The bread is understood to have become the real body of Christ before it is broken, else it would not be the breaking of his body. The change takes place on pronouncing the words, Hoc est corpus meum, which is done before breaking. But the apostle speaks of it as still bread after the blessing, that is, after what are called the words of consecration; nay, he calls it bread after it has been broken. "The cup of blessing which we bless, (that is, for which we bless God, or give thanks,) is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread (not the body) which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread." 1 Cor. x. 16, 17.

The last expression might indeed be rendered one loaf, which shows the unity of the church or body of Christ; and upon the popish mode of interpretation, the many members of the church in Corinth were transubstantiated into one loaf, and at the same time, really and literally, into one human body, or into one individual person, for if it be a living body, we must suppose it to have a soul. And the church of Rome is not satisfied with representing the bread as changed into the body of Christ, but also into his soul and divinity, for these are inseparable; then, I say, upon this principle, when Paul used these words, We being many are one body," not only the church in Corinth, but he himself, and all the Christians in the world, were instantly converted into a single individual. This is very absurd; but it is not so absurd as the popish doctrine of transubstantiation. It is easier to suppose a number of creatures converted into one, than to suppose a piece of bread converted into the living God.

66

The advocates of transubstantiation affect to have scriptural authority for the doctrine in the words of Christ, John vi. 50, 51. "This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." To the same purpose, verses 53-55, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 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 indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." This is very plain and easy to be understood by those whose faith rests upon the word of God. Christ was addressing a crowd of people who were anxious about a meal of meat. They had seen him, in a miraculous manner, feed many thousands by a few loaves and fishes. Some of them had eaten of the food thus provided; and they followed him to the other side of the lake, as appears, with no higher motive than to get another meal, without working or paying for it. Jesus knew, and reproved their sordid and selfish disposition. "Ye seek me," says he, "not because ye saw the miracles; but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled." He tells them that they ought to be more concerned to obtain heavenly blessings, than even their necessary food. Labour not for the meat which perisheth; but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man will give unto you." Verses 26, 27. This heavenly food was the doctrine concerning himself, as devoted, and about to offer himself to God, a sacrifice for the sins of the world; and it was to be

enjoyed by believing in him, or coming to him, for these are expressions of precisely the same import. Jesus said unto them, (ver. 35,) I am the bread of life: he that cometh unto me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." Here the words coming and believing, are what are called convertible terms; the one may be used for the other, in the two clauses of the sentence, and the meaning will be precisely the same. Now, coming and believing, or, say believing itself, in relation to hunger and thirst, must be something else than literally eating and drinking, especially as it relates to the flesh and blood of a living person. In short, the doctrine of Christ crucified is proposed for the acceptance and belief of sinners of the human race; and he that believes it shall be saved. "This," says Jesus, (ver. 40,) is the will of him that sent me, that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life." Believing in Christ is as necessary to the life of the soul, as eating and drinking are to that of the body. As the eagerness of the people to obtain food, led him to direct their minds to that which is spiritual and eternal; and as they reminded him of what Moses had done in giving manna to their fathers in the wilderness, he takes occasion to tell them that it was not Moses, but his Father who gave the manna to their fathers; that his Father now gave the true bread from heaven, that of which the manna was only a type or shadow, and that by believing in him their souls should live, as by eating the manna the people lived in the wilderness.

66

But the church of Rome will have it, that Christ here speaks of literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood, which is the very mistake of the carnal Jews. They "strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" This was a very natural question, supposing him to speak of literally eating his body. It was a kind of food to which the Jews had not been accustomed, and for the eating of which there was no warrant in their law. They "said, This is a hard saying, who can hear it?" and from that day many who were called disciples, as having professed to be for a time his followers, went back, and walked no more with him. Now the church of Rome really holds and teaches at this day, the very doctrine for which the carnal Jews were condemned. Papists maintain that, literally, Christ gives his body to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk. The Jews, mistaking his meaning, understood him to teach this doctrine, and therefore they rejected both it and him, because the thing was absurd and impious; and the Papists, mistaking his meaning, have adopted the construction of the carnal Jews, and they maintain it most pertinaciously, though it be absurd and impious.

Those who partake of the Lord's supper unworthily, are said, 1 Cor. xi. 29, to eat and drink judgment to themselves, not discerning the Lord's body," from which some popish writers triumphantly exclaim, How can they discern the Lord's body if it be not there?" To this it may be enough to reply, that it is there under the symbolical representation of the elements of bread and wine, which he appointed to represent his body in that holy ordinance. The believing Israelite discerned the Lord's body in the paschal lamb, which prefigured the sacrifice of Christ; but I suppose no Jew ever imagined that the lamb was the real Messiah; so every one who eats the Lord's supper in faith,

discerns the Lord's body in the symbols which represent and commemorate his death; but it was reserved for the church of Rome to excel in impiety and absurdity all that had been foolishly maintained by the Jews in times of the greatest apostasy and idolatry, by teaching that the symbols which represent the Saviour are really the Saviour himself.

It is reported of a plain common-sense man, that when somebody denied that there was such a thing as motion, he thought it a sufficient reply to rise up and walk: so to any person who maintains that a piece of bread is the real body of Christ, it might be a sufficient answer to hold it up before his eyes. Our sight is the most perfect of all our senses. We cannot properly be said to believe, but rather to know a thing to be what we see it to be. But the thing in question is not subject to the evidence of one sense only. The touch, the taste, and the smell, as well as the sight, unite in bearing testimony to the identity of the thing consecrated, with what it was before consecration. What were bread and wine, we see, and feel, and taste, and smell, to be bread and wine still; and though an angel were to come from heaven, and tell us that these are not bread and wine, but the real natural body of Jesus Christ, which was born of Mary, we would not be bound to believe him. The Almighty deals with us as with rational creatures. He never called us to believe any thing that is unreasonable, or impossible, or contrary to the evidence of our senses; and when he condescended to work a miracle by the instrumentality of any of his servants, the senses of men were appealed to, and were actually the judges of the reality of the miracle. No prophet or apostle ever had the effrontery to tell the people that he had wrought a miracle, when the people saw nothing done; but this downright insulting impudence is practised by Romish priests every day.

66

If the doctrine of transubstantiation were true, we could not be sure of the truth of any thing else. It is, says Dean Swift, a "doctrine, the belief of which, makes every thing else unbelievable." Supposing," says Archbishop Tillotson, "supposing this doctrine had been delivered in scripture, in the very same words that it is decreed in the council of Trent, by what clearer evidence could any man prove to me that such words were in the Bible, than I can prove to him that bread and wine after consecration, are bread and wine still? He could but appeal to my eyes to prove such words to be in the Bible; and with the same reason and justice might I appeal to several of his senses, to prove to him, that the bread and wine after consecration, are bread and wine still." Discourse on Transubstantiation, Sermons, folio, p. 278.

If a man were to tell me, that he really believes this doctrine, I should hesitate before I would believe any thing that he should say; in short, I would not take the bare word of such a man, or even his oath, in order to verify any fact whatever. His mind must have become familiar with deceit and falsehood. Every time he attends mass, or receives the sacrament, he hears the priest tell a lie, when he declares the bread and wine to be the real body and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ, and when as such he holds them up to be adored. Now the communicant either knows this to be a lie, or he discredits the testimony of his own senses. Take it either way, it will make his testimony unworthy of credit, and his word ought not to be believed without some corroborating evidence.

VOL. 1-53

Take it thus-When the priest has pronounced the words, Hoc est corpus meum, and when he affirms that what was bread the moment before, is not bread now, but the real body and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ,—the receiver of the sacrament knows it to be a lie. I say, if this be the case, such a person is not worthy to be believed in any matter whatever; because, he who gives his countenance to a lie in one case, will do it in another: and by the daily habit of witnessing, and professing his belief in a lie, he becomes callous to all right feeling with regard to truth and falsehood. This I take to be one reason, why it is impossible to find Papists adhering to truth, when engaged in controversy about their religion.

Or take it thus:-He believes what the priest tells him, that the bread upon the altar is, on pronouncing the words of consecration, instantly converted into the real natural body of Christ, &c., and of course he disbelieves his own senses. Then, I say, this man ought not to be believed in any thing else. His eyesight deceives him in one case, and why not in another? He sees a thing to be plain bread, but he believes it to be the person of the living Saviour. I would not take this man's word for the identity of any person or thing in the world. He himself cannot be sure of any thing. Suppose him brought to give evidence in a court of justice, he can give no credible evidence. Suppose he appears as a witness against or in favour of a criminal, he cannot be sure that the person at the bar is the same man whom he had seen commit a certain action, or that he is the same man who had lived many years, and behaved well in his neighbourhood. It is much more likely, that, by a mistake in his vision, he should take one man for another, than that he should take a piece of bread for a man. But he does the latter every day; therefore, he may do the former at any time. If he is so much deceived by all the sénses of seeing, feeling, smelling, and tasting, how can he depend upon the single sense of hearing? I would not believe such a man's report of any words which he had heard. Words are mere sounds, which being conveyed by the medium of the air, fall upon the ear, and produce the effect which we call hearing. We cannot be so sure of what reaches the mind through this sense, as of that which we see with our eyes. A man, therefore, who is every day deceived in the sense of seeing, is more likely to be deceived in that of hearing; and I would not take that man's word, or even his oath, for any thing that he professed to have heard or seen.

1

CHAPTER LVII.

THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION NOT A DOCTRINE OF ANTIQUITY. POPISH
WRITERS AS QUOTED BY TILLOTSON. HISTORY OF ITS INTRODUCTION.

SATURDAY, August 14th, 1819.

HOLY councils can tell lies with as little scruple as any pope of Rome, or any vender of old clothes in the Saltmarket. The worthy associate of Messrs. Simeon and M'Hardy will understand the allusion, and he will be pleased to see that I have not overlooked him altogether. But the falsehood to which I at present refer, is a broad and barefaced

one, asserted by the holy council of Trent. Speaking of transubstantiation, they say, it has always been believed in the church of God. Now the fact is, it was never believed in the church of God; and I shall proceed to prove, that it was not always believed in the church of Rome.

The Bible contains the whole belief of the church of God, and as we find nothing of transubstantiation there, we might satisfy ourselves with giving the assertion of the holy fathers of the council a broad denial. Some of the greatest writers and divines, even of the Romish church, admit that the doctrine cannot be proved from the Bible. ScoTUS himself, the great oracle and schoolman, is represented, by Bellarmine and others, as having said, that the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot, evidently, be proved from scripture; and Bellarmine himself grants that this is not improbable. Suarez and Valasquez acknowledge Durandus to have said as much; and Ocham, another famous schoolman, says expressly, that "the doctrine which holds the substance of the bread and wine to remain after consecration, is neither repugnant to reason nor scripture." Petrus ab Alliaco, cardinal of Cambray, says plainly, "that the doctrine of the substance of bread and wine remaining after consecration, is more easy and free from absurdity, more rational, and no ways repugnant to the authority of scripture." Nay, he says expressly, that for the other doctrine, that is, transubstantiation, "there is no evidence in scripture." Gabriel Biel, another great schoolman and divine of their church, freely declares, "that, as to any thing expressed in the canon of scripture, a man may believe that the substance of bread and wine doth remain after consecration :" and therefore, he resolves the belief of transubstantiation into some other revelation, besides scripture, which he supposes the church had about it. Cardinal Cajetan confesses, "that the gospel doth nowhere express that the bread is changed into the body of Christ; that we have this from the authority of the church:" Nay, he goes farther, "that there is nothing in the gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ, This is my body,' in a proper, and not in a metaphorical sense; but the church having understood them in a proper sense, they are to be so explained." Fisher, bishop of Rochester, who is ranked by the church of Rome among her martyrs, candidly admits, that there is not one word in scripture, "from whence the true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ, in our mass, can be proved." Most of these divines were firm believers in the doctrine; but they had honesty enough to confess, that they did not derive it from the Bible, but only from some other revelation, which they suppose the church to have had about it. Some of them, indeed, seem to rest it upon the mere authority of the church; but whether she had it by a revelation in her private ear, or invented it, they do not inquire. The above extracts are quoted from a discourse on transubstantiation, by Archbishop Tillotson, who refers in the margin to the books and chapters from which they are taken.

Here then we have the admission of many great divines of the Romish church, that transubstantiation is not a doctrine of the Bible. It is not therefore a doctrine believed by the church of God at any time; and I shall now proceed to prove that it was not always believed even by the church of Rome. I shall take the same discourse of