is unable to comprehend how that identical liquor can have been literal human blood. For Christ does not more explicitly say THIS is my blood, than he denominates the consecrated fluid, THIS offspring of the

vine.

(2.) Exactly the same result is brought out from the strictly analogous language employed by St. Paul.

Speaking of the material substance on the patin after consecration, he twice denominates it THIS bread.*

Now what, after consecration, was the specific nature of that substance? The Roman catholic assures us, that the substance in question was not bread, but human flesh. St. Paul assures us, that the substance in question was not human flesh, but bread.

The Anglican catholic cannot reconcile St. Paul and his Roman brother. If the Latin interpretation be adopted, the apostle is placed at direct variance with his divine Master. For, in such case, that identical substance, which Christ declares to be his own literal flesh, Paul unreservedly pronounces to be bread.

3. In addition to this incompatibility of the Latin interpretation with the terms in which the institution of the Eucharist has been recorded, it appears, so far as the Anglican catholic can judge, directly to contradict other declarations of Holy Scripture.

(1.) St. John has preserved to us a very remarkable discourse of our Lord, which was delivered in the synagogue of Capernaum, both before the assembled Jews and before his own disciples.

On the subject of his feeding the church with his own flesh and blood, his language was so strong, that the disciples murmured, and that the Jews indignantly asked, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?† From the tenor of the narrative, it is evident that

* 1 Corinth. xi. 26, 27.

John vi. 52, 60, 61.

both the disciples and the Jews understood him literally; but then it is no less evident, that he corrected their mistake, and that he taught them to understand him figuratively.

It is the spirit that quickeneth, said he in manifest explanation of the words which had given so much offence; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.*

Our Lord himself teaches us, we see, that his language is to be interpreted figuratively, not literally. But the Roman catholic maintains, that his language is to be interpreted literally, not figuratively. The exposition of the Roman catholic, therefore, directly contradicts an inspired declaration recorded in Holy Scripture.

(2.) Nor is this the only declaration of Scripture which clashes with the Latin theory.

It was foretold by the prophet David, that God would not suffer his Holy One to see corruption.t

Now, St. Peter, speaking by undoubted inspiration, teaches us infallibly, that this prediction related to the circumstance of the flesh of Christ not seeing corruption according to the general lot of humanity: for, agreeably.to the purport of the sacred oracle, he rose again on the third day, ere corruption had taken place.‡

The special privilege, then, of the human nature of Christ was, that his flesh should never see corruption. He would mysteriously unite the godhead to the manhood; and, as man, he would suffer and die on our behalf: but still, corruption should never invade that holy flesh, which, without confusion of substance, had been assumed into God.

Thus ran the prophecy; and thus, as St. Peter assures us, was it accurately accomplished. But, by the Latin interpretation, the purpose of God, in

* John vi, 63, † Psalm xvi. 10.

+ Acts ii. 22-32.

regard to the human nature of Christ, is completely frustrated. So far from the Holy One of God never seeing corruption, the literal flesh and blood of Christ, if the doctrine of transubstantiation be true, see corruption again and again, by the necessary process of digestion, every revolving year and month and week.

(3.) There is yet another plain contradictoriness to Scripture, which is fatally involved in the doctrine of transubstantiation.

*

If we adopt the figurative scheme of exposition, we may innocently call the celebration of the Eucharist a spiritual sacrifice; for even our very prayers are allegorical sacrifices offered up to God; but, if we adopt the literal scheme of exposition, we immediately produce a direct contradiction to Holy Scripture.

The doctrine of the Latin church is, that, in the celebration of the Eucharist, the priest offers up the literal body and blood of Christ to God, as a true and proper expiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead. Christ, therefore, according to the decision of the Latin church, is REPEATEDLY offered. But, in Holy Writ, we are positively assured, that Christ was offered only ONCE.†

Hence, so far as I can see, the Latin church and Holy Writ, through the agency of the doctrine of transubstantiation, are placed in direct variance with each other. The term ONCE bears a sense immediately opposite to the term REPEATEDLY. According to Scripture, Christ is ONCE offered; according to the Latin church, Christ is REPEATEDLY offered. This variation can only be reconciled by proving, that the term ONCE and the term REPEATEDLY are equipollent.

Such are the glaring contradictions to Scripture,

*Hos. xiv. 2.

† Heb. ix. 28. x. 10. 1 Pet. iii. 18.

which inevitably attend upon the doctrine of transubstantiation. How a doctrine so circumstanced can be true, it is difficult to comprehend; but, if the doctrine be erroneous, the exposition, upon which the doctrine is founded, must certainly be erroneous also. The literal interpretation of our Lord's words, This is my body and this is my blood, CANNOT, by any conceivable hermeneutic mechanism, be established as the true interpretation. But, if the literal interpretation be thus displaced by the very necessity of Scripture itself, the figurative interpretation must inevitably be adopted.

II. Though the figurative interpretation of our Lord's words be thus plainly required by Seripture when compared with Scripture, yet so great is the authority of the catholic church nearest to the times of the apostles, that we cannot but be anxious to ascertain the interpretation which she was led to prefer and to adopt.

What the apostles taught, relative to the Eucharist, must assuredly for many years have been the doctrine of the church. Through the lapse of ages, error might gradually creep in; but it could not have subsisted from the beginning. If then, during the term of several centuries, we shall find that the figurative interpretation was the interpretation adopted by th early catholic church, we shall possess a moral cer tainty of its truth. For, after we have been driven to the scheme of figurative interpretation by the very necessity of Scripture itself, if we find this identical scheme of interpretation adopted by the early catholic church, I see not what more decisive evidence can be reasonably desired. In that case, let the literal scheme have crept in when it may, it must inevitably stand forth as an unauthorized and convicted novelty. Whatever is first, is true; whatever is more recent, is spurious.

1. It must be confessed, that the early ecclesiastical writers frequently use language respecting the

Eucharist, which may easily either mislead the superficial theologian, or seduce the interested polemic into the iniquity of partial citation.

Thus, even in the second century, Justin remarks, that "We receive not the elements as common 'bread or as common wine: but, in what manner, Christ our Saviour, being made flesh through the 'word of God, took flesh and blood for our salvation; in like manner also we are taught, that the aliment, 'from which our blood and flesh are nourished by 'transmutation, being received with thanks through 'the prayer of the word instituted by himself, is the 'flesh and the blood of that Jesus who was made 'flesh."*

Thus also, in the fourth century, Cyril of Jerusalem teaches the catechumens who had been recently baptized: "When Christ himself hath declared and 'spoken concerning the bread, This is my body; who 'shall henceforth dare to hesitate? And, when he 'hath peremptorily pronounced and asserted, This is 'my blood; who shall venture to doubt, saying that it is not his blood? He once, at the marriage-feast ' in Cana of Galilee, changed the water into wine; 'shall we not then give him credit for changing the 'wine into blood? If, when called to a mere corporeal marriage, he wrought that great wonder; shall we not much rather confess, that he hath given the 'fruition of his own body and blood to the sons of 'the bridegroom?"t

6

* Justin. Apol. i. vulg. ii. p. 76, 77.

I have

Cyril. Catech. Mystag. iv. p. 237. Lutet. Paris. 1631. selected this passage, because, so far as I know, it is the strongest which can be produced from antiquity in favour of the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation. Its strength consists in an apparent comparison between the changing of the water into wine at Cana, and the changing of the wine into blood by the prayer of consecration; whence an argument may immediately be constructed, that, since the change in the sacramental elements is compared to the confessedly physical change of the water at Cana, the change in the sacramental elements must itself be physical also.