SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS.

265

dence, that no man that honestly weighs it, can turn away from it without being convinced. But if, instead of the living, well-known person of Christ, with its "human face divine," the other apostles had presented Thomas with a loaf of bread, would he have been bound to believe that this was the risen Saviour? Most certainly not. And if the disciples had pointed to the bread and wine used at the Lord's Supper, and said, "Here lies Jesus of Nazareth, the very person who hung on the cross, and rose from the grave," they would have been laughed at by every man of common sense, as the most pitiable fanatics; and Christianity itself would have perished from the earth, forgotten among those innumerable abortions of superstition which mark an age of ignorance and religious enthusiasm.

I have said, that were this dogma contained in the Bible, it could not be received as a book inspired by God. It is incumbent on me, therefore, to prove that it is not in the Bible; and to this point I now request your earnest attention. I may first remark, that the most celebrated divines of your church admit that it is not a Scriptural doctrine. This concession is very important from such men as Scotus, Erasmus, Cardinal Cajetan, Bellarmine, and Bishop Fisher.

I will first advert to the 6th chapter of the

Gospel by John, which modern writers quote with very great confidence; but which I shall prove to be wholly inapplicable. For if eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ be taken as referring to the Lord's Supper, it would confine salvation to those who partake of the Eucharist, thus excluding infants, and the whole Jewish church for many ages, as well as others who, from various circumstances, could not communicate. "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." v. 53. These are the words; from which it would follow, on Papal principles, that none but communicants are in a state of salvation. And from the following words it appears, with equal clearness, that no one that swallows the wafer can ever be lost! "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Can this language refer to the sacrament? No, my Friend, it is a strongly figurative mode of expressing (in the Oriental style) the act of believing on the Son of God. The same thing is frequently called coming to Christ; of which we have an instance in this very chapter, verse 35, which is perfectly synonymous with the one already quoted: "He that cometh unto me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall

SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS.

267

never thirst." The Jews, understanding our Lord's words literally, he condescended to explain them, saying, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and they are life." What can be, more satisfactory?

The ancient fathers did not agree with your divines on this point. Origen says the letter of this passage kills. Augustine lays it down as a principle of interpretation, that if any passage of Scripture seem to command a "heinous wickedness," it must not be understood literally; and he selects the sixth of John as an illustration. Eating human flesh and drinking human blood, is most "heinous wickedness" indeed, of which, according to this great father, the modern Roman Catholics are guilty. But it is unnecessary to dwell on this passage, for three general coun cils have conceded that the language does not apply to the Eucharist at all, and that it must be understood figuratively and spiritually; even the Council of Trent, eager as they were for arguments, gave up this text to the enemy.*

Turn we now to the words of institution, Matth. xxvi. 26-29. You say this language must be understood according to the letter, as

*See Note C.

asserting a real substantial change. Be it so: let us analyse it according to the letter. "Jesus took bread and blessed it, and gave it (the bread which is the only antecedent in the sentence) to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body." Now, mark it was bread he gave them; which they held in their hands, when he uttered the supposed magical words of consecration, hoc est corpus meum. Does the Priest say, Take, eat, before he consecrates? Then he does not act according to the letter! Again, according to the strict letter, his words can apply only to the identical piece of bread which he then held in his hand. Supposing that to be really changed into his body, how can it be thence inferred that every piece of bread that a Priest chooses to take into his fingers may be thus transformed? Is not this drawing a general conclusion from a particular premise? But is it right to call a wafer "bread ?" The people ask for bread; and the Priest gives them-not a serpent, indeed-but a wafer! And this is acting according to the letter! But why not give the cup? Jesus gave it, and said, "Drink ye all of this." This is plain enough. But your church does not give the cup at all, and yet she acts according to the letter! This is marvellous! But this is not all-Our Lord says (speaking according to the

LITERAL INTERPRETATION.

269

letter) that the cup and not the wine is his blood. Is the vessel transubstantiated into blood? It must be so, since the words are to be understood literally! Once more; this same blood thus made out of a cup, is afterwards called the "fruit of the vine." Now, every body knows that the fruit of the vine is the grape. So, then, we have a cup turned into the blood of a living man, which blood was at that moment flowing in his veins ! And this blood suddenly becomes grapes, and they all drink the grapes! There is literal interpretation! Into what a mass of absurdities should we convert the Bible, were we to interpret its luminous pages on this principle! Is this taking the Word of God in "its plain, obvious, and natural meaning?" If so, the Redeemer is literally a door, a vine, a rock, a way, foundation, a lamb, a lion, a rose, a lily, a star, a sun, &c. In all these cases, the verb to be, naturally and obviously means to signify, or to represent. And this is the meaning assigned to it by Roman Catholics themselves, in such places as the following, where the form of expression is precisely the same as that used by our Lord at the institution of the supper:-" The seven good kine are (represent) seven years”- "The seven empty ears, shall be seven years of famine," Gen. xli. 26, 27.-" The seven stars are the