on inquiring what they are, he learns, this is Socrates, that Plato, &c. Is he deceived by this information? Not at all: he knows well that the busts he sees are not the identical persons of these ancient philosophers, poets, orators, historians, and emperors, but only representations of their persons in sculpture, between which and the originals were is as essential a difference as between a human body, instinct with all the principles of rational vitality, and a block of marble. When, therefore, Christ took up a piece of bread, brake it, and said, This is my body, who but the most stupid of mortals could imagine that he was at the same time handling and breaking his own body? Would not any person of plain common sense, see as great a difference between the man Christ Jesus and a piece of bread, as between the block of marble and the philospher it represented, in the case referred to above? The truth is, there is scarcely a more common form of speech in any language, than, this is, for this represents, or signifies. And as our Lord refers, in the whole of this translation, to the ordinance of the passover, we may consider him as saying, 'This bread is now my body, in that sense in which the paschal lamb was my body hitherto; and this cup is my blood of the New Testament, in the same sense as the blood of bulls and goats has been my blood under the Old; Exod. xxiv. Heb. ix; i. e. the paschal lamb, and the springling of blood, represented my sacrifice to the present time; this bread and this wine shall represent my body and blood through all future ages: therefore, do this in remembrance of me.'" Ibid. p. 53, 54.

There a certain persons of extreme liberality, who are disposed to think the best of every system that is opposed to divine revelation, and to stigmatize as narrow-minded persons, those who will concede nothing which they conceive to rest on divine authority. Such liberales will effect to consider transubstantiation as a mere obsolete dogma of the dark ages; very absurd, to be sure, but a thing that no liberalminded man would lay to the charge of "enlightened Catholics" of the present day. It is, indeed, nearly three hundred years since the council of Trent ordained the canon, which I have given in this number: I do not know how long it is since the Douay doctors composed their catechism, of which I gave the section on transubstantiation in my fourth number: and I admit the possibility of persons, in an enlightened age, renouncing, in effect, the nonsense of a dark age, while they swear to the very words by which such nonsense is expressed. But our modern Papists have no right to avail themselves of this admission; for every priest among them not only swears to maintain every doctrine of the council of Trent, but, in the most recent summaries of religion published by authority in the church of Rome, the doctrine of transubstantiation is maintained in all the grossness of the darkest ages. To prove this, I shall transcribe the eighth lesson of the" Catechism for the use of all the churches in the French empire," published in 1806, by the authority of NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, with the bull of the pope, and the mandamus of the archbishop of Paris.

"Q. What is the sacrament of the eucharist? A. The eucharist is a sacrament which contains really and substantially the body, blood, soul, and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the forms or appearance of bread and wine. Q. What is at first put on the altar, and in the chalice? Is it not bread and wine? A. Yes: and it continues to be

bread and wine till the priest pronounces the words of consecration. Q. What influence have these words? A. The bread is changed into the body, and the wine into the blood, of our Lord. Q. Does nothing of the bread and wine remain? A. Nothing of them remains except the forms. Q. What do you call the forms of the bread and wine? A. That which appears to our senses; as, colour, figure, and taste. Q. Is there nothing under the form of bread, except the body of our Lord? A. Besides his body, there is his blood, his soul, and divinity; because all these are inseparable. Q. And under the form of wine? A. Jesus Christ is there as entire as under the form of bread. Q. When the forms of the bread and wine are divided, is Jesus Christ divided? A. No: Jesus Christ remains entire under each part of the form divided. Q Say, in a word, what Jesus Christ gives us under each form? A. All that he is; that is, perfect God, and perfect man. Q. Does Jesus Christ leave heaven to come into the eucharist? A. No: he always continues at the right hand of God, his Father, till he shall come at the end of the world, with great glory, to judge the living and the dead. Q. How then can he be present at the altar? A. By the almighty power of God. Q. Then it is not man that works this miracle? A. No: it is Jesus Christ, whose word is employed in the sacrament. Q. Then it is Jesus Christ who consecrates? A. It is Jesus Christ who consecrates; the priest is only his minister. Q. Must we worship the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the eucharist? A. Yes, undoubtedly; for this body, and this blood, are inseparably united to his divinity."

Such is the doctrine of the church of Rome in the nineteenth century, concerning the conversion of the bread and wine, in the Lord's supper, into the real body, and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ; and the reader will see that it is not a whit modified, or divested of any of the absurdities which attached to it in the dark ages. To this very day, whenever the "eucharist" is celebrated in the church of Rome, the priest having, by the words of consecration, turned the piece of bread into his God, adores it; and holds it up to be adored by the people. He does the same with the cup, which, in the language of the mass book, is called "this excellent chalice;" and, in the said mass book, we have the following "divine office for the use of the laity:". The person who is to communicate, is ordered to go up to the rails, kneel down, and say the confiteor, (confession,) with true sorrow and compunction for his sins. After the priest has prayed that God may have mercy upon him, and pardon all his sins, he takes the sacred host (i. e. the consecrated wafer) into his hand, and again turns about, and says, Behold the Lamb of God! Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world! Then he and the communicant repeat thrice, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof; speak, therefore, but the word, and my soul shall be healed;' the communicant striking his breast, in token of his unworthiness. Then, says the directory, "having the towel raised above your breast, your eyes modestly closed, your head likewise raised up, and your mouth conveniently opened, receive the holy sacrament on your tongue, resting on your under lip; then close your mouth, and say in your heart, amen: I believe it to be the body of Christ, and I pray it may preserve my soul to eternal life." Ordinary of the Mass, page xxxiii. from Clarke on the Eucharist, pages 57, 58.

As there are some things so plain and self-evident, that it is difficult to prove them by argument; so there are some things so extremely absurd and ridiculous that it is difficult to expose them, or make serious argument to bear upon them. Transubstantiation is an absurdity of

this sort. It is more absurd than to assert that the full moon is an Ayrshire cheese; and I suppose it would be difficult to undeceive a man who should make this assertion, by means of serious argument. There are some plausible reasons which he could give for his belief; for instance, he might assert, and appeal to the senses of every man for the truth of it, that the full moon is precisely the size, and shape, and colour, of a good rich Ayrshire cheese; and that, when she is in the meridian, she is right in the direction of Ayrshire from Glasgow. Now, I defy all the Papists in the world to give so many good reasons for believing that a piece of bread, in the form of a wafer, or small biscuit, is not bread, but a real human body. I intend, however, to argue the matter seriously, in my next number, unless I find it impossible.

CHAPTER LVI.

EXPOSITION OF CHRIST'S WORDS ON INSTITUTING THE SUPPER.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION

NOT ONLY AN ABSURD, BUT A PERNICIOUS DOCTRINE. THE MAN WHO PROFESSES TO BELIEVE IT, NOT TO BE BELIEVED IN ANY THING HE SAYS.

SATURDAY, August 7th, 1819.

THE doctrine of the church of Rome, on the subject of the Lord's supper, is, that after the priest has pronounced the words of consecration, "This is my body," the bread which stood before him upon the altar, or which he held in his hand, is no longer bread, but the real body and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ; and that a similar change takes place with regard to the wine in the cup, after the priest has pronounced the words, "This is my blood, &c." This, says the council of Trent, has always been believed in the church of God; and "this conversion is fitly and properly termed, by the holy Catholic church, transubstantiation."

I showed, in my last number, that there is no foundation for this doctrine in the words of Christ; and that the use of the substantive verb, in the words, "This is my body," according to the idiom of the language in which they were spoken, could express no more than, this signifies, or represents, my body; yet, it is upon the use of the substantive verb, that the church of Rome has built the monstrous fabric of transubstantiation, adoration of the host, and the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass.

Let us now attend to the words of Christ, and consider in what sense they were understood by his disciples. "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it: for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins." Matt. xxvi. 26-28. If the reader will take the trouble to compare this extract with the passage, as it stands in his Bible, he will find that I have

omitted the pronoun it, which is introduced several times by the translators, distinguished, however, as their supplements usually are, by being printed in italics. They no doubt understood, that the word blessed referred to the bread which our Lord took in his hand; and if this were the meaning, their supplement would be correct; but I apprehend this is a mistake; and a mistake which has led many Protestants to suppose that some mysterious change takes place; or that some holiness is imparted to the bread and wine, in the Lord's supper, which they had not before the blessing was pronounced. The ordinance, undoubtedly, is holy. Christ sanctifies it by his presence, wherever it is observed according to his appointment; and the believing communicant really partakes, in a spiritual manner, of the benefits of his death. But, in order to this, it is not necessary that the elements of bread and wine should be, in any respect, different from what they were before.

66

In the original Greek, there is no word corresponding to the pronoun it, which our translators have supplied. The original, in the twenty-sixth verse, is cuλoyneas, which more properly signifies, "blessed God." He took bread, and blessed God;" that is, he gave thanks, which is the literal meaning of the word cuxaporngas, in the twentyseventh verse, which is used in reference to the cup. I think there can be no doubt that the meaning of our Lord, in reference to both elements, was the same. It was the practice of pious Jews to have a short prayer, both before the meat and the drink which they used at their tables, a practice which is observed by religious families, where wine is used after dinner, at this day. In conformity with a laudable and religious custom, and also as an example to his people, not only in the observance of this ordinance, but in the use of their ordinary meals, which are to be sanctified by the word of God and prayer, Christ blessed God, or gave thanks to God, on taking the bread, and also on taking the cup.

That Christ blessed God, and not the bread, is farther evident from the word which both Luke and Paul make use of, to express what he did on that occasion. It is evxaporneas, the very same word which Matthew uses in relation to the cup, and which signifies, gave thanks; and so our translators have rendered it, Luke xxii. 19. And he took bread, and gave thanks ;" and, 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, he "took bread, and when he had giren thanks, he brake it, and said," &c. Here the pronoun it is properly supplied, because the action of breaking refers to the bread alone. I conclude, therefore, that the words blessing and giving thanks are expressions of precisely the same import, and that God is the object of both.

Christ took bread into his hands, no doubt, and brake it, and said, This is my body. The disciples were witnesses of the action, and they heard his words. Now let us suppose how we would have understood him, had we been in the place of the disciples. They were men of the same feelings and perceptions with ourselves; and as we would have felt and thought, they must have thought and felt. Unless we admit this, we set aside the credibility of the apostles' testimony altogether. If we say they were men of other feelings and perceptions than we are, then we cannot judge of their testimony according to those rules of evidence which are applied to the "witness of men.'

They

saw their Lord reclining at table, and taking bread in his hands; they saw him break the bread, they received the broken pieces into their own hands, and they ate them. They heard him say, This is my body; but they expressed no surprise, which they would have done, had they seen him break his body in pieces, with his own hands, and give the fragments to them to be eaten. We know that such an unexpected operation would overwhelm us with astonishment and dismay; and it would have done the same to the disciples had it actually taken place. They would have been, if possible, still more surprised, if, after having eaten his body, they still saw him reclining where he was, taking a cup into his hands, and telling them that this was his blood, which they were now to drink. Viewing the matter as it really was, that the bread and the wine represented his body and his blood, which were about to be broken and shed, every thing is plain and intelligible; but; viewing it in any other light, the thing is absurd and impossible. Had the disciples ate the body of Christ, that which appeared and spoke to them afterwards must have been a mere phantom. It must have been a phantom that was crucified, and not a real crucifixion. Then there was no real sacrifice offered to God upon the cross; no real atonement for sin; then a propitiatory sacrifice is still necessary; and the church of Rome professes to have one to offer every day, that is, the mass, which they call a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and

the dead.

Thus we see that transubstantiation is not a mere harmless absur

dity to be laughed at. It strikes at the root of the Christian religion. It subverts the doctrine of the cross of Christ; and removes the only foundation on which a sinner can hope for the pardon of his sins, and the salvation of his soul. Some senators are reported lately to have said, that it hurt the feelings of certain Protestants to be obliged, in order to admission into certain offices, to make the declaration which the law requires against transubstantiation. I am persuaded that these tender-hearted Protestants, and the senators who pleaded for them, do not know what transubstantiation is, else they would use much stronger language in condemning it than the law requires; and certainly persons ought to know what it is which they declare against, as well as what they declare for.

If it were true that the elements in the Lord's supper were changed into something which they were not before, we would expect to find the inspired writers speaking of them after the change by the name of the thing into which they were changed or transubstantiated. For instance, in 1 Cor. xi. 26-28, we should read, " For as often as ye eat this body, and drink this blood, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this body, and drink this blood, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that body and drink of that blood." Such would be a true popish reading; but to show that the apostle had no idea of transubstantiation, he calls the elements plain bread and wine to the end of the sentence. By a figure of speech, indeed, he uses the word cup for the wine which was in it; but upon the popish principle of interpretation, there was no wine at all, and no need of any; the cup itself literally must be taken for the blood of Christ.