Christ is glorified, he will never subject Jesus to sinful men, and to the reproaches they would cause him to suffer every day but more of this hereafter.

CHAPTER V.

Concerning the audacity of the Jesuit Maldonat, in contradicting Paul and Luke, and correcting Matthew and Mark-and concerning the Fruit of the Vine.

Of all the terms used by our Lord in the institution of the Eucharist, there are none that have perplexed our opponents more than those he spake in giving the cup: "This Cup is the New Testament ;" and those in which he called what was in the cup "fruit of the vine." For, as we shall afterwards see, they are constrained to acknowledge, that in the words, "This Cup is the New Testament," there is a figure like that in the words, "This is my body,"—and to confess that the cup is called Testament, because it is the sign and commemoration of it. Besides, it is altogether improbable, that Jesus Christ called his blood" fruit of the vine."

Against these words of the Lord, "This Cup is the New Testament," recorded by Luke and Paul, the furious Jesuit, Maldonat, rages with a most impious audacity, and speaks of these two organs of the Spirit of God, as liars, who have not related the word of the Lord faithfully ; and would have us to believe the testimony of Matthew, who said, "This is my blood," and to reject that of Luke and Paul, who testify that the Lord said, "This Cup is the New Testament." The following is his comment

upon Matth. xxvi. 28: “There is no need of many words. I deny that Jesus Christ used these words; for, since Matthew, who was present, and Mark, who learned from him, both wrote, that Christ gave his blood with these words, This is my blood of the New Testament,' it is reasonable to believe that Christ used the words of Matthew and Mark, rather than those of Luke and Paul.” And a little after, maintaining that it was Christ's intention to give his real blood, he speaks of Luke and Paul, as not having comprehended the purpose of Christ, saying, "Luke and Paul seem to speak as if Christ's chief design was to declare, that he gave the New Testament, rather than his blood." He adds, "though we should even feign that Christ spoke as is written by Luke and Paul," &c.

Assuredly it is an intolerable presumption to dare to contradict an evangelist and an apostle, Luke and Paul, saying, "I deny that Christ spoke these words," thus constituting himself judge of the fidelity of the apostles, deciding which of them was the more credible; and thinking to excuse Luke and Paul, by saying, it was necessary to feign and suppose what was not. Every man, who has any remnant of modesty or fear of God, will rather choose to believe, that all the evangelists and apostles are equally worthy of credit, and that all of them have spoken truth; for if we admit that any of them have given false relations, the rest of Scripture will possess only a suspicious and doubtful authority. But, even though we should admit that Luke and Paul have varied the words of the Lord in some degree, we should, nevertheless, be constrained to believe that they were incited thereto by the Holy Spirit, in order to illustrate the words of the Lord,-to divert men's minds from gross ideas,and to deprive the spirit of error of every occasion for inventing a transubstantiation.

This Jesuit having thus maltreated Luke and Paul, commenting afterwards on these words, "I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine,"* ranks himself on the side of Luke, in opposition to Matthew and Mark; and affirms that Jesus Christ said these words, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, pointing to the paschal cup, contrary to the testimony of Matthew and Mark, who relate that Jesus spake these words over the cup of the Holy Supper. By this he certainly makes Jesus Christ a liar, for after the paschal cup he drank of the sacramental cup which contained wine.— Our Lord spoke contrary to truth, if, in drinking of the cup of the paschal lamb, he said I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, since he drank of it shortly after.Besides, Matthew and Mark make no mention of the paschal cup, consequently they do not call that fruit of the vine which might be in a cup whereof they did not speak. On this point Maldonat has antiquity, Popes, Councils, and even Jesuits for adversaries, who maintain that these words I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, ought to be understood of the Sacramental cup. Cyprian writes, (63 Epistle,)"The Lord said, I say unto you, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, until the day I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.— Herein we find that it was a mixed cup that the Lord offered, and that what he called his blood was wine."

The Council of Worms acknowledges, in the fourth chapter, that "there was wine in the mystery of our redemption, when the Lord said, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine."+ Pope Innocent III. asserts, in the Mysteries of the Mass, "that it was manifestly wine which

* Mald. in Math. xxvi. 29.-† Apud Ivonem, part ii. fol. 65.

Christ consecrated in the cup, because he added, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine."* The Catechism of the Council of Trent holds the same doctrine in the chapter on the Eucharist: "The Catholic Church has always taught, that the Saviour used wine in the institution of this Sacrament, seeing that he himself said, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine." The Jesuit Salmeron held the same opinion. It was likewise maintained by Vasquez, on the third part of Thomas, "I think that Christ said these words, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, concerning the cup of his blood."+ Το prove this opinion, he has recourse to the Fathers.

CHAPTER VI.

Of the great dishonour done to Jesus Christ by this doctrine,-of the indelible character,-and of the power of creating our Creator.

The mere artifices practised in the Mass, are alone sufficient to expose the abuse, and make every man shudder with borror who loves the Lord Jesus. At the end of the old Roman Decretal, there are added various penitential Canons, the thirty-ninth of which runs thus: "When a mouse eats or gnaws the body of Jesus Christ, look the second distinction of the consecration towards the end, for the penance prescribed for this case."

At the beginning of the new Missal, revised and corrected by the Pope's authority, there is a treatise

* L. iv. c. 27—† Salm. tom. ix. Treat. 14.- Disput. 96, c. 4.

on the accidents that may happen in celebrating the Mass,, which contains the following rules: "If the host disappears by some accident, such as being carried away by the wind, or by some miracle, or hath been eaten by some beast, and cannot be found, then another may be consecrated, recommencing at the Qui pridie of the Mass."* And in the tenth chapter: "If a fly or spider fall into the cup, and if the Priest's stomach do not nauseate it, and he have no fear of danger, let him swallow the fly or spider with the blood." In the same chapter (sec. xi.) it is added, "if the blood freeze in the cup in winter, let it be wrapped in warm linen." Mark these words, " if the blood freeze." While Jesus is in heaven in great glory, it is proposed to thaw him on earth. Let them tell us of what body or substance that is which is frozen in the cup; for ice certainly is a body. But the most remarkable passage found in this chapter, is the following: "Should the Priest vomit the Eucharist, and the host appear whole, he must eat it again with reverence, provided it does not produce nauseous loathing; for then it would be necessary to wipe it carefully, and to deposit it in the shrine of relics."

Pope Innocent III. broaches a very important question in the fourth book of the Mysteries of the Mass. He asks, if a priest who has nothing in his stomach but consecrated wafers, is seized with dysentery, quelle est la matière qui sort de son corps? From this difficulty the Pope adroitly extricates himself, saying, with the Apostle, "Let no man think himself wiser than he ought, but let him think soberly,"

By these things it appears that God, incensed against

• De defectibus cir. Miss. Occur. c. iii. sec. 7.