of the institution of the Eucharist, | means, this is transubstantiated into I maintain that the Church of Rome my body, then "this cup is the herself does not adhere to the literal new testament in my blood" must language. My opponent has talked, mean this cup is transubstantiated in high terms, about my use of the into the New Testament. If we words oriental, figurative, and me- take this literal interpretation which taphorical. I can show that the is thus contended for,-"this is my Church of Rome herself, when it body, this is my blood," then let us suits her purpose to twist a pas- honestly and impartially carry out sage, abandons the literal and takes the principle through all similar up this figurative, this same ori- passages of Scripture. Let us ental, and so much scouted prin- maintain this homogeneous interciple of interpretation on my part. pretation throughout. What then These very words, "this is my does it lead to? "I am the true body," she does not take up lite- vine," said our Lord. Now if he rally: she says, "this is my body," had said, "this is my true body," means, "this is transubstantiated then, you observe, there would into my body;" not even so lite- have been stronger ground for the rally as this, but she says, "this is Church of Rome's saying, that it transubstantiated into the body and is turned into his very flesh and blood, the soul and divinity of the his blood. He does not say so, Son of God." And, therefore, in- however; but he does say, "I am stead of taking these words in their the true vine." Now if the Church literal sense, for which she so of Rome holds that, when our Lord strenuously and perseveringly con- said "this is my body," the bread tends, we find that the Church of was turned into flesh, or that he Rome, in the very passage she meant " my flesh," then she must quotes as the stronghold of Tran- hold, by a parity of reasoning, that substantiation, departs, because it when Christ said, "I am the true suits her object, from the literal, vine," he was really transubstanand assumes the figurative; and tiated into a vine, whose roots were yet we Protestants alone are guilty to strike into the hills, whose of "oriental" interpretations. boughs were to spread forth over the valleys, and whose branches were to be covered with clusters of ripe and pendant grapes. Now, is the Church of Rome prepared to go this monstrous length? Again, our Lord says, "I am the door." She must be prepared, therefore, to show, either that our Lord was actually transubstantiated into " door," or to give some decisive reason why she should depart from the literal interpretation.

a

But these are not all the orientalisms and figures of which this advocate of literality is guilty; for when she comes to interpret the passage, "this cup is the new testament in my blood," the Church abandons her principle, and has recourse to our principle of figurative interpretation. If "this is my body," means, this is transubstantiated into my body and blood, then, by the same process, "this cup is the new testament in my blood," means, Again, the Apostle says, "that this cup is transubstantiated into rock was Christ." The Church of the new testament, and the cup Rome must be prepared to demoninstantly becomes the New Testa-strate that Christ, on her mode of ment! It is the necessary result of interpretation, was changed into a such a plan. If "this is my body" rock, or to give reasons if otherwise.

93 66

Again, Christ said, "The field is beautiful characteristics of the the world"-"the reapers are the habits of sheep; "I am the door," angels." Is the Church of Rome that is, a door is a beautiful symbol willing to adopt the children of her or emblem of the way by which, or own principle of interpretation, and through which, believers enter into to assert with consistency, if not heaven; and, "I am the true vine," with common sense, that the field i.e. I am the supporter, or the nouwas transubstantiated into the risher of all those living branches, world, and the reapers into angels? or believers, who have been grafted Again, "The seven heads are seven on to me by the Holy Spirit. mountains," that is, according to Now then, if the Church of Rome this magic process, seven heads does not hold the literal interwere really and actually transub-pretation of these passages, what stantiated into seven mountains. must be the inference? that she Again, "ve are the sheep," "ye are plays fast and loose with the word the branches," and "the seven ears of God: when the figurative suits, of corn are seven years," the seven she adopts it-when the literal incandlesticks are seven churches." terpretation suits her purpose, she Of course my opponent, if keeps it. The fact is, she adopts he insists on the literal inter- the figurative interpretation in pretation of the words, "this is twenty passages, and takes the litemy body," must insist also on a ral in one. "She strains at a gnat, literal interpretation of all these and she swallows a camel." passages; viz., that our Lord was Still farther to illustrate the contransubstantiated into "a vine;" sistency of the Protestant interprethat "the seven candlesticks" were tation, suppose I take you to the transubstantiated into seven British Museum: you see, just as churches;" that "the seven ears of you enter the statuary room, a beau corn" were transubstantiated into tiful bust of the celebrated Homer, "seven years;" that believers were the finest in the whole collection. I transubstantiated into sheep," say to you, this is Homer; do you and, anon, into "branches," &c. understand that it is the living ori&c.; and, in short, if his principle ginal? or that it is transubstantiated be adhered to, and carried out, it into the flesh of the blind Moonian? will plunge him into the most re- Again, in the quotation from Isaiah, volting and disastrous whims that "all flesh is grass," if the literal were ever entertained in the imagi- interpretation is to be insisted on, nation of the most wild and irre- I must believe that all flesh is claimable monomaniac. But, on actually and literally grass, and I the other hand, if he admit with must believe that my opponent is me, that “this is my body" means, merely a bundle of grass; and by this represents my body, or is a no means what he actually appears symbol, or sign of my body, then a substantial and reasonable man, the interpretation of all the pas-teazing the fathers for those proofs sages I have referred to comes to which the apostles, the grandfathers, be most harmonious and beautiful. refuse to give him. "Ye are the branches," i.e. ye are represented by the branches in their relation to the stem and the root; "ye are the sheep," i. e. ye are represented by the various

66

This figurative language is quite usual in the Scriptures, when reference is made to the Jewish Sacraments. For instance, it is said of circumcision, in Genesis xvii. and

10th, "This is my covenant, which ye is the new testament in my blood, shall keep between me and you, and shed for many for the remission of thy seed after thee; every man child sins; drink ye all of it. But I say among you shall be circumcised." unto you, I will not drink henceAgain, it is declared of the Pass-forth of this fruit of the vine until over, "this Lamb is the Passover." that day when I drink it new with Now, the word "Passover" literally you in my Father's kingdom." Now, means the transit of the destroying if the disciples had understood that angel, throughout the length and he gave them his own flesh and the breadth of Egypt, when he dealt blood, from all their past conduct destruction on all the first-born of we may safely infer they would the children of the Egyptians," from have said, "Lord, what does this the first-born of Pharaoh on the mean? Thou art sitting at the table, throne, unto the first-born of the and not giving us thy flesh; thou art captive in the dungeon," and when speaking to us, and art not 'broken:" the first-born of the Israelites, and thy body is not broken into pieces,' the children of God, were mercifully but whole, and seated at the table: spared. When, therefore, the Israel- what does this mean; what are we ites of old were told of this calamity, to understand by this?" "Is it not," and that this lamb was to be slain they would have said, "forbidden and sacrificed as a Passover, did they us to drink blood in the rescripts of understand that it was no longer a Levi? May we violate this law ?" lamb, but bona fide the angel passing through the length and breadth of Egypt, destroying the first-born of the Egyptians, and sparing the firstborn of the Israelites, awakening I must suppose that our Lord, the helpless wail of Rahab, but though he was sitting at the table, causing songs of joy to burst from yet held his body in his hand. Í the dwellings of mercifully-spared and happy Israel? No, every Israelite understood that this lamb was a symbol, a sign, or memorial of the Passover, and not that it was actually transubstantiated, and turned into the Passover.

Let me now call your attention to the institution of the Lord's Supper. Our Lord sat at a table, and had just celebrated the Passover, where I have shown you that this figurative language was usual; he took bread, a piece of bread, and looking at his disciples, as you may see faithfully portrayed in the pictures drawn by the artists of the Church of Rome, though these are no proofs-he took bread, and gave thanks, and holding that bread in his hand, he added, "This is my body," and then, taking the cup, he said, "This cup

Again, if this literal interpretation is to be adiered to, then mark the monstrous absurdities which it necessarily entails:

must suppose that our Lord's body was seated at the table, and yet that he gave his whole body to Peter, his whole body to John, his whole body to every one of the twelve who sat with him in the first celebration of the Eucharist. Now, you perceive, it must require an extraordinary amount of scriptural argument to convince one that these most anomalous and most extravagant things actually and circumstantially took place on this occasion.

Again, my opponent made some remarks about what God can dothat "nothing," he said, "is impossible to God," and, therefore, all this may be possible with him. I say, "all things are possible with God," is a scriptural text; but mark you, it is not God's omnipotence that is the rule of faith, but

God's written word; and moreover, | claration in the Word of God, that "whilst all things are possible with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, God," it is also written, "God as defined in the Catechism of the cannot lie." There are certain Council of Trent, and in the Canons things-we speak of it with re- of the Council of Trent, is true. verence that cannot be possible I should say, "Let God be true, with God; such as that a son should and every man a liar;" but I find be the father of his father-that is that this blessed Word of God, an absurdity, that is not possible; when I refer to its parallel passages, "God cannot lie," is another text and construe them according to the for our guidance; but if it be pos- whole analogy of inspiration, declares sible that Christ's whole body is that these words, "this is my body," contained in every part of the Host which are distorted into the monat Rome, his whole body in every strous dogma of the Church of part of the Host at London, and Rome, are a simple and beautiful Christ's whole body in every part of expression, denoting, this is the the Host at Paris, then, accordingly, symbol, or sign, or representative on the same principle, it follows, memorial of my body, which is that Peter may be at Paris, and yet broken for you. This holy volume at London-that Peter may set out asserts that our Lord's body is now from Paris to London and meet glorified, but the Church of Rome Peter half-way coming from London says that his body is present on the to Paris, and should he be startled altar every day, nay, not only preat meeting himself, he may merely sent on the altar, but that it is quote Transubstantiation as a pa- liable to the most awful and horrible rallel case. Peter may be at Paris, outrages that can be perpetrated at London, and at Rome, and at upon any creature. We say Christ's Edinburgh, at one and the same body is glorified, and far beyond moment. Peter may sleep in a suffering and death, in heaven; but whole skin at Paris, have a broken the Church of Rome presumes that leg at Edinburgh, and a broken head she brings down that glorified body, in London. He may, at one and and makes it to be broken again, the same moment, be feasting in and the blood to be shed again; and Edinburgh, fasting at Rome, and if it be a true body, we might infer, drunk at Paris. All these contra- that there must be pain and grief, dictions of commor. sense, reason and other proofs of keen sensibility, and experience, and scriptural pre- during the breaking of the Host, cedent, are vindicated on the mis- were it not that the Church of applied text, that "all things are Rome shields herself from the possible with God." My opponent charge, by another inconsistency, said, and said justly, reason is not that there is offering without sufferthe arbiter of truth. Now I admit ing. To show you the awful de that neither the omnipotence of gradation to which the Church of God, nor the reason of man, is the Rome conceives the body of Christ rule of faith; but the revealed will, to be liable, I quote from the prethe written word of the Almighty liminary remarks to the "Missale One: and though reason should re- Romanum," entitled "De Defecticoil from the doctrine of Transub- bus Missæ," the authority of which stantiation, though sense should no Roman Catholic dare dispute. recoil from it, yet if I could see a It is in Latin, but I will give you it plain, express, and irrefragable de- in faithful English :

C