sacrament eats Christ's flesh and drinks his blood: the natural conclusion is, that every one who receives the sacrament shall have eternal life, and Christ shall raise him up at the last day. But is this a true conclusion? No, certainly; for St. Paul says that a man may eat and drink damnation or condemnation to himself, as well as life to himself. It is therefore evident, even to a demonstration, that what is eaten and drunk in the sacrament is not always the body and blood of Christ which he speaks of in the passage; and consequently it is far from proving transubstantiation. The sacrament was eaten by Judas, and continually is eaten by millions who are both wicked here and will be lost hereafter. This, therefore, cannot be the import of our Saviour's words. For here observe, 1. That our Lord speaks in the general, whosoever eats, &c. ; 2. That he speaks not by way of promise, which might be conditional, but by way of certain declaration; and, 3. That the text shows the eating here can never be employed unprofitably, nor without the greatest benefit.

(12.) Our Lord's discourse here is, in style and manner, similar to other figurative expressions, as when, under the figure of water, he taught the Samaritan woman, (John iv;) like the apostles themselves, as when they understood Christ as meaning leaven and not doctrine, (Matt. xvi, 7-11.) And so, in John vi, the loaves and fishes were the figures under which he directed them to seek for the bread of life.

(13.) The ancient fathers interpreted the words in the figurative manner as the Protestants do. Our limits would not allow us to enlarge here but Roman Catholics cannot deny that the fathers give the Protestant interpretation.*

Having shown the inconsistency of the Roman Catholic exposition, we will now give an account of the passage by which we will avoid their absurdities, and which will agree with the whole tenor of our Saviour's discourse.

66

We think our Saviour gives a key to the passage, and hath in express words forewarned us from taking his words in a gross literal sense, in place of a mystical and spiritual one. The passage is remarkable. In ver. 60 we are told that many of his disciples, when they heard this severe command of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, (taking the words in a carnal sense, as the Roman Catholics now do,) were much offended, and said, This is a hard saying, who can hear it? Now (ver. 61) when Jesus knew this in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said, Doth this offend you?" In these words our Lord seems to chide their dulness, and to rectify their mistake about what he had spoken. And lest this should not give them light enough to understand the allegory he had all along been pursuing, he farther adds, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing." That is, though you could really eat my flesh, yet it would do you no good as to the spiritual life of your souls; but it is the Spirit of God that must quicken you at the last day. And then concludes, "The words that I have spoken to you they are spirit and they are life."

Those who have not time and opportunity to peruse them will find this assertion of ours fully established by consulting the quotations in Whitby on John vi; Breckenridge and Hughes, p. 230; Usher's Answer, p. 48, London, 1631; Faber's Dif. of Rom., page 91, where this subject is treated at large.

But what is that spiritual sense of eating his body and drinking his blood that is here intended? To this we answer according to the light that is thrown upon the subject in the context. To eat Christ's flesh and to drink his blood is to come to him, or to believe in him; for by these phrases it is explained in this very chapter. Christ says, (ver. 40,) "This is the will of him that sent me, that every one that believeth on the Son of man may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day." And, (ver. 44,) “No man can come unto me except the Father draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day." And in verse 54 he says: "Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day." So the same promise, in the same words, being made in the same discourse to all that believe in Christ, to all that come to him, and to all that eat his flesh and drink his blood, it is an undeniable argument that both coming to Christ and believing on him, and eating and drinking his flesh and blood, are but several expressions of the same thing. This is a general exposition.

But to speak more particularly. Christ's chief design in the chapter seems to be: The men that now followed Jesus were those who had partaken of the loaves and fishes miraculously multiplied. Jesus takes occasion from this to tell them, that "they did not follow him for the sake of miracles, but for the loaves they had eaten," verse 26; and from thence takes the opportunity, as it was his usual manner, to exhort, "not to labour for the meat that perisheth, but for that which endureth to eternal life." They ask him "how they might do that?" He answers them directly that the way was "to believe on him," verse 29. They ask him "what sign he would give, or what miracle he would work, that they should believe on him," (ver. 30,) and they urge him to do as Moses did, that is, to give bread from heaven, verses 31. 32. Upon this he compares himself with that manna which Moses gave the Israelites; nay, he shows how much he excels that, (ver. 49. 50,) for that only continued a short temporal life, but by believing on him they might get eternal life. They murmur at this. He tells them again, "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life; I am that bread of life," (ver. 47, 48,) that spiritual food, that will bring men to it. And lest they should be mistaken as to what kind of bread he meant, he explains himself more fully: "The bread is the flesh which I shall give for the life of the world," verse 51. That is, I will lay down my life for the salvation of mankind, and my death shall procure life for them; and this flesh of mine, thus crucified, shall be the procuring cause of spiritual food to all believers, even such as shall nourish their souls into everlasting life and whosoever eats this bread shall have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day: which is the same as to say, Whosoever does heartily believe on me. becomes my disciple, and obeys my commandments; to such a one this death of mine will procure eternal life, by the agency of the Holy Spirit, which shall raise him up at the last day. But, on the other hand, he that does not believe on me, and become my disciple, and even turn my death and passion to good nourishment, how scandalous and ignominious soever it be, by a lively faith, so as that upon this account he shall not forsake me, nor be offended at my doctrine, but

66

still persevere in my faith and service; I say, except a man do so, he hath no life in him, nor will I raise him up at the last day.

This, so far as we can gather from the chapter by comparing one part with another, is its true meaning. Thus we see the text is not to be interpreted in a gross and carnal sense, as if it was necessary to salvation that every one should eat the natural flesh of Christ, or drink his blood. It is enough if he truly believe in Jesus Christ; that he become his disciple; that he so believe his death as to be conformable to it, by his dying to sin and living to righteousness. This is truly feeding on Christ's body and blood. And though we do not deny that one instance of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood is through the sacrament, yet it is by no means to be confined to that only. Every true believer that lives according to his belief, does, in every act of religion he performs, eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, for he exercises acts of faith on him, and obedience to him, and that is the true eating and drinking here mentioned.

But the Church of Rome will have it that Christ here speaks of literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood. This is the very mistake of the carnal Jews. They "strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They said, "This is a hard saying; who can bear it?" And the Church of Rome holds and teaches at this day the very doctrine for which the carnal Jews were condemned. They maintain that, literally, Christ gave his body to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk. They have adopted the construction of the depraved Jews, and 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 Roman Catholic 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 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 apostacy and idolatry, by teaching that the symbols which represent the Saviour are really the Saviour himself.

3. It is argued, from the secret discipline of the early church, that the doctrine of transubstantiation was the chief mystery held in concealment from the catechumens. To this we reply, 1. That this was so far from being the case, that the chief mysteries were the doctrine of the trinity, divinity of Christ, incarnation, and those connected with them. This appears from Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, Origen, Augustine, and Philopatris, who all refer to the doctrine of the trinity, &c. 2. The Catholic Church of the first five centuries recognised no change of the elements at all; and a doctrine which did not exist in the early church certainly could not be taught in its secret discipline. 3. Moreover, Julian the Apostate, who had been baptized, and therefore ini

tiated into all the mysteries of the church, and who also ridicules the doctrines of the incarnation, divinity of Christ, &c., would certainly not pass over so glaring an absurdity as transubstantiation is, provided any such doctrine were taught. 4. Besides, the primitive Christians, who were sometimes accused of eating human flesh, from misapprehensions arising from the figurative language used in the eucharist, uniformly deny the accusation; which they could not do with any show of consistency had they believed the popish doctrine of the eucharist.*

4. From the language of the ancient liturgies, and from the phraseology of the early ecclesiastical writers, Roman Catholics argue in favour of transubstantiation.

Some of the early Christian fathers express themselves respecting the sacrament of the eucharist in the same figurative style in which the Jews were accustomed in their sacraments, and according to the figurative style of Scripture. Hence some of their expressions, detached from their connection, and interpreted according to the modern style, might seem to make for a real presence. But certainly they were far from expressing themselves with accuracy on this, or indeed on many other subjects. For instance, on the divinity of Christ, many of their expressions, by a rigid interpretation, and detached from their contexts, need much qualification.

But when we make this concession we would also remark, that they speak of the consecrated elements of this sacrament as symbols, figures, images, or types of the body and blood of Christ. This is a mode of expression which can never be consistent with transubstantiation; but with our views of this sacrament it certainly agrees. However, it is said, in order to shun this difficulty, that a thing may be a symbol of another thing, and yet be the same identical thing which it is employed to symbolize. Then, according to this new mode of employing language, the serpent, which was among the Egyptians a symbol of the world, was the very world itself. And Hagar, who allegorically represented Mount Sinai, was really a mountain. And hence, with equal propriety, the wine in the sacrament is both the symbol of Christ's blood, and his blood, at the same time.†

5. They say this doctrine is no more mysterious than the doctrine of the trinity, incarnation, &c.

When we urge that the doctrine of transubstantiation is absurd and contradictory, they think to awe us into silence, as they do their own deluded hearers, with the following harangue : "Will you be a Christian, or will you not? If you will, then you must be led by faith, and not by sense. You must believe what God hath said, and not what your own carnal fallible reason suggests. You cannot conceive how that which appears bread should be the real body of Christ which is in heaven. Your ideas of many of the Christian mysteries are equally obscure. Is not the incarnation of our Saviour, the manner how God and man can be one person, every whit as unaccountable? Are you not at as much loss when you endeavour to reconcile the doctrine of the trinity with your reason, as you are in the case you object against

* See Faber's Dif. of Rom., pp. 98-120, where this point is fully discussed. See this argument, first adduced by the bishop of Meaux, considered at large by Faber, p. 123.

us? Can any man living give a more intelligible account of that mystery than we can give of transubstantiation? Will not the notion of three in one be eternally as great a contradiction as that the body of Christ should be in a thousand places at once? Leave, therefore, these sensual hankerings after reason, and believe whatever God saith is true, how impossible soever it seems to us: it is not our business to dispute God's assertions, but to submit to them."

This, indeed, is said very plausibly, and it is probable that the unwary may sometimes be deceived by it. But if it is duly weighed, the sophistry will appear to the light; because there is a vast disparity between the doctrine of transubstantiation and those of the trinity, incarnation, &c. We shall offer four things whereby the difference will appear manifest.

(1.) The doctrine of the trinity is so clearly revealed in Scripture, that we must deny the very authority of divine revelation if we deny it; and none, from Christ's time till the present, ever denied the doctrines of the trinity or of the incarnation but were esteemed heretics. Whereas transubstantiation has no foundation in Scripture, but is directly contrary to it.

(2.) The doctrines of the trinity and incarnation were contained in the apostles' creed, and were taught assiduously by the primitive church. But transubstantiation was never in any of the primitive creeds, nor taught by the ancient doctors in the church of Christ during the first eight centuries. Indeed it is a perfect novelty, first established by the Council of Lateran. So that it is absurd to associate the doctrine of transubstantiation with that of the trinity or incarnation.

(3.) Another difference between the doctrine of transubstantiation and those of the trinity and incarnation is, that the first comes under the inspection of our senses, but the others do not. It is no wonder we cannot fathom the depth of the trinity, because God is an infinite being, and our understandings are finite. God only knows his own nature, and we know no more of it than what he has been pleased to reveal to us; and though our reason cannot fully comprehend the nature of God, we know there is an infinite disproportion between our faculties and the object that they are employed upon. Yet our not being able to fathom his nature proceeds from the greatness of the object, and the weakness of our understanding, rather than from any thing inconsistent or unintelligible in the thing itself. But when we come to speak of transubstantiation it is quite different, this being an object of sense. If we can judge of the reality of any thing in the world, we can certainly judge concerning a cup of wine or a piece of bread. We are undoubtedly competent judges of those things that fall under our senses, or we must suspend all determinations concerning things to the end of the world.

It is in vain, therefore, for Romanists to say, that our not being able to give an account of the trinity is as much an argument against that mystery, as their not being able to give an account of transubstantiation is an argument against it. If the nature of God fell under our senses, and was to be judged by them, as all bodies are, they would argue right; but it is otherwise; for God is an infinite and incomprehensible Spirit, and therefore cannot be an object that the senses of man can