreamed of in his philosophy; many, with

the nature, the manner of which, he will never be ac-

quainted, until the veil is withdrawn; until faith is

changed into vision.

Nor are our senses, properly speaking, deceived in

relation to the Real Presence. The senses of men are

the organs of their rational soul, and receive those im-

pressions only, of which by their nature, they are cap-

able. The eye sees the shape, color, form
;
the taste

relishes the sweetness, etc., of the bread and wine; and

they convey those impressions to the mind. Ordinarily



31

speaking, the mind would thence infer that the sen-

sations received from the external qualities, must lead

her to judge the substances to be bread and wine; but

instructed by faith, she corrects her judgment, and pro-

nounces them, what they really are, the body and blood

of Christ. Thus both have done their naturally

appointed duty
;
the senses have reported the outward

appearances, and outward qualities of the substance,

and the mind yielding to the higher authority of faith,

has pronounced the substance flesh and blood.

It would be ridiculous to argue from the exception

to a general conclusion, as some of our adversaries do:

If this is so, they tell us, with regard to the Eucharist,

then we can never trust our senses nor our reason. You

might as well say, that if you believe that Christ raised

Lazarus from the dead, all the dead will rise from their

graves and repeople the earth. Exceptions do not des-

troy, but strengthen the general rule, by the very con-

trast which they present.

Equally impertinent is the question, “ How can the
body of Christ be present in so small a space as is

occupied by a wafer, and in so many different wafers,

at the same time?”

Natural philosophers might answer you, that all the.

matter contained in the universe might be reduced to

an indefinitely smaller space, and according to Newton,

to no more than a cubic inch
;
but we forbear recurrihg

to the known laws of matter, to prove a mystery, for the

truth of which the word of God alone is and ought to

be sufficient evidence. When we speak of the Heal
Presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, under

the sacramental veil of bread and wine, we speak not

of a natural, but a miraculous, a preternatural presence,

with which the laws of nature have, simply nothing to

do. The physical impossibility cannot certainly be

greater than would be the moral impossibility, that

Jesus Christ should tell a lie, as He most evidently did,
if we are to take His words to mean what they plainly

signify to the mind. Nor is it necessary to allege the

authority of certain modern writers, such as Bobert

Dale Owen, and others, to prove that bilocation, or



32

the presence of the same individual in two places, at

the same time, is not only possible, but is proved to

have been a fact
;
suffice it to say, that the state and

conditions of a spiritualized,or glorified body, such as

Christ’s is after His resurrection, cannot be adequately

judged of by the knowledge we have of the conditions

of a body in its natural state. Certain it is, as every

Bible reader admits, that the same Jesus, who remains

forever seated at the right hand of His Father, appear-

ed, at the same time, to St. Paul, on the road to Dam-

ascus, and stood by him, in the castle of Jerusalem.

(Acts, ix. 17; xxiii. 11.) What has happened before,

is not impossible now, and may happen in the same or

another form, again.

“But, to say the least, you do not carry out the whole

doctrine of the Beal Presence, as propounded by its

divine Author, and you shamefully wrong the people,

by withholding from them the cup—administering the
sacrament under the appearance of bread only.”

To this we answer, that, when the Saviour instituted

this wonderful sacrament, none but His Apostles were

present at the Supper, and none but they received the

Holy Communion. It is true they received under both

species, and were ordered to receive under both species.

But this was natural and reasonable. For, by the words

which He subjoined to the formula of consecration:
“Do this for a commemoration of Me” (Luke, xxii,

19), He made them priests forever, according to the
order of Melchisedec, and commanded them to offer the

same unbloody sacrifice, in the same manner, in which

they had seen Him offer. As priests, and therefore, as
sacrificators, it was necessary that their sacrificial act

should show the nature of real sacrifice. Now, sacri-

fice is defined to be the offering of a sensible thing,

which, with mystic rites, is consecreated, and changed,

by a lawful minister, and made to God alone, thereby

to acknowledge His supreme dominion over all things.

Hence, to represent, in this commemorative sacrifice,

the real and bloody immolation of Jesus upon the cross,

it was meet, that by a separate consecration and recep-

tion of the species of bread and wine, the real separa-



tion which had preceded, should be reproduced by the

priest of Christ. Not so with the faithful. For, since

the resurrection of Christ, His body, is impassible, and

His blood can no longer be really separated from His

flesh, so that, wherever His flesh is, there, also, is His

blood; and vice versa
,
wherever His blood is, there

also is His flesh. Hence, whoever receives either

species, receives as much as he who receives both; and

no wrong is done the laity, by refusing them the cup,

or the species of wine. A familiar comparison may
ielp to illustrate this doctrine. Suppose a mother dis-

tributes a certain quantity of bread and wine to. her

children. To one of them she gives it in a cup; to the

other, in bread soaked in wine. Would the latter have

a reasonable complaint against the mother on the sup-

position that the same quantity was not given to both ?

The comparison needs no application. He that re-
ceives the blood in the flesh, receives as much as he

who would receive it apart from the flesh, and neither

could possibly complain of wrong, or injustice.

Our divine Saviour promised, indeed, that He would
give us His flesh to eat, and His blood to drink; but

He did not determine the manner in which he would
do so. Hence, the same Jesus who said: “ unless you

eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood,

you shall not have life in you” (John vi. 54), also

said: “he that shall eat of this bread, he shall live for-

ever.” (Ibid. 59.) And He that said, “whoso eateth

Mv flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath everlasting life,”
also said: “the bread which I give is My flesh, for the
life of the world.” Finally, He that said: “he who
eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me,
and I in him,” also said: “he that eateth Me, the same

also shall live by Me.” ( Vide John, vi., passim
.

)

And the Apostle St. Paul writes (according to the

Greek version, which our separated brethren have cor-

rupted in their English translation), “Whosoever shall

eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord un-

worthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of

the Lord.”

In the Acts of the Apostles, chapter ii.
,
42, we read



34

that they “were persevering in the doctrine of the

Apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of

bread and prayer/’—and in' chapter xx., 7, “And on the
the first day of the week, when the disciples came to-
gether to break bread” * * *

Yea, our Saviour Himself broke bread only in the

castle of Emmaus, when seated at table, before His two
disciples. (Luke xxiv. 30, 31.) This much must be
conceded, that, in none of these instances the cup is

mentioned.

Luther himself reproaches his disciple Carlstadt, for

haying introduced the practice of communicating under

boih kinds. (Epist. ad Gasp. Gustol.
)

And on another
occasion (says Dr. Milner), he writes: “If a council did

ordain or permit both kinds, in spite of the council, we
would take but one, or take neither, and curse those who
should take both.” (Form. Miss. tom. ii. p. 384-386,

apud Milner.

)

The same Reformer writes (Epist. ad /Boh. ): “Al-

though it may be wTell to use both kinds in the sacra-
ment, yet Christ has commanded nothing on the subject.”

And again: “They sin not, who use but one kind, Christ
having left this to the choice of each one.” (Capt.

Bab.)

Several Anglican bishops, such as Montague, Forbes,

White, and others, held the doctrine that it was not

essential to the sacrament to receive under both kinds.

The Calvinists of France, in their synod at Poitiers,

in 1560, decreed thus: “The bread of our Lord’s Sup-

per ought to be administered to those who cannot drink

wine
,
on their making a protestation that they do not

refrain through contempt.” (On the Lord’s Supper, c.

iii., p. 7, ibid.

)

Lastly, by separate acts of that Parliment, and that

king, who established the Protestant religion in Eng-
land, and, by name, communion in both kinds, it is pro-

vided that the latter should only be commonly so deliv-

ered and ministered
,
and an exception is made, in case

necessity did otherwise require. (Burnet’s Hist, of

Reform, v. ii., p. 41; Heylin, Hist, of Reform., p. 58.) It

is clear, therefore, that our separated brethren did not

always believe that communion under both kinds is an

essential part of the sacrament.

There are natural reasons also, which must induce

every sensible man to believe it not essential.



35

First, Christ knew that it would, in many instances,

be difficult to obtain as much wine as would be neces-

sary for distribution. There are countries, where the

culture of the grape is impossible, and whither, for want

of easy access, especially in days gone by, commerce

would scarcely venture with this article.

Secondly, This species is more exposed than bread, to

the influences of the atmosphere, and, therefore, less

easily preserved in that condition which is necessary for

the respect due to this sublime mystery.

Thirdly, It is more exposed to the wilful or involun-

tary irreverence of the receiver. It is more apt to

spill, than bread is to crumble, or fall to the ground.

Fourthly, It is more difficult to carry it to sick per-

sons.

Fifthly, There are not a few who are by nature so

averse to wine, that they cannot possibly receive it.

Finally, The Church, which, from the beginning,

taught the nature of this sacrament, must certainly also

have' known the manner of* its reception. Now, her

teaching and her practice are such, as clearly to prove

that she never looked upon communion under both

kinds, as essential to the sacrament, but merely as a

matter of discipline, which might vary in local Churches,

and in different times and circumstances. Her eccles-

iastical historians tell us that, to the sick, she adminis-

tered the sacrament under the species of bread only, as

in the case of the venerable old man Serapion, who, ac-
cording to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., c. 44), received from

the hands of the priest the sacred food under species of

bread only.

We are told the same by St. Paulinus, of St. Ambrose.
We know likewise from history, that holy communion

was administered, during a certain period of the Church,

to infants newly baptized, and they received the species

of wine only.

In the days of persecution, when it was death to as-

semble for the purpose of celebrating the divine myster-

ies, the faithful were permitted to carry with them the

blessed sacrament to their houses. But the historians

of the time observe, that they carried with them the

species of bread only. So did the hermits and monks

in the desert receive under one species only, whenever

the communion was brought to them from a distance.

“But is it not unworthy the majesty of the God-man



to lie concealed under the appearances of bread and

wine; to be exposed to the neglect and contempt, rail-

leries and insults of men; yea, to see himself trodden

under foot, stabbed with dirks, and profaned by the very

animals themselves!
”

These sentiments of seeming respect for the dignity

and sublimity of Christ’s human nature would almost
cause us to applaud the authors of them, were it not

that they fall from lips which are the first to insult and

sneer at that dignity in the sacrament. To draw an ar-

gument against the Real Presence from the possible

indignities to which it may be exposed, is to assail the
reality of the Incarnation and Redemption itself. Was
it not unworthy the majesty of a God to debase Himself
to the lowliness of a slave; to hide both His Divinity

and Humanity, during nine long months, in a Virgin’s

womb; to be born in a stable; to be insulted by Scribe

and Pharisee; to be scourged, crowned with thorns, to

be nailed to an ignominious cross? Was it not possible,
that the blood which He shed, at the pillar, or along the
way to Calvary; that the flesh which was torn piece-

meal from His limbs, should be trampled under the feet

of His impious persecutors, or even lapped up by the

tongue of vile animals? Did He on that account inter-
rupt the course of His cruel sufferings? Ah, no!

When He loved His own, He loved them till the end.
So far from deeming these indignities unworthy of His

nature, He foretold them in detail by His prophets, and
loved to speak of them to His Apostles. What greater
outrage could He receive in this very sacrament, than
He received from one of His own disciples, who, at the
very moment that he partook of the sacred species from

the hands of his Master, was planning the means of be-

traying Him into the hands of His cruel enemies?
Finally, our adversaries charge us with idolatry in

worshipping and adoring a wafer, as they contemptu-

ously call the Blessed Sacrament.

To this Protestant objection let a Protestant answer.

Jeremy Taylor, of the Anglican Church, writes as fol-

lows: “ Idolatry is a forsaking of the true God, and giv-

ing divine worship to a creature, or to an idol, that is, to

an imaginary God, who had no foundation in essence, or

existence, and this is that kind of superstition, which by

divines is called the superstition of an undue object.

Now, it is evident that the object of the Catholic’s adora-



37

tion (that which is represented to them in their minds,

their thoughts, their purposes and which God princi-
pally, if not solely, takes estimate of human actions), in

the Blessed Sacrament, is the only True and Eternal

God, hypostatically joined with His Holy Humanity,

which humanity they believe actually present under the

veil of sacramental signs; and if they thought Him not
present, they are so far from worshipping the bread in

that case, that they themselves profess it idolatry to do

so, which is a demonstration that their soul hath noth-

ing in it that is idolatrical.” (Liberty of Prophesying,

sect. 20, N. 16. ) Our separated brethren, in their objec-

tion, forget the real nature of our doctrine. They forget

that by the words of consecration we believe the sub-

stance of the bread and wine to be changed into the real

body and blood of Jesus Christ, which, united—as these
to His Soul and Divinity—form the sole object of their
worship and adoration. Is it idolatry to adore Jesus

Christ, true God and true man?
Nor is it an objection, that He is hidden under the

sacramental veils, for was not Jesus as worthy of wor-

ship during the nine months that He lay hidden in the
Virgin’s womb, as He was when lying in the manger?
Was He less worthy of adoration when the cloud took
Him out of the disciples’ view, than when He walked
with them to the mountain of Olivet?

Moreover, this charge of idolatry implies more than

objectors intend to express. If the adoration of the

Blessed Sacrament is really an act of idolatry, then has

the Church of Christ been idolatrous from the very days

of the Apostles, and “ Christ has dealt with His Church

in a manner very unbecoming His goodness, which was

to leave her, for fifteen hundred years together in such

an error and idolatry, and that occasioned by His own

words, as was never seen or heard of in the world.”

(Coster’s Discourse.

)

Can you believe that the Son of God should have come
on earth only to exchange one error for another, one

kind of idolatry for another? It is blasphemy to enter-

tain the thought.

After all that has been said, our separated brethren

may now, perhaps, understand what before seemed to
them unintelligible, if not ridiculous. First of all, the

difference between our, and their own public worship.

When a Catholic enters any one of our churches, he has



38

scarcely passed the threshold, ere the eye of his faith

directs the eyes of his body to the altar, and the taber-

nacle, in which his Lord and Master dwells. His first
act is a genuflection, by which he adores his Lord and

God. On entering his pew, he does not immediately
seat himself and glance from worshipper to worshipper,

to discover which of his friends or acquaintances have

come to church; much less to discover the peculiar
fashions which make their appearance on the occasion,
but devoutly kneeling, he continues to adore the sole

object of his love. Hence the profound stillness, inter-

rupted only by the £olemn chant of the priest or choir,

during the celebration of the tremendous mysteries.

Hence the pomp and grandeur of the liturgical rites,
the richness of the sacerdotal robes, the splendor of gold,

the beauty of precious stones, the fragrance of flowers

and of incense.

Hence the celibacy of our clergy. Do you see that
manly, noble, reverential form which stands at the foot

of the altar, dressed in all the splendor of sacerdotal

apparel? He is the son of a merchant-prince, the heir
of millions. Scarcely had he finished his academic

course, when, one bright morning, in anguish, he re-

mained, after mass was over, kneeling in his pew, as if

wrapped in ecstasy, and burning with charity. “ Dear,

sw^eet Jesus,” whispered the youth, “Thou hasi given
me a heart do love. I feel the genial warmth of its
flame. But, oh! the objects that surround me, in the

world, and which would gain my heart, are loathing and
disgusting to me. I cannot love flesh which is doomed

to undergo the process of corruption; I cannot cherish

blood wjiich boils with the heat of unhallowed concu-

piscence. And yet, my youthful heart loves and yearns
to love. But it would love Thee alone. Sweet Jesus,

oh, that Thou wouldst allow me to espouse Thee, as the
only object worthy of my love! Would that I might
satisfy my desire, by daily standing at Thy altar, there
to become united, in that most pure, chaste, and intimate

manner, in which flesh can become united with flesh

and blood with blood; grant me to minister within Thy
sanctuary—make me, sweet Jesus, the dispenser of Thy
mysteries, make me Thy priest forever, according to the
order of Melchisedec.” His prayer is heard, his vow is

recorded in Heaven. Jesus has espoused the noble

youth as His own forever. No, the love of Jesus in this



39

sacrament cannot allow the blending of the profane, car-,

nal, with His holy, virginal love, in the ministers of this

august, this thrice Holy Sacrament.

It is at the foot of the blessed Sacrament that our

young maidens learned to devote themselves, by the

most solemn and binding vows of chastity, poverty, and

obedience, to the service and imitation of their beloved

Spouse. What has taught that beautiful, universally

loved, and admired daughter of a Senator to go and shut

herself up within the narrow confines of a convent-cell,

to breathe away the fragrance of her youth in solitary

contemplation and prayer! Desolate, afflicted mother,

what brought that sister of charity by your side, at the

moment your noble, patriotic boy, was pressing his fare-

well kisses on your tearful cheeks—what was it made
her say, in her own gentle way: “Be comforted, weep-

ing mother—behold, here am I to act a mother’s part.
I shall follow your noble boy to the field of battle; I too

shall be found upon the hard-contested field. And

should a fatal bullet be sped from hostile gun, into his

patriotic heart, I shall be there to extract the deadly

missile, or close his dimming eyes in death. Under the

open heavens—in the fetid atmosphere of the hospital
—whatever fate betide him, I shall be there to wipe
away his tears, to staunch his bleeding wounds, or pre-

pare his soul for Heaven.” Where has she learned this

heroic fortitude—this spirit of sacrifice? At the foot of
her convent-altar—at the holy table where her soul fed
so often on the bread of strength, on the wine of virgins.

Far away from that altar, exposed to danger, with only

a blanket to wrap around her weary frame,—like the
soldier, on half rations—she regrets not the simple, yet
soothing, comforts of home. The only loss she feels, is

the absence of the daily sacrifice, and the frequent com-

munions to which she was accustomed in her convent

home.

Tell me, what inspired the master-mind of that archi-

tect, who raised yonder lofty temple to the name and

glory of the God of Hosts? Who taught him to fling
those vaulted arches, as if in rivalry with the Architect

of the Universe, aloft in air? Whence did he learn to
flute and hoist those towering columns, to crown them

with their rich and varied foliage, in speaking stone and

marble? From Him, who, however concealed, is to be
present in the magnificent sanctuary of that temple, and



40

to make it His dwelling-place among the children of
men.

Tell me, thou thousand-tongued organ, and ye thous-

and chorists, who blend your varied voices in perfect
harmony with that instrument of magic sounds, who
trained your authors and master’s mind to this strange

soul-ravishing melody ? Who taught your Mozarts, your
Haydns, your Cherubinis, your Le Sueurs, and your
Lambillotes, the secret of their wondrous art? He who,
although mute and silent in His earthly temple, sent

the musical winds upon their noisy tour—who caused
the stars to sing together—who filled the pine forest
with the dirge-like notes of the plaintive winds—who
caused the zephyrs to whisper to the flowers, and the

rivulets to murmur to the rocks—who blent with all, as
in a mighty fugue, the roar of the cataract, and the peal

of the thunder!

To conclude: Who can tell all that our separated
brethren have lost in losing the Real Presence? The

food of their hungry souls—the drink of their thirsting
hearts—their real comfort in affliction—their light in
darkness—their counsellor in doubt—their strength in
weakness—their shield and armor of defence, in danger
—their hope in despondency—their life in death—their
Jesus—their all. Oh! that they, like ourselves, could
take once more this bread from Heaven—and know how
sweet is the Lord; and having been their delight during

life, oh! might it prove to them the sure pledge of ever-

lasting life in Heaven'



OF AMERICA.

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS.

PAMPHLETS AT NOMINAL COST. Per 1°?,
No. Postpaid.
1.—Refutation of Some Calumnies—Rev. J. C. Byrne $1.00

f?2.—What Is The Use Of It?—Wm. Jefferson Guernsey, M. D 1.00

3.

—How Catholics Come to be Misunderstood— Rev. Thos.
O’Gorman, D. D 2.00

4.

—Who Can Forgive Sins?—Rev. Patrick Danehy 2.00

5.

—Church or Bible—Rev. Arnold Damen, S. J 2.00

6.

—The Catholic Church and the American Republic-Wm.F.Markoe 1.50

7.

—Sacrificial Worship Essential to Religion-Rev. P.R.Heffron, D.D. 1.50

8.

—The Catholic Pages of American History—J. L. Macdonald 2.50

9.

—Our Rights and Duties as Catholics and as Citizens—Wm. J.
Onahan 2.00

10.

—Agnosticism—Rt. Rev. J. L. Spalding, D. D., Bishop of Peoria.. 2.00

11.

—On the Condition of Labor—Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII 2.50

12.

—Purgatory—Rev. Henry A. Brann, D. D 1.50
*13.—Miracles—What are they, and what is their use?—Rev. John

Gmeiner 1.50

14.

—The Conservative Power of Catholicity—Conde B. Pallen 1.50

15.

—How Christ Founded the Church—Rev. Jas. L. Meagher 1.50

16.

—The Claims of the Catholic Church in the Making of the Repub-
lic—His Eminence James Cardinal Gibbons, D. D 2 00

17.

—The Real Presence—Rev. C. F. Smarius, S. J 2.50

18.

—Jesus Christ is God—Rev. Walter Elliott 2.00

19.

—Catholicity and the American Mind—George Parsons Lathrop 1.50

20.

—Were the Middle Ages Dark?—Rt. Rev. T. F. Brennan, D. D., 2.00

21.

—Indulgences—Rt. Rev. John J. Kain, D. I)., Bishop of Wheeling 1.00

22.

—Where is Religious Truth?—R. G. Rives 1.50

23.

—The Invocation of Saints—Rev. E, McSweeny, D. D.... 1.50

24.

—Thoughts from Eacordaire 1.50

25.

—The Mass, The Proper Form of Christian Worship—Rev. J. M.
Eucey 2.00

26.

—The Holy Ghost and the Church—His Eminence Cardinal Hen-
ry Edward Manning /... 2.00

27.

—The Principle of Authority—Rev. T. F. Butler 1.50

28.

—The Virgin Mother of Jesus. Faith—Scripture—Art—Song 2.50
Assorted Lots of 100,* same ratio.

Leaflet “A”—Things Catholics do not Believe, per 100. ..15c, 1000. ..$1.00
Leaflet “B”—Catholic Converts, per .100. ..25c, 1000... 2.00
Leaflet “C”—A Fearful Responsibility, per 100. ..15c, 1000... 1.00

If larger quantities of the Pamphlets are desired, the same should
be sent by express, up to 600 copies; more than 600, to distant points,
should go by freight.

Please send funds with orders for postpaid quantities.

Unpaid quantities, to be sent by express or freight, range from 20c.
to 50c. per 100 under postpaid rates.

Single copies by mail 5c.
;
any seven, at any time, by mail 25c.

Sample copies mailed free, to the Rev. clergy, upon application.

Address,

CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY,
218 East Third Street, St. Paul, Minn.

towards the removal of prejudice regarding Catholicity. More complete
instruction can be found in “The Faith of Our Fathers,” “Catholic
Belief,” “Rational Religion,” “Points of-Controversy,” “Notes on Inger
soli,” etc., to be obtained of Catholic and other book sellers.