Full text of "Transubstantiation tried by Scripture and reason"

Google This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world's books discoverable online. It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you. Usage guidelines Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you: + Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes. + Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. + Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. + Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. About Google Book Search Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web at |http: //books .google .com/I 3 9 64 1 . / . . ■ TRANSUBSTANTIATION TRIED BY SCRIPTURE AND REASON, ABDBB88ED TO THE PROTESTANTS OF ENGLAND, IN COXSBQUENCE OT THE ATTEMPTS RECENTLY MADE TO INTRODUCE ROMANISM AMONGST THEM. SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED. By the Rev. CHARLES SMITH BIRD, M.A. F.L.S. LATB FBLLOW OF TBIVITT COLLEGE, CAMBBIDOE. -O- LONDON: HATGHABDS, PICCADILLY; NISBET, BEBNERS-STBEET. READING : WELCH, DUKE-STREET. MDCCCXXXIX. PBICE 6<f.— OB 4«. FEB DOZEK. ^/<-/. ADVERTISEMENT. Thb following Tract was in the first instance published in Reading, and addressed to the Protestant inhabitants of that town. A large edition was sold off in about six weeks, which seems to demonstrate that something of the kind was needed, and that the need was felt. The Roman Catholic chapel was opened on a week-day for the express purpose of refuting the arguments in the Tract, by means of a course of Sermons, as was specified by public advertise- ment. No doubt the immediate effect of the publication (and probably the same would be the case elsewhere with any similar publication) was to fill the chapel with hearers, curious to know what could be said. Of these some may possibly become Romanists. The author is prepared to expect this ; but he does not therefore repent of what he has done. He believes that t|||e time for the contest with Romanism is come. The moment it seriously commences, the discovery must be made how loose and worthless a large part of the Protestant community is. It matters little whether this is revealed sooner or later. But it matters niuch, that the good and sound, but perhaps ill- informed part, should be strengthened and armed in time. Upon them, in the end, every thing will depend ; and too much pains cannot be taken, and that without delay, to secure them. The author, when he wrote this Tract, never though^ of addressing it to his countrymen in general. In doing so now, he has yielded to advice which he could not, without presumption, reject. TRANSUBSTANTIATION TRIED BY SCRIPTURE AND REASON. Brother Protestants, Romanism, as a religion, is once more lifting up its head. Hopes are seriously entertained that the people of this country may be brought, in due time, to renounce the Reformation, submit to the Pope, and take their faith, not from the Bible, but from the Decrees of the Council of Trent* A solemn form of weekly prayer has been ordained at Rome, .for the con- version of England ! The Romanists amongst us are now provoking discussion. That they have a perfect right to do so if they think fit, none will deny ; but how far they are wise in beginning th^ battle, how far they have correctly estimated their own strength, or the weakness of our under- standings and principles, it is for us to shew. Shall we allow them to prevail ? Shall we leave the unlearned part of our population at their mercy I Shall we make it possible that this great and glorious country shall ever again be theirs ? Shall we prove that we inherit so little of the spirit of our forefathers ? If we sit still and let the evil proceed — ^which God forbid ! — it can only be through sheer ignorance of its nature. Alas ! our Fathers knew what Romanism was, because they lived when it was rampant. We know it not because we have never felt its tyranny. They died to deliver us from it. We enjoy the deliverance, but hardly know what a blessing that deliverance is. Romanism has been sleeping, amongst us, for some hundreds of years : but, it is the sleep of a tiger. The moment it can show the claw with effect, it will. There is no hope that it will ever change its nature. The domineering spirit, which " lords it over God's heritage,'' spurning lay interference, and denying the right of private judgment ; — the '* forbidding" the Priesthood ** to marry," which cuts them off from the strongest of those ties and feelings which might detach them from their order, and bring, not merely their manners, but their minds and hearts, under the influence of Society ; — the Infallibility, so proudly, but we trust it will appear in the end fatally, boasted of, whether it reside in the Pope, or in Councils, or in the Church at large (for in this the Romanists are not agreed), or^ what it comes to in fact, in each individual priest ; — ^all combine to render cluinge impossible* " No peace with Rome ! '' is our only safe watchword now, as it was formerly. It is of no use to cry, God will protect the truth ! He will protect it, doubtless, where people desire that he should, and manifest that desire by contending for it. But if they be idle or indifferent, it is impious to talk of trusting in Providence. These remarks are called forth by what has recently taken place in the Town near which the author lives. The Romanists are printing and scattering papers by thousands. They leave them at the house-doors, by nigfti; they strew them on the highways, and in the bye-roads. It is probable that this is but a part of a simultaneous movement, and that the same thing is happening in other Towns. These papers contain a defence of Romish tenets, and an attack on Pro- testant ones. We must not, by our silence, allow it to be said, that they are unanswerable. We have been silent too long ; and thinking that Romanism was reduced to a harm- less state, and unwilling to seem to triumph over a fallen enemy, we have avoided discussion. The time for forbearance is past, We cannot decline the challenge they have given iMy either with honour or a safe conscience. We must remind Protestants of their peculiar principles, we must build up the weak, and instruct the ill-informed, and enable them to ** give, to every man that asketh them, a reason of the hope that is in them/' One of the papers, above mentioned, contains a defence of the Romish tenet of Transubstantiation, and an attack on the Protestant view of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. It is desirable^ reverently yet plainly, to discuss this important subject. What does the worci Transubstantiation mean "^ It ez^ presses the notion that the Sacramental bread and wine, the moment they are consecrated by the Priest^ are changed into the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ. This change they hold to be totaL Not one particle of the bread, not one drop of the wine, is left ; only the appearance is pre- served. They are supposed to be wholly transformed in substance; and, hence they are said to be transubstantiatedm (Council of Trent, Sess. 13, c. iv.— Catechism of Trent, P. 2. c. xl.) You will say, then a miracle is wrought every time the Sacrament is administered ? Certainly, they will reply, it is» Well then, you may rejoin, it is such a miracle as was never wrodght by our blessed Lord, when miracles were most needed, for the establishment of his religion. ¥or in all his miracles, which we know to be miracles, the evidence of the senses was appealed to, but here the evidence of the senses^ IS contradicted* Moreover, you might go on to say, the miracle is a double one. First that of the change of bread and wine into the body and blood of our Saviour ; and then that of presenting to our eyes, our touch, and our taste, the appearance and properties, not of the body and blood, into which they have been changed^ but of the bread and wine which they no longer are. 8 On what scriptural ground are we called upon to believe this unprecedented^*-this complicated miracle ? It ought to be strong ground. It ought to be wholly divine. The rubbish of human authority ought not to be mixed with the foundation which has to bear the tremendous weight of such a doctrine as this. Romanism rests its case, with regard to scripture, on the words of our Lord. " This" (speaking of the bread) " is my body ! " " This*' (speaking of the wine) " is my blood.** It insists on our taking these words literally. Protestantism replies, our Lord spoke figuratively. He meant. This bread is the emblem of my body, broken for you ! This wine is the emblem of my blood, shed for you ! On this point, then, the two parties join issue, whether we are to take our Lord's words literally or figuratively. The Romanists would settle the question at once in their own favour, if they could deny the use of reason in deter- mining which is the more probable view. But this they do not attempt. The paper already alluded to (and which, not being printed in the town where it was dispersed, but in London, is, we may presume, a sort of authoritative manifesto set forth for all parts) says, ^' It is impossible, consistently with reason, to maintain the validity of that system which teaches that the body and blood of Christ are not present in the Eucharist, since this doctrine is in direct contradiction to every passage of the Sacred Scriptures which relates to this Sacrament.'' Here the authority of reason is allowed, and its judgment appealed to. We desire nothing more than that the Romanists will stand to this appeal to reason, as exercised on the Sacred Scriptures. In the very first exercise of this appeal, we ask. Do the Romanists contend that we are bound always to take our Lord's words literally ? They answer^ however reluctantly. No ! They grant that when our Lord said, " I am the door/' he did not mean that he was a door literally; nor a vine, when lie said, ** I am the true vine ! " Hear how the paper speaks on this point : ''With regard to the expressions ' I am the door,' ' I am the vine,' it is only necessary to remark, that when the Saviour says, in John x., ' I am the door,' he adds, ' By me if any man enter, he shall be saved* When, in John xv., he says, ' I am the vine,* he also adds, * He that abideth in me bringeth forth much fruit.' Every person sees clearly what kind of door or vine is meant." In other words, it is here confessed that there is good cause to consider it improbable that our Lord spoke the words literally, and therefore we conclude that he spoke them figuratively. We ask, then, no more than this— -that if we can shew equal cause, though of a different kind, in the case of our Lord's words, ** This is my body," for considering it impro- bable that he spoke them literally, we may be allowed to conclude that in this case also he spoke figuratively. 1. Now is it a harder supposition that our Lord might change himself into a door or a vine, than that a piece of bread may at the voice of a priest be changed into the *' body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ," which is what Romanism teaches ? (Creed of Pope Pius IV. art 5.) 2. Keeping in mind that the whole question is one of pro- bability as to our Lord's meaning (not of what is '' possible with God," with this we meddle not), is it probable that he spoke literally, when he said of the bread which he bioke, " This is my body," since in that case he must have held his own body in his own hands at that moment ? and when (according to the generally-received notion) he partook of the bread, he must have eaten his own body ? « 3. The Council of Trent (Sess. xiii. 3) declares, that ^* Christ, whole and entire, exists under the species of bread, and under each particle of that species ; and whole under the species of wine, and under its parts." From the pro- perty of matter, then, that it is infinitely divisible into parts, it follows, if each of these parts be Christ whole and entire. 10 that our Lord did not merely hold his own body in his own hands, but that he held thousands and millions of his own body — and that afterwards if he partook, his own body con- tained itself thousands and millions of times — and so did each of the bodies of his disciples contain his sacred body thousands and millions of times — and sa does the body of every man who partakes of the consecrated bread, according to this yiew of the Romanists. 4. Will they reply (as in the Trent Catechism) that if from a vessel filled with air we take a part, air still remains ? Tnie — but not the same quantity ! Air in kind remains, but not as much air as before, nor as dense. What if the whole body of air, " whole and entire," were taken from the vessel, what would then remain % So the wafer, we may be told, by the miracle of consecration, may become human flesh ; but to tell us that each part is the body of Christ — not body in general, but a particular body — the " whole and entire" body of our Lord with its particular parts, with ** its bones and nerves V (so says the Latin Trent Catechism, P. 2. c. 31) — to tell us that when the Priest breaks off a part, he breaks off the whole, and yet the whole remains—- what is this but to speak of a new miracle, or rather a mul- tiplication of miracles, distinct from any before conceived of? Is it probable that we are to take our Lord's words literally, when those who so take them feel obliged to tell us such things as these ? 5. Again, it is the property of matter, such as is the human body (and we are told, Christ ** took upon him cur flesh"), to be only in one place at one moment. If our Lord's body were really a human body, it must have par- taken of this property. How, then, could he have been sitting at the table, and, at the same time, lying on the table? And how can his body now be in heaven, and, at the same time, in the hands of every priest who consecrates the wafer, and in the mouth of every man who eats it ? 11 6. Our Lord at the first institution of the Sacrament said, ** This is my body which is given for you/' Luke xxii. ; or as St. Paul, who had a special revelation, relates it, «< which is broken for you/' 1 Cor. xi. If we are bound to take Christ's words literally in one part, we must do so in another. Now his body was not then given or broken for them ; it was to be given or broken for them afterwards at the crucifixion. So that the literal interpretation not only confounds all ideas of matter, but also all ideas of time.* ^ 7. Also it is written, << Jesus took the cup, and said, this is my blood." Matt, xxvi. ; Mark xiv. So that if we take the literal meaning, the ciep, not the wine, was changed into his blood. A nd then the Disciples, as well as our Lord, swal- lowed the cup many times oyer. And St. Luke tells us, that our Lord said, <' This cup is the New Testament in my blood.'' Luke xxii. According to this, if literally inter- preted, the cup was first changed into a iVeto Testament ! 8. If the Romanists say that by the <^ New Testament" our Lord did not mean what is now the book so called, this may be granted. But then the cup must be considered as changed, not into a book, but into a notion ! This notion, contained in the words ** the New Testament in my blood," cannot easily be expressed in few words, as may be seen by the attempt in the Trent Catechism. Also, if they say that when our Lord told hb disciples, ** this cup is my blood," he meant that the cup represented the wine ; then they give up the whole point in dispute. Then we apply that to the wine also which they do to the cup, and we say that our Lord meant, in like manner, that the wine represented his blood. 9. We have strong independent reason for saying, that Christ meant that the bread represented his body, and the wine his blood, from the knowledge we have of the language * So sensible of this are the Romanists, that the Vulgate has ventured to translate " is given" by "shall be delivered up," "tradeturl" How inconsistent with their principle of implicit submission to the words, to take such a liberty 1 12 in which our Lord spoke the words. For the Cbaldaeo- 8yriac, which was the spoken language of the Jews at that time, has no word for ** represents," but always putd for it the word ** is," expressed or understood. And so does the Hebrew. For instance, in the Old Testament we read, " the seven kine are seven years," — ** the dry bones are the house of Israel," And in the New, "the tield is the world, &c." — " the seed is the word of God" — " that rock was Christ!" So the modern Jews, when they take the dish in tKeir Feast of the Passover, say, '* This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt." 10. We have seen what improbability there is in the literal interpretation, owing to the differences in the words put into our Lord's mouth by the ditferent inspired writers. But we may inquire, how comes it that there are any such differences? No one can imagine it to be without design. Our opponents rest their cause on the precise words of the institution. They refuse to allow any liberty to be taken with them in the way of interpretation. But which are the precise words? Are they those given us by St. Matthew, or those by St. Luke, or those by St. Paul ? We have a right to know — and the moment they take their stand on the pre- cise words of one inspired writer, we oppose to them the pre- cise words of another. To Protestants there is no difficulty in slight variations, because we take the general sense ; but to Romanists such yariations are not slight — they are fatal. To them the exact words of the institution are every thing, as long as the appeal to Scripture is not abandoned. Thus it seems the design of Divine Providence in these yariations to drive the Romanists from their position. It is not an uncommon thing to hear them indulging a feeling of triumph over us by putting their case thu^** Christ said * this is my body ;' you say, it is not his body." Short triumph ! for we say in our turn, " Christ said * this cup is the New Tes- tament in my blood ;' but you say it is not the New Testa- 13 ment in his blood, but the blood itself.'^ Their position is such, that to swerve from it in the least, is ruin. But they are obliged to quit it in order to reconcile St Matthew, and St. Luke, and St. Paul — and quitting it for an instant,, it is lost for ever. 11. Ask the Romanists why they make the bread into a wafer. If they tell you truly, they will confess, it is that it may keep better, after consecration, if not all eaten, ready for sudden use, in the case of the sick and dying. They are afraid lest it should grow mouldy, if not thus kept. Thus the sacred body of Christ is preserved from mould ! And the Lord of heaven and earth is locked up in a box 1 They are also afraid, lest any fragments should fall, if they administered the Sacrament as we do, and perhaps a mouse might eat them. The holy, and ever-blessed body of Jesus Christ, would then be in a mouse I Let it not be imagined that the matter of the mouse is too low to descend to. It is one which occupied men's minds in former times. The question, what would become of the mouse ? was seriously agitated. It was put as a searching one to miserable Protestants in the days when the candle of truth was lighted at the fires of the martyrs. Mrs. Anne Askew exhibited a very unseasonable levity when this question was put to her, and was speedily burnt for denying the doctrine of Transubstantiation. And we know of one case at least, in which a Romish priest tells us, that from witnessing the fact of a mouse carrying off the con- secrated wafer, and from beholding in it, when recovered, the marks of the creature's teeth, he was so struck with the indignity offered to Christ in supposing it to be his body> that he threw up the profession of Romanism, and became a Protestant from that very day.* * There is a Canon of the Romish Church directing what should be done in case a mouse steals the wafer. There are others, which we should be ashamed to mention, connected with accidents that might happen to the wafer. 14 12. Iq the 6th chapter of the Gospel of St. John, our Lord speaks of ** eating his flesh and drinking his blood." If these expressions can be shewn to be figurative, it will be easy to believe those at the last Supper to be the same. liOt us examine the passage. In this chapter we find our Lord grieved and vexed by the cavilling and carnally-minded Jews of Capernaum, whose character we may learn from Matt. xi. 23 — and also, from verse 20 of this chapter, ** Verily, verily, I say unto you. Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled." After telling them some simple truths, such, as that he was *^ the bread of life," ** the true bread," the bread from heaven," (which, if not taken figuratively, would mean, that Christ was to be changed into bread! not bread into Christ), after being wilfully misunder- stood, and receiving nothing but captious answers from them, he says, at last, ^' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." And, '* whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life." Now, if these two declarations referred to eating the bread and drinking the wine in the Sacrament, which was instituted more than a year afterwardi, then since our Lord here makes salvation to depend on doing what he said, it follows, that all who did not live to have an opportunity of taking the Sacrament, are lost. All the faithful, then, who heard him speak, but died in the mean time, however holy they were, have perished ! And, on the other hand, all who have lived during the last eighteen hundred years, and availed themselves of the opportunity of the Sacrament, however unholy in heart, are saved ! These two consequences of taking our Lord's words literally, are enough to settle the question. What then, it will be asked, did our Lord mean by the expressions, ''eating hb flesh, and drinking his blood ? " To see this, let us examine, if we can find anything else in the chapter, on which he makes salvation equally to depend, because then 15 the one will be an explanation of the other. Now we find him saying, '^ I am the bread of life, he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that helieveth on me shall never thirst." And again, ** This is the will of him that sent me^ that every one that seeth the Son and helieveth in him may have everlasting life." And again, *' Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that helieveth on me hath everlasting life/' Hence it is evident that faith can save a man, and therefore that it is the same thing as eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood. And we know that faith did save our fathers before Christ, as the 11th chapter to the Hebrews tells us. Well did our Lord say to the Jews often, ** He that hath ears to hear, let him hear ! " for it only needed to open the ears to understand things so plain. But then, to have the ears opened, it was necessary first to open the heart ; and this was what the Jews refused to do ; so they persisted in putting a carnal interpretation on Christ's words. Nor can we feel any surprise that our Lord, according to his custom, when dealing wiUi persons of dishonest mind, who were resolved to find fault with whatever he said (not sincere and humble, though mis-* taken enquirers, like Nicodemus— let the distinction be well observed !) .turned away in grief and disgust, and vouchsafed no further explanation than what might have been gathered,, and what we have gathered, from his previous conversation. But lest the disciples should by possibility mistake hissilence, and like the Jews, and some even of his followers, should interpret his words carnally, our Lord gave them, when they were alone, the key to all such figurative language as that which he had just used. '' It is the spirit that quicken^, thefteeh profiteth nothing ! the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit , and they are life," Who can hear this, and yet refuse to put a spiritual interpretation upon Christ's words on diis occasion, tioncenilng^' eating his flesh and drinking his blood } " But these words are the very same as those 16 he used at the last Supper. So that we see what sort of interpretation we are to put on them also.* 13. With this key in our hands, thus given us hy our Lord himself, let us examine another passage in the Scriptures, which contains the same words as those used at the last Supper. St. Paul, 1 Cor. zi., speaking to some members of the Church of Corinth, who treated the bread and wine in the Communion as common bread and wine (which no Protestant looks upon them as being), rebukes them, and says, '^ Who- soever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Surely we can easily unlock the meaning of this passage, and see what kind of guilt these men committed. They were guilty of partaking of the visible emblems of Christ's body broken, and blood sbedy without the emotions which such emblems should excite^ without sorrow for sin^ and humility of soul, and thankfulness to him who was obliged to endure so much to save them. They were guilty of forgetting the great object of his deatbf which was to make them holy; and in the very feast, which should have most reminded them of (his, some of them indulged to excess, and were even ** drunken ! " They were guilty, then, of making void his deaths '* treading under foot" (as the Apostle says on another occasion, Heb. x. when he is not speaking of the communion), '' the Son of God, and counting the blood of the covenant^ wherewith they were sanctified, an unholy thing,"— expressions very similar to ihose used on this occasion, They were guilty of *' crupi- fyiog the Son of God afresh," by despising the oblatiop already offered at the Crucifixion. All this is well expresseiji in the short figurative expression, they were '' guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." * The best and wisest of the Romanists have not scrupled to put th^ Protestant interpretation on oui; Lord's words concerning his flesh in this chapter. Cardinal Bellarmine enumerates 2 Popes, 4 Cardinals, 2 Arch- bishops, 5 Bishops, and 19 Doctors, who have done so. IT 14. We are oonfirined ia this view of St. Paul's language by the consideration, that if these men had ever understood, that in the Communion the Lord's body and blood were literally present, it can scarcely be conceived possible, that they could have fallen into the sin they committed. They might forget the respect due to the visible emblems ; but to offer a direct insult to his body — to be ** drunken'' with his blood (if such a thing were not strange enough in itself to make it incredible, there being no wine left), is so horribly profane, as to be past belief. Neither can we believe that such men would have been allowed to go on communicating in the Church of Corinth. 15. We are also confirmed in our views of St. Paul's words being figurative, by the conclusion which would other- wise follow, that the unworthy actually eat the body of Christ. This is a shocking supposition, that the teeth of the wicked do actually press and bruise the sacred body of our Lord ! When steadily viewed, it is worse than the thought of a mouse eating it. Yet this must be believed, if we take the Apostle's words literally. And as the Romanists are resolved to take them literally, they do believe this, and the paper we are answering boldly maintains it. Is it not also a supposition, hard to be conceived, and painful to a devout mind, that the body of our Lord should descend into the stomach of the wicked, be digested, mix with their blood, and flow through their system, and yet should do them no good ? Is that pure and spotless body to be thus amalga- mated with all that is vile ? Is it not more probable, nay almodt a necessary consequence, that every thing thus amal- gamated, by so pure a contact and incorporation, would become holy? But is this so? Let the vile lives of too many who have often partaken of the Sacrament answer the question ! What cruel indignities are these which, in imagi- nation, and as far as it is now possible, are yet inflicted on c 19 that form, which during Cfariflt'^ life-tim^y wa« '' marr^ mom than th« sons of men ! " 16. Remembering that the disciples had the same key in their hands which we have just used in examining St* PauFii^ meaning, th^ir conduct ou occasion of the institution of the Lord^s Supper will appear perfectly natural ; bttt» otherwise, it w^l appear quite the contrary. For if they understood our Lord's words literally on that occaidoDy is it not strange that they expressed no turprigt f They were ready enough on other occasions to ask for explapatibn-— why not on this ? Had they ever heard any- thing which could have amazed them so much ? ' Might they not have said^ Lord ! we behold thee not broken, pierced 9 and bleeding, we hear thee speak, we see thee eat, and how sayest ihou, ** This is my body given for you. This is my blood shed for you ? " Might they not respectfully have reminded him of Capernaum, and have asked, why it was they were to interpret his words spiritually there and carnally now ? Mighi we not at least have looked for an intimation from the Evangelists, similar to what is often given us, that '< they wondered in their hearts ? " 17. But something more than wonder might well have been in their hearts, something more than surprise have bunt from their lips. They were Jews, born under the law, which law their master had told them he came ** not to destroy but to fulfil." They must, therefore, have had the horror y common to their countrymen, at the very idea of drinking blood, so expressly forbidden even in their sacrifices. How comes it that they could raise the cup to their mouth, if they thought that it contained human blood, without a word, without even an emotion ? 18. If it be said, that they were under a peculiar awe at |he last Supper, and were afraid to speak out (though this will not account for the Evangelists not mentioning the fact 19 long afterwards), liow is it that we hear of no aurpriae or horror expressed by succeeding converts? The Judaising Christiaiis, in the time of St. Paul—- reproved by him for their attachment to the law— 4iow came they to be silent, if they thought that Christianity required such a yiobtion of it? The Pharisees — such bitter enemies, always on the look out for plausible objections to the religion of the crucified Jesufr'-i how came they not to fix on this ? llie Heathen unbelievers — 4o whom the communion, as interpreted by the RonMiustSy* must have seemed to be cannibalism— 'how came thei^ in alt the attacks they made on our ftiith, to have left this point unassailed ? Even those who renounced Christaaoity after professing it, and were anxious to justify themselves ; as for instance — the apostate Emperor Julian, who wrote all the spiteful things he could against his former brother Christiaas^ never 1>rought this charge 1* 19. Is it not remarkable, that in the Apostolical Council held at Jerusalem, Acts xv, out of the four . restrictions laid upon the Gentiles, one should be, ** that they should ab^eiB from blood." Yet this raised no difficulty, as if Inconsistent with the command of Chrbt. Verily, it seems like a warning . * It must be confessed we meet with a charge brought by the Heathen against Christians of eating UttU chUdrtm in their secret meetings. But whence could this arise fi*om the language in the institution of the Sacra- ment ! Vfe find the very same charge brought against Jews by Cbrisl^aiM in aftor ages, and also against wizards and witches in all times. It is calumny run mad — and proves nothing but the impolicy of secret rites of any kind ; and the miserable state of society, when infanticide was com- mon, and the guilty authors could easily turn aside suspicion from them- selves by fixing it where the thoughtless multitude were already disposed to fix any thing horrible. There is also a single case, that of Blandina, in which the Eucharist is men tioned, but in such a way, that the exception proves the nde. ' The charge was extorted from the christian slaves by torture, it was matter of surprise and malignant gratification to the heathen, and to Blandina of surprise and indignation, as we see by the reply she made* The case of Blandina, though it disproves the existence of any prevail- mg charge of cannibalism, proves this — ^that she knew nothing of the doctrine of Transobstantiation. Otherwise, how could she have expressed surprise T Must she not have confessed, that Christians ate human flesh, and then have explained, as Romanisti would> how it was they did so f 20 tp. all gyBaeratioDs of Christiaos^ against adopting the literal Tiew of tbat command ! 20. We may go further back, and say, that the rettrioflion « in the law was a warning long before Chrbt came. - Vov<ii is acknowledged on all hands, that the sacrifices under. tiM laiw were typical of the one great sacrifice, whieh he made pf himself. If then his blood were to be drunk literally^ why wiere not the Israelites prepared for it by a conoiand to drink, the blood of their sacrifices ? Why is it that die typo in this case, instead of corresponding to the antitype iiod smoothing the way for its reception, b, according to the Romish .view, exactly opposed to it ? 2l« We find the Sacramental bread twice called " bread,** after oonseoration^ by St. Paul, I Cor. xL And we find oar Lord speaking of the consecrated wine thus, '* I will not henceforth drink of lAis /net/ of the pine until, &e«" Is it probable that thb would have been the case if the bread had no longer been bread, and the wine no Wager wine? Two oases are brought forward to shew that things that are changed may be called by their former name. The first is that of the change of water into wine at Cana of Galilee. But in that case the wine is not called *' water" simply, but ** the water that had been made wine.'' This case, therefore, is rather against the Romanists than for them. The other is that of the changing of Aaron's rod into a serpent. It is said, '' Aaron's rod swallowed up the magician's rods." But in what other way could it be called Aaron^sf It was only his — as what it was before-rra rod. It could not be called 'Aaron's serpent ;' and yet it was necessary to specify whose it was that had the victory. How does this apply to our Lord's case ? The breadi if changed, was even more specially his as blood, than as what it was before, bread. Why then should he not hare 21 saidy '' I wi4l heneeforlh no more drink of this my blood, until, &c. . ^ But what if we could see no convenience in Ibe mode' of Speaking in the case of Aaron's rod — and if thore' were tnany Mttb eases — ^wonld this serve the turn of the liomantsts"? W'iii any ordinary case apply to theirs? What is It to IK^ purpose to show that a rod which had visibly becOitie'il serpttDt was still called a rod ? There could Arfee'^^/O mistime from so calling it, especially as the visible '^lik ^ wntinff accompanied the change. What doiitrifie is i^ik whidi could be brought into doubt by using the old Miiki^? What matter of belief is affected by this way Of speakltog? That the case may apply, we ought to be told that th^ rod after becoming a serpent retained the shape and appearance of a rod; that the same twofold miracle happened to tlie magicians' rods; that the spectators at the time, and the Israelites afterwards, were commanded to beiiere, and did believe, that the one s^pent devoured th^ other serpents^, though there were no serpents at all visible, and no act whatever which the senses could discern. Wlien this b shown, the case will apply, and not till then. Tot in tll^ case of the Sacrament, if there be any miracle at all, its certainty depends wholly on that of the language. Would a merciful God, who knows and pities our weakness, alkw his inspired servants to use vague language on such an occasion ? In other cases, the certainty of the miracle pre- T«nts all mistake as to the meaning of the language, so that in all such cases what would otherwise be vague language ceases to be vague. To bring forward such cases, therefore, is In reality to beg the question. 22. David says, Psal. xvi., " Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.** The Apostle Peter expressly applies this as prophetic of Christ. Acts ii. The resurrection of our Lord fulfilled the prophecy. But does not the doctrine of Transubstantiation undo what that of the resurrection 22 effected ? If the body of Christ be literally eaten and digested, how can we reconcile this with the prediction that " his flesh should not see corruption ?" 23. According to the Romish view, our Lord is qfkred up, as a propitiatory iacnfice, every time the wafer is con- secrated. This, the Council of Trent distinctly asserts. What shall we say, then, of St. PauFs and &. Peter's de- clarations, that our Lord was onee offered— that is, oncejbr all, which is the strict meaning of the word in the original t Heb. ix.; 1 Peter iii. St. Paul forbids the idea of its' being more than once<— ^' Not that he should offer himself often," is his express language. The Church of Rome commands us to believe that it may be often, yea, yearly, monthly, and daily. Which is the highest authority ?* ^4. Christ declared the Sacrament to be commemorative, not propitiatory. Hear his own words— ^' This do in remem- brance of me ! " Can this mean, '^ Offer me up in remem- brance of me ?'* We may offer something else in remembrance of him, but not himself. Romish writers tell us that whenever words, such as those '* I am the door,'^ are to be taken * Even if tile Apostolic language could be got over, and the Eucharist could be looked on as a sacrifice, what unauthorized rites are those o{ the" JfoM, whioh the Chureh of Rome has added to it! Whence did.sba derive the rite of canying the Host (or thing sacrificed, as it means) in procession f Was fliere anything like this in tibe institution f Did Christ eleoatt the bread aboTe his head, as the Romish Priests do f Did the Dis^ ciples bow down, and worship and adore it, as the people do? Whence do the Romanists derive Private Masses, ** chanted at the instamoe of tiidse <<who pay for them, without communicants and without auditors, in " which the Priest says, ' take, eat,' but there is no person to take and '^eatf On what authority are prajfers to Samts mixed up with the service of the Masst In the Ofertory, the Priest says, that he makes this oblation in honour of the Virgin and the Saints. Did Christ au- thorize him to say so t Christ ordered the Sacrament to be taken in remembrance of him — ^how dares the Church of Rome to use the follow- ing langpiage in the Mass, ^ communicating and venerating the Jnemory, '< in the first place, of the glorious Virgin Mary f " Above all, what right has she to apply the virtue of this supposed sacrifice to the dead. Did not Christ give tiie bread to the living only f What mention doee he make of the dead f However profitable it may be to her exchequer, how can she venture to sell Masses for the dead ? Is not this selling Christ again, and saying in effect with Judas, <^what will ye give me and I will deliver him to you!" 23 figuralirely ; there is always some adjunct, which lets in light on their meaning. Is there not an adjunct here i ** This is my body/' are the words of the institution ; ** this do I A remembrance of me/' is the adjunct. What further light do we need ? When the question, whether the Sacra- ment was propitiatory or commemorative, was proposed for disMCUSsion at the Council of Trent, what said the Portugeiie divine Di Ataide ? ** Our Saviour did not offer a sacrifice when he offered this Sacrament, for then the oblation of the Cross would have been superfluous, because mankind would have been redeemed by that of the Supper that went before. Besides, the Sacrament of the Altar was instituted by Christ for a memoTial of that which he offered on the Cross ; now, there cannot be a memorial but of something past, therefore the Eucharist could not be a sacrifice before the oblation of Christ upon the Cross, but shewed what we were afterwards to do." An unanswerable piece of reasoning on the part of this honest Romanist I need we say, how useless with his brother divines at the Council ? Modem Romanist* are fond of using the words ** Real Presence " with regard to the change tliey attribute to the bread. If Christ'» prewmce be real in the sense they mean, that is, 6odtfy, how is the Sacrament to be taken ** in remembranee of him i '^ Are we said to remember what is corporally present ? And how is it any longer a Sacrament, if the bread be no longer a agn, but the very thing signified ? Why do they continue to call it not only a Sacrifice, bat a Sacrament? 26, Having spoken, just now, of the fondness of die Ro- manists for the words ** Real Presence,'' let us notice that there is an amMgnity In these words. People may be deceived by them. Protestant writers acknowledge the real presence of ChAat in the Sacrament. They may therefcM^e be quoted as if diey ^udEBowledged Transubstantiation ! Not so*— Ihey mean, i%ot a bodily, but a Bpiriihud presence. A presence, not less real:, because sptritnal ! A presence m tfie «oiil, 24 through faith, and by the operation of the Holy Ghoit! None but such carnally-minded disputere aa those wiA whom OUT Lord contended, in John vi., will deny the rmUijf^ of what is spirituaL And we contend that such a preseimd is far more precious — ^far more influential— -far more in hnriRi mony with the Christian religion — ^than what is bodily. Wm should give up the glory of the new dispensation, and.go* back to the state of the Jews before Christ, if we tiouUr think otherwise. The law, with its visible, bodily sacrifioMirr and' external pomps and ordinances, " was the schoolwastn^ to bring us to Christ." We have learnt little from thor school master, if we cannot now feed on Christ spiritaallf-!^ if we cannot see hb glory, not in outward forms, but in the: changed hearts of men — not in magnificent temples of stonei. but in the living temples of the bodies of all holy and httmUe- Christians* We cannot conceive why the doctrine of; the ^odily presence should be thought to be of value in tbe^ way.. of consolation — being common and open to all, accordikig %6: those who hold it; but we can understand how that of .m-' spiriliial, presence must be full of godly comfort, bttng Ihk peculiar privilege of the believer. The bodily receptimij^aAi our ^ppooests freely confess, does not necessarily pro6tr«*tiba^ spiritual always must. Now all the revealed truths^jof Scripture tend to profit — which then is the more likely t^the true, our view of the Real Presence, ot the Romanisl^f 2n.r) 26. If some of the preceding questions be diSoi|M/f<<i>| answer, there is another still more diflScuU. Ofi 4faiA|au|iH position that there was a real oblation of Christ's bo^lhill) the. last supper, what certainty was there aftei^a|:dS:oCi4wb Crucifixion ? What idea must the disciples have hMbof^ilie nature of our Lord's body ? What idea can we h^^^J^a^j^ it be remembered, this was before his death; so thatfl^^ngn^ ideas of what a glorified body may be after d€i9fib>,4^iJfM^ any place here. How does this notion of aft; o^fisi^i^t^ Christ in t|ie Sacrament. (which the Romanists^ pmtrincfn- 25 siafeently^ call " an unbloody on6/' whereas, if it be one at all, our Lord speaks of ** blood " in it) confound all our ideas of Ctiiml being <' perfect man." If his body could be really liniceil and given to the disciples before it was hung on the enm, then it could be really buried and raised from the grave before the burial and resurrection. It might never have been IB. tite grave, for ought they know, when they saw him on die first day of the week. Yet on their full belief that it had been there, and that they were capable of judging of the hct by their sight when they saw him laid in the sepulchre, and of his having left it, when they saw him standhig before then, and still more when he appealed to their sense of touch and conifersed with them, and ** did eat and drink with them" aa any human being would, on their steadfast con- viction of this plain matter of fact the revival of their faith in Jesus rested, the recovery of their courage, and the esta- Uisfament, under God, by their preaching and suffering, of the Christian religion in the earth. It is of (he utmost consequence that on the reality of the resurrection of the body of Christ there shall not rest a shade of doubt ; for Si. l^aiiF makes it the basis of our hope as to a future state-^nay, he stakes the truth of Christianity itself upon it. But of this reality we cannot be convinced (except on the ground of its being asserted by the sacred history, which would make Christianity prove the truth of the fact, instead of the fact proving the truth of Christianity), if we think it possible that tfa0 apeetles could have been deceived. And the only cer- tainty #e can have that this was impossible, must arise from our trusting that evidence of their semes, which they them- BtlvoH'tlrMted, but which the doctrine of the Romanists goes U>' destroy. We deny, therefore, that doctrine, as the aepdiClM ^praetically did, and as, we may conclude, they WdUld llave done verbally, had the doctrine itself at that time ' bee4 heurd of| or, humanly speaking, dreamt of. ^, Those who understand the language in which the 26 View Testameat was originally written, muft be ttrock witb bi^e circunistatice, which the mere readers of our Ej^gli^jk t/anslatt6ri cannot be aware of. In the English* we reiad 9( Jewish PriesU, and of oor Lord being " a Prie§t jafter tjhe order of Alelchisedek '^ and our great ** High Prieit.'* Nof^ Hie word ** Priest'* properly means only an ** £lder»** %^i lis derired ^rona the original word for Elder» i.e. Pieahy^^-r thiis, "Presbyter, Prester, Priest. But the word« whicb; fpf Watit of Another, has unfortunately been rendered *' PrieaU'' in the case of the Jews and of our Lord, is a very diffen^ one in the original. It means *' Hacrificers/' and it applies, literally, only to the Jews, and to our blessed Lord, our grea^ ^^ High Sacrificer,^' who offered up himself! This irord <' sacrificers*' is never once applied in the N^r Testament to the Christian ministry. They are alwa^^s called Elders. Why is this ? There must be some reason for it. Plainly, because they have no literal sacrifice to o^r I Onr Lord ofl^red cnee far all — and " ihere remains no more saerificer'* Figuratively, indeed, all Christans ^te '^'toade kings and priests (sacrificers) unto God^'-^they have all ji(/iri^al dominion to exercise, spiritual offerings to bring. But the ministry, tfi this respect, are not distinguished fripm the laity, ^heh they are spoken of by themselves, tbey iire never called *^ Sacrificers," but only Elders. Even the apostles venture not to touch this title, sacred to Chnsl ! St. Peter, as if specially to rebuke those who call him l4nr bishop, layj claim to no higher title than tfatft ef . Elder. 1 Pet T. 1. How is it that the Church 4»f Roipe/inc^^ts all these intimations ? How is it tha^ in spite oi the d^liiic- tion so carefully drawn in scripture betwe^^be. Jewish* f^d the Christian ministry, in spite of the example of the i^poflUe slie professes above all to look up to, she ventures jka flmke her priests Baerificers ? ^. Here we might close our case ; and if we did, we cannot but think that we might safely ask all unprejudiced persons. Do you consider it probable, after all you have heard, that our Lord spoke literally in the words he. used io (Is disciples when he gave them the bread and wine f Does it not appear to yo\i, that from every quarter from which we have endeavoured to derive information, from Scripture and Reason, from the Law and the Gospel, from Jews i^nd ^dntilesy from the calm deliberation of the Council of Jem- sakui, and the stern prohibitions uttered amidst the thunders of Mount Sinai, there arises one universal voice, attestiiig iihe improbability, we may almost say impossibility, of the trath of the literal interpretation ? *' We speak as unto wise men, judge ye what we say." We have, however, one more test to which to bring the doctrine of Transubstantiation. It is the last, and perhaps the most decisive of all. We mean the consideration of the effkets which that doctrine produces. That this is a lawful test, no one can doubt who allows that all true scriptural doctrines have but one tendency, that of bringing glory to God and sanclifScatioo to man. Now with respect to bringing glory to God, the doctrine of Transubstantiation fails. Firsts because it teod^ to lower the reverence due to the person of Christ. The inferences from the doctrine, such as we have exhibited, are so plain, that the mind cannot shut them out» however derogiatory to the Divine Being, and painful and dbtressing to the mind itself* Secondly, it brings a scandal on our religion. It fikes on it a false charge of unreasonableness. We say, a fiite charge— but still, where it is believed, it must inflict a deep wound on religion. Let it not be said, there are doc- trine which we all believe, which are unreasonable. We deny H altogether. There are no true doctrines that are unreasonable. That of the Trinity, for instance, is a^e reason, but not against it. This is a distinction which must %e eavefolly attended to. Reason knows nothing beforehand 28 of«Aheaaluite of Ihe Godhead, it therefore receives rerereif-' tinUjnaiidthsknkfuUy whatever intbrmation God isplea^ t^ gU'e it -b^ revelation* But reason knowf^ mndi belbnehavidr^ cnidarftid^ <3ie nature of matter — all which is contradidted- hfv.dwdd6trine of Transubstanttation — therefore^ reaeott r^^ jbota^^Amk^daeime, as not coming from the same God mh6 g$fPfifM»^ the neans of previously knowing what body is. 'r It^ ifkim ilbrea30iiabj|e doctrine, and so does injury to the neligiofr VrM^HsblQh^'Godlias bound up his glory. '^ ^/A,b9tJt &ils#»iwith regard to the sanetificatioti of madL' ]^fiC€(>9C^.itl»Vd together differs from the doctrine of the* Triiii^.' llOfit.drei the effects which that true scripMfttt^ 4i0ftirtoq pfcttiMa ? The belief that the Father is God, Js of courftfttlke basis of all religion, and needs not to be examined. Tim belief tli«t the Son is God, deepens all the feelings llrfaidb 'the. g^pel history excites. It makes his death an BfyimomenLlrit eAhaiioes the love that brought him fronl' bMMPen t^ endure it ! it displays the heinouness of sin, for wJUob'medk fHiekpialioit was offered ! it magnifies the mercy OtLthfi Sadler in providing such a sacrifice, and his jostlte in.m^nti^Qg^ it! it holds forth Jesus as a divhut friend; ^'-iibiq^ as/w«ll as wiiling, to save to the uttermost allHvbo CQtie^liQta Ood by hhn." The belief that the Holy Ghost is God, inspires confidence in his power to subdue the strpngest habits and most violent passions in as ! it inspiires awe in the thought, that if our bodies are the temples of thi^ Holy Ghost they are the temples of God, mid ** if any- miin defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy H' it inn- spifi^ comfort in the midst of trials, spiritual and teslficiraH' and in the prospect of that hour which will most seed id dinine Comforter, the hour of death I This b a hasty ske^li qf the effects produced by the belief in the doctrine of Mi Trinity. Now let us contrast with these the effects produced by a belief in the doctrine of Transubstantiation. First, as to its effect on the PriesU of the Church of Rome. 29 The belief that by their meafis the bread ami triae '*r^ a^^tually Cadged iato the body and blood ef GMfl(l» nilal bji^e >'«< lieadeDcy to make them proud and ovevbearthgi oiib ilMi*^ be a dangerous thing for a human being to AuiikitiMtAw hm 9ucb a power in his hands as that which die Romaiis^J de$«ribe by the words ** making Ood/' He must betskptedi ta prfsMiaie on it^ and to arrogate to himself other pUMi^iD;^ Aceordingly we know, that this has taken plaoe» both With' tl.e priesthood at large, and with indt?iduab. 'Sb^iiriy A* the neiga of our William Rufus, at the Council of Bsri^'we fiad Pope Urban II. declaiming against eoclesiasiita^ dtiing homage for their benefices, *' For," said the Pbpb, ** it i^ a most execrable thing that holy hands, appoinlctt tq perforin what was never granted to any Angel, to entde Ood^th» Creaicr^ and to offer him to God the Father, for th<l «llv)atioil of mankind, should be reduced to the homiliatiag basenciui hi slavishly mingling with profane hands.'* T« Irhich jM tiio asipembled fathers, we are told by Eadmer, wfad was present^' cried ** Amen ! amen ! " There was, thMefere^ ha hon«6r felt Bit this manner of speaking. And we knowtha^ in oiit- times, individual priests have felt no korror in so apttahing \ but have availed themselves, without so^upb,' of- tbe po^l^eft' it gives them over weak minds to talk of **mikmgG^^*^ and " creating the Creator ! "* Next, as to the effect on the Xatly. What must the unreflectiilg, who necessarily constitute the great majority afuongat them, think, when they are told that the wafer id become God ? Can they enter into nice distinctions betweeii the wafer being an image of God, and being God himsi^ ? They are told to adore and worship : and what is it that they seebefoic their eyes ? a wafer. A God in reality, the Romanists cry; but, they must confess — in appearance a I I > «»f > y» ■■■Ill I ■ ■ ■ I ■ ' ■ ■ I m l— ! » f * In the Hth Lesson of the Canon of the Mass, Biel says, ** Christ U ** incarnated between the hands of the Priests as in the womb of the << yil^-^-the Fiieats caa create their Creator ! " 30 ^ffox I W^t ipust this lea4 to in the case of the unlearned mi4).uiUQ|jieUi|;eqt» but idolatry? It is vain to tetl, us wJM^ ^ reflecting part of the laity think ; we have no wish 1^ «^^^ idolatry on each of them individually : but we do fif^fflfS^^ \h^ .Church of Rome with teaching a doctrine^ iqe fpexiff^blQ t^dency of which, with the rude multitude, the f/;e^%jps8s of worshippers, must be that of making them idolfttprs.* We would earnestly and affectionately entrieat tbt^t Church to consider how she will answer it at the bar ot *• " ■ ■ t God for thus endangering the souls of her people. But we forget how hopeless this entreaty is ! — how impossible is it for her to give up this or any other doctrine without abandoning li^^r claini to Infallibility. As to what the Romanists say« ibat in bowi^ down before the wafer, even the rudest of .men carry their thoughts to the Divine Being, and so escape fi^ ch^rg^ of idolatry^ it is eiactly what ^he heathen of ol4 used t9 s^ji when pressed with the absurdity of bowing down befo^ stocks, V^d stones. If such an answer disproves the fringe of idoUtry^ then there never was such a thing as i^olp,^ ip t|9f{,wo|'l(L''^ So much for the effect on the unin- j^^lJU^lJ^iXy—- wh^.must be the effect on the intelligent? ,J^j(ypo^.|i 4ovi!bt of the truth of Transubstantiation should >^8{Q in their ffund (an,d from what we have shown, it is hard Ao suppose it will not, some time or other), then if the ^dpctl[i^e h^ ^i^amined and its true nature seen, and if finally Jt be givep up, all Christianity is in danger of being giv^n up with it For when a man finds he has been deceived on one point,. he is japt to think he has been deceived on all. Sifpejcstitiop ?i^ily falls into unbelief. Thus in Fi;ance, in the, year 1790^ all religion was cast off as a fraud and a ,fyib\^ .jpo^lj because they had never knpwn it in its true /oxip« Tbey bad driven out Protestantism long before by Jbs BfiTQCatiojl of the Edict of Nantes, and Infidelity was ii.tk, ,tai * The wonbippeTi of tbe sim used td defend theiMthres bj that jkhci JHity actually dw^t in that luminai;]^. 31 tfie consequence/ahcl tlie Itevohition the puniiihi^^nt! '/Wfe will not charece that revolution wholly on Rtimanil^^tlteiFfi w^ civil tyranny, as well as ecclesiastical, wfaich'^han ^Si^ out the patience of men — ^biit o( this wd feel sttre, ^iftyStaM of tlie atten<)ant horrors, such as conducting a hartdt Ar f^*^ cession through Paris, and enthroning her as the gooiSesis 6t reason, and treading under foot the Bible in th^ nildW^^iV fcoffings and execrations, could never have happett^a M ^ Protestant country. If Romanism should ever again prevail in the earth, it can only be preliminary to a second triumph of Infidelity. A religioli which opposes ieasoti, undermines its own foundation^ ■' '* -^ " * But there are others to be c6tisidered biesided tti^ ^rt^t- hood and the laity of the Rdmisfa dhur^h. Hie r^Iigloii 6f Jesus Christ ^as meant for the iirorld hi lafg^— fdr the Heaihen who lire yet unconverted — tdr the Jewi Whd ' hav^ ^et ^e veil upon their hearts, ^hat must be' the ett^ct bf announcing the do<itrine of Tiraiii^ub^tantiation td 'these f Even ftoinanists have confessed thatthisdcMftrtnefli idba$- vantage to their missionaries amongiit did heftttieii'. ^ T^t tifs suppose that a Romish priest visitii the liibabitanisrbftfee^dui:^ Sea Islands. At present, many of thei^ h&ve JiiA'^ikf^ of the religion of Jesiis, as taught fi*om the fiibl«, and^fei^ hesitating about it, W hat they have heard of ii is S6 pure, s6 simple, so reasonable, that they are on the pdiiit of embracttig it. 'Ndihing holds theni back but a i^atural cUngfaij: to thehr ancient habits and superstitions. But no\^ cdtties the prJedi, and tells them that, when he hail uttered t feW wbfds ov^r tH^ wafeir, a mira<^le ill pdrfbfmed. Tbey dee no tlKfi-acle— they behold all is it was befoite — and yet they afe iidd they ii)ustt)elieve ii, as an ^teeulial partof ChHstiattity. Wbat mti^t t%ey how think of Christianity t Ih what a new tight tiiust it app^r ! Bow changed from Vrhat it was whett lib^y heird'il 4l0m difefipd df Pr6te»tftnt taiissiotf&Heis ! If they lite brought to thiAii: th^t the iteriptdt'ed coinilhaad them td beK^ iHiat 32 nr <;y69r touch, aod laste, commaBd tbem to deny, what, danger miatit there be of their changing their mind coocem- img^ cfariHiaAi^y f « What better/' they may say, ^* whal moce cectakt is it than our old religion V And whoiilbeyi am^^told to worship before the wafer (whatever ail^qiflt there may be to teach them that this differs from wor- shipping the wafer), will they not cry out, *' Why this is as hftdvas ourqld.idolatry ? And so all hope of tfae'v con« vevsiQP^ or of eoe worth the name at least, may be lost I Wethaveapplied this reasoning to the South Sea Islanders^ but how much more forcibly does it apply to the polished^ HibdKioi^y'i^aftt iHimbers of whom are now throwing o(ff theieiamneht'flaperBtition, and are applying to European* stiidieaaild philosophy. Of what immense importance is it that^hrirtiafiity ahould come to them in a form that will bear Ibe nioslrigorous examination of reason I Otherwise, wiil they oot rtject it, as one of the forms of impos. ture, of which tbsy will learn that there have been no mkiny In the^^ivld ? When they see the wafer carried in proeessfony and the Romanists falling down before it, will- they not be apt to join Averroes, the Arabian philosopher, who, when he saw the same thing, cried out, << I have travelled over the world, and have found divers sects, but sa sottish ^a sect or law I never found, as is the sect of the Christians, because with their own teeth they devour their God whom they worship." This is similar to what the- greatest of the Roman philosophers uttered hnndreds of years before ; when, speaking of the various shapes under which superstition and idolatry had existed in tlie vtoM^ up to his time, Cicero says, <'But was there $ver \any man so mad as to believe that which he eats |o be €Ml f ''- Now we wish it to be understood we are not delMAing'* the impressions we have described ; we are only describing them. They wiU arise, whether we lament them, and ook- demn them, or not. Is it likely, we ask, that adodtvfne can 38 U^troe^ :w)ifeli g4v66 Hie to^och imprastiofisyMd'hiiidmt th(in|MWpagation of that religion whieh it'tMitJfto'biHmi UeiMi^ 4>p tb^ wHole earih^oet of the* i^i^^ktMit^ liilM4iM^dflHiOse inhAbilants only two haMliii«i4ifi^lkMMn hkfi^H^y^^r^ beaitl of the naiiie of ChiiM 1>J QH^Iieil' thvrerj^rrK Hioi«e between the literal ant %tt»aiiaMi1rflMn4 p9bfa<lib(i'6f Christ's words, and reason eiMiS()iSBedibttQM$H|Mi' tMenlrfeidy luelloes us to reject th^ iiierirtt'i9(taill''Wk^l^ thit^ii&iii^ additional inducement, when,'lKf lo doiogyr^vev f^eitilMite the reeeptioMd of ohrtstiaiaty^Jtb^ii^alniBdrail/ tiiMHefls:ef onr fellow^ereatartol ^ i\:^iini woii Ui6 T^a^i what a stumbling blo.k is Trini8«bstHiiia4ifUlb(lti4( tlffi/i^jms! it seems almost inipossihlo-ftii^iiihecftanianirtif.? t<»iG09n«fet the Jews; and so it has inlaet bte»iieiBiihtit>' b^;* The practice of worshippiagpG0d^<ttti|der^lni'8|iBtnl^'j of^B^ wafer (the words of the Oouwctl oi.7k3eti!t))Lm^^aiad to^thi^ idotatry^, and utterly irreeo(icibea%ie wslfa ttaial^w nidr Meteljr in its ceremonial parts^ but^]»:itd:>eiwtletij|gif! spiritik iTTfae Idea also of drinlciog bidod; liitmidlfy iaiin^lYiilir? tHd^'Q^nHOt eddnre* As loiig, > therefioRi^ jal>ficlvrielli»oil^i^^ cqinfiik^tQ /thean hampered with tki^ doia^ims^il^lift^^viftf^i; r^imr. It can obtiBiin no bearing*. TiU Pr9toste4tftt2f##li(jtHNv' fuilj^ awake io the «hity of carrying their pdte:^iid|;<)f4^$ii%it aldjO^jfocm ol^ Christianity to the Jews^ there[Cii»i)0 iij9!>h)(ygQ)e th«t>4h»l iBott inti^resitng people .will be «oo«e]^lied«4^.r4iC> waUihe liie g^lory of oisc reformed reli^ioii, whan ihl<^ii£li?.> itloiahtahauBilthhiy., under the Divioe blessiag-, '.'> tbe^^^ftlb ^ shc9fpiip£et|^lHQiiaQ. of Israel'^ shall be gathered into th% foMboMilatoiati andatball display, that devotion in his^^cas^^^^ w^wdi-itey b«f#lwitii,uoexampled though mistake^ iobje<^ir n^HJte^tosteflui^heri^ to their law ; and so, tl^r^^rngj^j;^ ti2|fo««(ifli«iad lefferts of Jews and Obrisiian^, *' like iii^lne^^^ pf^dpf^iQmliiea shall be brought in.'' , ,. Hfb^ have lha»9eeB that the doctrine of TraBSulaiiitanjUa,-^ t'lima^nmifiMiA the te^t of the coQsideration of i^4;/ff^«.v E tf4 ^lr'M^0fnd«rft pride in the Prieilsv at^ klit)en»titiori ^tid to^iry4il tfaa'P^opte; it fett^s cbttetlahity in its e^fRyri^tb ^i^ytri^ Hi^athen ; and it absolutely paralyzes it W7(h inM(>ei^i(>'the Jews. II thas opposes the saA^llicaifoiy #f anfciD>aii.hiuch ^ U did the glory of Ckni ^ atid U watftliignhi )lxilh tfaennlttrks of a true scriptural doctrtncf. . . -v.*^' jiiiinimay lie^adcedy whence did this doctrine ari^e ? ' oii/I^ecftomainMtsfeplyy from the Fathers, that is, ftont^i/tfi saarly^ dbratmK>wtrita>8. We do not deny that the'faXheira iisGicbifag^iieD'aDdbi^rstraiaed lang'uage on the subjeel <yf dJkb sBciseiaieilts^ Tliey had been so accustomed to rel i^'N^s a^hcah:icDfasistGRi'priodpally of carnal notions andvisiUe xffdfioanciQS, tbatihdy could not readily enter into the ^pril olfClhii&siiamty. They were many- of them, motreeveiry fol&fes of/ARia and Africa, men of warm imaginattons^atid lond- n^^aubtletieSy and speaking a language full of fig>uVes «U fionceiCBz.so that seme of them may seem to ccnudte- «ilflaiQe thei^do^cine without intending it. But we ddlny Jfafaat H j<tanifiairly be deduced from them. We could eid^ily hhew^iui we have done with regard to scripture,- thffi to ihtertunet their language literally, would be to do ^theiti f^reattnjttstioe. For instance— merely to shew wh»t is) the maliUr.pf /cat, not to refer to them as authority ^iii'ilbe prosent qa0stion--*we may quote Augnsttne, sayiogr ^ eiie time that the Sacrament is << the sacrifice of Ohistef s hy^y and bitody*' and at another time that ** the cbu»eb^<fflSerrilo ^fanst the sacrifice of bread and wine in lailth^nd 4(»^/' Ihivi shewing that the language first quoted is fig^ibft^e, and explaining it — also Jerome, whatever feng^ag^fbe may Bse on some occasions with regard toChrist^s ix^y^hi the Sacrament, declaring plainly on oiie ooea^idil^ '*'^1 belieye that the Gospel is the body of Chrisf'^Ohryse^bM, at one moment telling us, « since the Word i^?d> thi^'iif^iiQr body^loi us believe and behold it with the eyes^bf^ilr «5 m\f^^9': «i ciH^I|0r. declaring that *' lltd aaiwre t^f .1^^ l^tyii^Lpi Jo a,t"*rnQfigBB waf piog men «giJD«i the lUmil JlKt(9rprata.tioQ-, of John v}.> << there ia in tho N«w Te«(A- )9Wili% )Qtt9ff rwbioh kiUeth him who does not uiidenitaMi ifPifAimki^ the' things which are said ; for ilyoa tdce the according to the letter. Except ye eat my flceh and dtink iny bloody this letter killeth'' — Atfaanasius enforcing the same G&qtioB^ a&d saying, *' For, for how^maoy vmmldlhis 4f9<^..have ftufficed for meat that it ahoald (beebm^Hhe iiMri$hment of the whole world ? "---«nd'Sooittwitih otfans afltie. Fathers, whom we might quote to proiie the>£ftct thf^t like the scriptures they speak figurdtiiMd|R'>m 4&e .)iili0tta^they use concerning the Saerament. -ittsiiiolito jbhe fathers^ but to the Dark Agea, that the doctcmeiiMrBS lis origin. It was not acknowledged in Eug^andjinfthie l^h ceutnry. The Saxon Liturgy of £lfiic>/Arehhiahof> of<2si}terbury, which was the Liturgy used inbdreharbhes ati lihe end of the 10th century) says expressbf? of ildie if^iUouser' as it is called, that is,^ the xoninehiatdd biwadv M; Nothing herein is to be understood' eprporeaU^^Jhfit sphrittiaUy;'' And again — ^* This mysteDyiifl »frlodge«»rid figure/' The doctrine of the bodily presence tarMJta.]its fitst pnhlio aptiearance in Europe in the Sth^oeBtury^ ioain remarkable <iocasion^»-^There was a controTerSy betWtan the Qroek and tin Roman churches concernfiig mogie^iwrf #fc^^>whioh the Patriarch of Constantinople Tideooitly f$ippsflKrd*^aiMJltbe Foj^e as violently defended. TbeOreeka Hs^lt Dneiolilf^rgnment-^that since Christ had left ms^the br^Adiiafi'tbeiittage of his body, no otber^ ififeFii»tima|^<^ ^pglMr^itar?J)e worshipped. The Romanists used a sitiii moil^ <^!lTJx)ipiS one iu reply — that since the bread was pbaoged i^ito the v^ry body of Christ, the bread w^s M iiiHL9g^,at.all» and therefore images might be worahippedi 7,|ie q^nelosjon in neither case seems to be natusaU How^ ip^vpci^hi^trmay; bej the fact is^ that the idea of an ahsolute 39 Umigem the bread was first broached on tbia ooeasion, in order to flfopport the practice of laiage wonhip. Subae- qwaotly, it was decreed by the 5tb Council of the Laienui ki' the year 12I69 yet not univeEtally iicbnowledgad* Siofce thai tivie, however, it haa been rivetted on the Somamsts by tbe Coonoil of Trent : and now, with it tlie Church of Rome most itand or fall. ' • - A¥e have denied that the doctrine of Tfansiibataiil»lioi» i^ tty be found in the fathers, though we dSo no! cieny-that thby UHe" Exaggerated language with ? e^asd to f he aac^Nl symbols. Bnt were the fathers OTer so much on the-nide of the RohMndAsts^they are no authority on sueh a (|uesti6li as this. We refuse them not that deference which is tbeir due. as ptous men, and 1^ witn^ssea to matters d fact with regard to. early opinions and practices — ^wliich opinions and pr^ctice^y however^ will not always bea; ttie l^ht o( scripture and re»H>D. And bed they led the w«y to the &bn)an superstition, it n^ight be.steange — it might aatduisii x(s-— it might call forth a« sigh over the weakness, of nnin, and his unhappy facility in. cormpttng what is good and* idnsualizitig' what is spiritual — but it could dxi Uo more* ilad the fact been what the Romanisl^ wisb to make rt, but what we deny it. to be^-^it could have no weight. When we are called upon U> believe tbe most incredAblft thing that ever was proposed to man;» we can listen to na teachmg; but what is divine. The fathers, never pretend to do more than draw their doctrines from the scHpturea — the ftrs^ persoos who talkedo( dectrioal itmkWiom, aa distinct from th^ scri^ture^ we^e thfs^ heretics* Now we baye the; sci|ip.tui:es in o^t^ b^ds, so th^jt. we cajft dri^ f ah» tbe same somrce. The Romanists wpnld have Uf^ink at t(he muddy stream, but we pveCer the pure, fountaiiK They appeal to imins(Mred. writif^s. We appeal to iQ»pked, They desii^ not, as, we dp,^ to. h^ve^ tjbe cau^e tried by the Hi^jptures, of wtulch all mpn may ju4go-^h#y wlsti to^ 37 earry it 'mio another courti where the people emmot follpw ftbem} where the ceiMe may be tried with clased dQqrs.; where the law i» laid down, not in one voJunie lofiAVi* denbted tffttth» bui in fifty folio volanne*, ot whiqh wie kttow not what parts may be ftpurious or Goprupt'; wh^fe there ia n^ coMmon judofe; and from wheacerho>^b p^fAi^^ will come out claiminj^ the victory. Of wha4 pQfi9ihlo «ae can k.be to have auch a pretended tnial ? iK^'^f^the questioa must he settled by the Word of Qod^ inlevpr^tfBdt n^ by the Cbarch of RoDie-«^or that would/ be t^ pre- judge, the. case, but, by enlig-htened reasoo^ impartially exercised, comparing scripture with scripture. It is, tM^efora^ to. no purpose, that they quote Bether39 or Church of England divines ; we wilt not stop to enquire wbether they do it justly or unjustly ; we will not quote «gainat them member&of their own church. Duns Scotus, Cacdinal Bellarniine, and even Pope Golasius : we call no man Master but Christi and those inspired men who hajve spoken to u& the mrnd of Christ. We allow of no church iufimihility, nor even authority, in articles of faitb|->i-onless '^^ authority'' be used in the sense of the church of England, 9S ne^ards church, membership, not in the sense of t)ie Chiif tth of Rome, as regards the salvation of the soul* , Two circumstances will strikingly display the object in yiew, wiuohrendecs the doctrine of Transubstantiation so dear 'tot the*. Romanist^, and their nnscrupulous spirit in pur^pg.: that, pi^et. The first is^ their refusal of the eup/tflr-the laity* The second is, their making the validity pi • the Sacrament depend on the priest's intention^ In eaofa case thegrand object in view is to exalt the priesthoskU The refusal of the cup to the laity is a very daring act. .Oii9s Lord never once mentions the bread in connection with}hi» blood, nor the wine with his body. Nor does St. ^ Paul' This plainly arose fcom their being sy mbolsy which 38 the^ Mroa1d,npt be in any otber way it^n Hfj/i^^pfifivAt^ i^ bread to xUe body, and the wine to the blpodf -/B,9i^fi|Wi Ciiurcti of ^ome not ooly overlooks this, new pjr(>Q,t ^,tj^- fi^uratiye ^leaning* of our Lord's words, bojt. d|^rqy,q^t j^ far'as iiesib her power, by confounding the bread witji^f^ bfood as well as the body, and the wine wiih the ^?^^ff§^ well as the blood, and pronouncing, by the Council of Trent, that ** if any man shall deny that Christ is cppm^^ whole and entire under either species,be shall be^ccursed//;. Hiiis she dares to Join what God has put asunder!, Sh% contends vehemently for the precise literal meaning pf (^^ librct^s 'words, but she is the fir»t to take liberties witK. their precise order. So inconsistent, so bold, can she hjSj^, if it serves a purpose 1 * The making the validity of the Sacrament depend on tl^^. priest's intention (Council of Trent, Sess. yiii. Can, U>}^ is an' act of stitl greater presumption. For according.to^ this view, since there is no change in the wafer* UAles§ . it bcwitled by the priest, no member of the Church of. Rome is eVersufe that he has partaken of the Sacran^en|^ . Nay, hd Ik Ifiot sure that the priest is a priest at all-Trf^Rt, untess the bishop intended to ordain him, he is not ord^iped^ Nor dan the Bishop be sure, by the same rule, whetJi^f ;h|e is a BVslibp ; and so on. E ven the succession of the VQfi^^, . may have been destroyed. How the Church of Roiqec^ii^ impose the beliet of a doctrine which is to eult \h^ PH^^t- hood at the expence of all certainty, whether s|ie^^a8.^^^i\v^ real ptiesth^od, and any real sacraments, i^ a matter x>f astoflffshment. Nor is it less so, how the people can con* ^ tefntedly receive a doctrine, which leaves them entirefv at , tfaentercyof the priest, to give and withhold,as he pleases.^ ]- ] - , ■ . * Speaking of the boldness of the Church of Rome, ire may ask, Wha^ ' warrant has she for asserting that the hread is changed into the "M^-ofi C^ist with its ^ bones and nerves'* — ^nay, into the <<hody, hlood, sotU and divinUf/'* of Christ I . What word did our Loid speak concerning faSs k>tA^ ■■ Is liis ** pou}'" taken and devoured by the wicked } 39 bHS tti h manner which must ever be secret from them, tliteiir 'dearest christian pri vileges. Nay ^ more, if the priest's iSronftion be that the bread shall not be chang^ed, they ara iA$t bnty deprived of what they most value, hut, they ara gmtyoi the most manifest idolatry ; as they , must t(ien^- i^vb^ cbrifess.* ,, , h^ . ■ • •' ' O^j-^jiT krother Protbstants ! what shall we say to tliese thing's} Are they not enoug'h to warn any man^ as^ains^t Romanism ! What must be the tyrannical spirit of that^ cimrch, which imposes upon its deluded people^^^on pa

9^ ^fernal punishment, the belief of doctrines such as the py^9, we have been discussing ! Take this doctrine^as, a spe^, cimen ! On account of this, what blood. has been spi|t! what persecution and misery endured 1 as if ,the Lp^fL Je^us Christ could ever have meant that n^en should be, killed for not being able to believe contrary ^to thejp^ senses. Remember the things that hav6.hap)>ene^,ap(^^ trust to yourselves for their not happeiaing.ag'^ia. .^ '^FtHi^Jl ndt to any imaginary improvement of Rom^ajfiiq;f-&Er^ mndness which may be assumed for the pre^^n^.^ Ba^; assured that Rome will take vencreance, if ever she can* (dt the three hundred years of triumph which Protestantism has enjoyed. There is a dreadful arrear due, in her opiqiouK^ Ask yourselves, whether you will run the risk of her exacting it. If not, you must not sleep. Thiis is, np time fo^'lbeicig at your ease. Your faith will be tried presently, ahcl you sHiould be ready. Are there not Romish Chapels spirino^ing up all around us ? — in many instances, where third' is as yet no congregation ; shewing that it is not the natiiVal effect of an increased population, but an out* bgr^st of proselyting zeal. Are there not Colleges and Schools set up, to corrupt the youth, the rising hope of tiu^4^o«ntry? Are there not Nunneries in many places, * This is acknowledged by the Romish Bishop Fisher. 40 idi'Aediio^iOur .suf^ceptible female population?, Let the Roniftllisils ^vcrrrate their success as much as they please *TrrJlw4;4Qt^us take care not to underrate it. Tiie mere Cft^;9^^ t^^if thus exerting: themselves and boasting, 9i,a. 9fn^ ^h\Qg in England ! is not the order of Jesuits iireHorqid ? What a portentous circumstance is this ! ^ Ope j-'Hope ()§»stroyecl it, and gave to the world such reasons for ^§|s^p£|pg. i(^ as we should have thought must either p^ M^WfS^s^fi?^^^^ to prevent for ever its restorationll j^^vgfjLjieles^. ajQother Pope has called it into life again, J^YAWil^^SkS^^ the circumstances of the times, in othier ^.qrf^Sy^fgr ^ctrusade against Protestantism. There canine j3k9d(C{ubt that a great effort is being made, not only here bift^^P j^urojp^ at large — nay every where, as is evidenced ^M¥ ^^J^^^!^ appointment of Romish Bishops for sucii Silaces as New Zealand and New South Wales. Every thino^ ^demonstrates the approach of a great strugg]^~ah attempt on a mighty scale to set up once more the dommiti^n ^ of the Pope, and the prevalence of that Religion, which, blighting as it U to all our best interests here and iii&t^- after, is, after all, the religion of human nature, proridiH^ a refuge for the indolent in mind and the vicious in h^a^t« Be prepared, then, for the trying of your faith— it may'^ffie harder than you think. ** Watch ye, stand fast m Ifaie " faith, quit you like men, be strong." You wilV'fe allured j)y fair speeches, a shew of calm reasoning,' i^^^f there be a chapel near you, by exquisite music. Be4idtdi« ceived ! Strengthen and establish yourselves iil the^^ii-* eiptes of Protestantism, and the warnings of historj^i oO«t good hold on the arguments fromscripture and reasot^, tMhtbh convinced your forefathers and led them to endur^amyiMag:, even death itself, rather than give vtp ProlestaD4lsmv ^tfod when you have strengthened yourselves, strengtbtfn ;)roiir weak brethren. Think of youf poorer and naleatMid neighbours, and consider yourselves stewards of the kn^yw- 41 Itedge you poissess, which is g^iven you, in part at le«it, ^n trust for them. Deliver it out to them in sueh MhioM, anct to such extent as they can comprehend. Ever^ nton, fi>r instance^ can comprehend how unreasonable a thfng^ uls to insist on his believing the doctrine of TranlKib- ^^tiation, on the word of the Romish Church. How i§ he to believe that that church is a church at all ? By the scriptures, they will tell him. But how is h6 to be- lieve that what he sees and reads as the scripturesy ktiiVHie scriptures? By the evidence of his senseis. Atid'yet ;he is required by the church of Rome to reject th6 eyl(l6ii6e of his senses in believing* the doctrine of Transub^tah- tiation. He is required to believe, in the case of the bread and wine, that what he sees is not what he sees — what he touches and tastes is not what he touches and iastes. So that he is to use the evidence of his senses ,.^hen he sees and reads the scriptures for the purpose 6f believing that he is not to use them when he sees, touches, ^a,Dd .tastes, the bread and wine. What man so poor, and unused to reasoning, but can see through an inconsistency MQ tmisparent ? Teach, then, your poorer brethren, this «nd other plain arguments against the doctrine of Tran- jmbstantiation, that they may be on their guard against doctriiies less unreasonable, and requiring more know- I Ifdge of scripture to refute. And at the same time teach 4b9miWhat is the true scriptural view with regard to the Iiei;d> Supper* Not only protect them from what is j^^on^) but» which is the best of all protection, possess cftbtfni with what is right. Teach them, that though the biMd and wine are still bread and wine, yet they are not Jtmmtm bread and wine. Teach them, that though they iWfef symbols and memorials, they are not tuMhed symbols iBaiiate memorials ; they are means of grace to the humble and devout disciples of Christ, and pledges of his love. Teach them, that in the eovl of the believer, there is a 42 reed reception of the body and blood of Christ, a real par- ticipation in the benefits of his oblcUion on l&e crossy a vital and apirittud union with Him, though there is no reception of the real body and blood. Teach them that it depends on themselves^ and on their obeying the motions of the Holy Spirit, not on the Priest's intention, whether the sacrament be effectual to them or not. Thus enlighten them with the truth ; and rejoicing in the light, they will turn away instinctively from darkness. What labour of love, brother Protestants, can be more delightful than this? what duty can be more a privilege? Neglect it not, as yoQ love your own souls, as you compassionate your less favoured brethren, as you feel for the honour of Christ and his holy and reasonable religion, and as you wish the divine blessing to rest on yourselves, your chil- dren, your dependants, your neighbourhood, and your country. PRINTED BY BICHABD WELCH, DUKE-STEEET, READING. I ■ '' i . THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND'S APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND ; ""«. J 1. f . OR, A REPLY TO MR. O'CONNELL: ./ ,'-.■'; O/ A LETTER, BY GEORGE FYLER TOWNSEND, SUB-CURATE OF ST. MARGARET*S, DURHAM. SECOND EDITION, ENLARGED. LONDON: PRINTED FOR J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALLi & SOLD BY F. ANDREWS, DURHAM. 1839. LONDON: GILBERT & KIVlNOrON, PKINTRRH, BT. JOHN'S SQUARE. TO THE REV. GEORGE TOWNSEND, PREBENDARY OF DURHAM, AS A TOKEN OF ORATITUDE, RESPECT, AND AFFECTION, THIS LETTER, WRITTEN IN DEFENCE OF THAT PURE BRANCH OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, TO WHICH HIS LIFE HAS BEEN, AND IS DEVOTED, IS DEDICATED, BY HIS SON AND CURATE, THE AUTHOR. A 2 This letter was originally written with great haste, in two successive weeks, for the columns of the Durham Advertiser. A desire to accede to the wishes of the many friends who have requested its re-publication, is the excuse he pleads for its present appearance before the public. Durham, October , 1839. LETTER, 8fc. Sib, I THANK you for your letter. You have thrown away the mask. " The people of England'* may henceforth know that the end of your career, the ultimate object of your counsels, is again to impose on them the yoke of those ^^ superstitixms additions to the trvik^ which three centuries ago their forefathers, at the hazard of their lives, rejected and cast away. Flushed with unexpected success in the arena of political contention, you would venture, in a moment of rashness, to intrude into the precincts of the sanc- tuary. With unhallowed hands you would touch the ark of God. The priests, therefore, of that sanctuary must no longer trust their defence to the timid statesman, the time-serving layman, or to any of the host of worshippers at the shrine of the idol of expe- diency. We must no more be content to clopnse 8 only the courts, and attend at the altar ; we must mount the watchtower in Jerusalem, warn the peo- ple of their danger, prepare them for the onset of the enemy, and be ourselves the standard-bearers in the battle. With no further apology, I shall proceed to the consideration of your letter. Allowing you a certain space for the guarded, cautious, and insinuating ex- pressions with which you necessarily must introduce and interlard any communication made to an audi- ence avowedly repugnant to the subject of discus- sion, your late address resolves itself into — Firsty A complaint — which cannot be supported. Secondly^ An assertion — ^unfounded in truth. Thirdly^ A boast — which cannot be substantiated. Your complaint is, " that Protestants, by their mis- representations and calumnies, totally disfigure Cath- olic truth." Your assertion is, "that this Catholic truth is favoured * by argument, history, unbroken succession, divine tradition, and the vn*itten word of God.* " Your boa^st is, " that while Protestantism has lost all power of expansion. Catholicity is making on every side its converts.'* Now, Sir, on all these points I am ready to meet you ; and I trust I shall prove, to the satisfaction of the tribunal before whom you are pleased to plead — the " people of England !" — I trust I shall prove to the reflecting, upright, high-principled — the truth, honesty, Bible-loving people of England, that, as the 9 bidtoiy of the last ten years has manifested, no reliance can be placed on your statements, sworn to on oath, before a Committee of the House of Com- mons, when you desired the Belief Bill to pass into a law ; so also no credence is now to be given to, because no truth is to be found in, the complaint, assertion, and boast of your present letter. Before, however, I commence discussing the three- fold division of your letter, permit me to point out to you an error or misrepresentation of which you are yourself guilty in your erroneous use of the term " Catholic" It has been my lot to converse with many persons of your persuasion, and with some members of your priesthood. They all universally assume to themselves this title. It is a title, we, the priests of the Church of England, claim as our own. It is an appellation of honour we have not ceded, and will not cede to you. The whole and essen- tial matter of controversy, and difference between us and you, is summed up in this one appellation. Those who teach Catholic doctrine are (you will allow) alone rightly called Catholics. What, then, is Cath- olic doctrine, is the question at issue. Catholic doc- trine is universal doctrine ; or the doctrines, opi- nions, articles of faith, which were at first universallv and unanimously adopted in the Churches founded the various countries of the world during the fi four centuries. That Church which teaches otl than these doctrines ceases to be Catholia Th the Church of Rome has done. The far dtstf 10 Church to which you owe allegiance, has added the twelve articles of the Creed of Pope Pius IV. to the twelve articles of the Nicene Creed. The Church of Rome has added to the primitive faith twelve new doctrines, not received and not taught in the canons, creeds, and oecumenical councils of the first four centuries. The Church of Rome, in enforcing as matter of faith these new doctrines, ceases to be Catholic. As long as the Church of Rome teaches only what is rightly Catholic doctrine, or doctrine taught in all the Churches of the first four centuries, the Church of England unites with her; for that Church still teaches her members the doctrines, as fenced in by the creeds, sanctioned by the canons, and witnessed to by the fathers and bishops assem- bled at Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chal- cedon. You sometimes complain of the term Papist, as applied to those who think their allegiance is due to a foreign hierarch. We complain of the term Protestant, as applied to the Church of England. Nothing in our acts of convocation, in our acknow- ledged formularies^ in the authorized writings of the chief movers in our rejection of Popish errors, can be found affixing to us this term. We continued CaihoUc^ and, therefore, one strong proof of our Catholicity (for the Catholic Church is, and always has been, a Church protesting against error), we are protesters against error. With Christ and His holy apostles, with the antient Catholic bishops and fathers, alike of the Eastern and Western 11 Churches, we protest against the errors of a priest- hood who would corrupt the truth by superstitious additions ; and of sectarians, who would mar its purity by their self-authorized curtailments. Tlie Church of England continued Caiholic. The Church of England retained the creeds, the col- lects, the liturgies, the episcopacy, the sacraments, as they were sanctioned by the long use of the Universal Church, in those ages anterior to the in- vention of Romish novelties. The Church of Eng- land never departed from the unity of the faith. Her divinely appointed rulers — her bishops, priests, and deacons, united with the king, parliament, and people, in casting away the dross of human additions, and in denouncing the dominion of a grasping and ambitious foreigner. The bishops, consecrated, to their sees when the Church was overgrown with errors, retained the same sees (and the same right of governing and ordaining therefore) when those errors were discarded and overthrown. The nation^ too^ continued Catholic. It is a fact, which admits not of denial, that for eleven years the purified liturgy was joined in *, the two sacraments were par- taken of, the parish churches were frequented by all the inhabitants of the land ; when, in an evil hour, a bull, which, like distant thunder, had long hovered in the atmosphere of Rome, was issued from the Vatican. * Bishop Barlow, Gunpowder Treason, p. 109. Fuller's Ch. Hist. Cent. xvi. 13 Eliz. Justice Coke's Speech on Gunpowder- plot. 12 Those who still acknowledged the foreigner returned to the external observances and superstitious addi- tions now rejected from the creed of their country, as unauthorized by Scripture, antiquity, or the prac- tice of the early church. With these few remarks, and with this protest against the legitimacy of the term Catholic, as applied in your letter, I will proceed to the tripartite divi- sion it presents, and consider : — FirsU The complaint — " that Protestants, by their misrepresentations and calumnies totally disfigure Catholic truth.** This cannot be supported. There are some, I allow with you, calling them- selves Protestants, who disfigure and disbelieve all truth. When you, however, under that epithet erroneously speak of the Church of England, I must remind you, that the statements of your opinions, as brought before the attention of the public by the priests of the English Church, have been drawn from your own canons, decretals, and authorised docu- ments, which none of your priesthood, and none of your laity, though taunted and challenged to do so, have dared to repudiate, palliate, or deny. Dens' Theology — the text-book of the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland ; the re-published * decretals of ^ The Laws of the Papacy, by the Rev. R. M'Ghee — a book that should be in the hands of every senator in the land. The Author most fully and irrefutably proves two points : — 1. That the Bidl ** Ccena Dominiy* by which subjects are absolved from their allegiance, and the throne of every sovereign who submits 13 Pope Benedict XIV . ; the canons of the Councils of Lateran, Constance, and Trent ; the catechism and creed of Pope Pius IV,, are the sources, the un- repudiated sources, whence the views of the truths held by the members of your church, as set before the British people, have been extracted. The most fair mode of meeting the complaint in your letter is to make some statement of what you will allow to be the opinions and tenets of the church to whom you pay allegiance ; and — Secondly^ To proceed to enquire whether the second portion of your address — whether your asser^ tUm is not rightly declared to be unfoimded in truth, which unblushingly maintains these statements to be favoured by argument^ history, unbroken stwcessiony divine tradition, and the tvritten word of God. We will take from your authorised documents the three chief peculiarities of your new creed — the supremacy of the Pope ; transubstantiation ; the forbidding the Holy Scriptures in the vernacular tongue ; and see not to the see of Rome, is declared vacant ; that the decretal3 of Pope Benedict XIV., by which all property in Ireland is restored to Roman Catholic proprietors ; that the Decrees of the Councils of Lateran and Constance^ by which all heretics are persecuted unto death — were sworn to by the Roman Catholic prelates and laymen previously to tlie fatal year, 1829, as having not the force of law in Ireland ; — ^and, 2. That in 1832, three years only after their great object was gained, those very bulls, decretals, and canons were introduced in their Conferences, promulged and sanctioned as the law to guide their priesthood, by the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland. 9 14 whether these tenets are favoured by the five tests you mention. I. You believe, concerning the supremacy of the Pope, as follows :-— " The Roman bishop is the vicar of God and Christ, the successor of St. Peter, and hath the supreme pastorship over the universal Church." — Cone. Triden. Sess. 6, cap. 1 ; also Sess. 14, c. 7. By this authority, the Pope commands Sove- reign Princes. "We do peremptorily command Princes, Kings," &c.— 4 Gen. Con. Lot. c. 67, 68. Such is your belief. Argument says, the safety of the governor, the welfare of the people, the existence of the state require the allegiance of each subject to the sovereign should be unsuspected, irreproachable, and supreme. Let an obedience to a foreign poten- tate, civil or ecclesiastical, once supersede the attach- ment of the people to their own ruler, and the land becomes a prey to internal suspicions and national dissensions, and foreign cabals. Argument points out an antecedent improbability, that any one indi- vidual of a race so weak and peccable as ours is, should be intrusted with the privilege and power of declaring, what opinions are truly or falsely held by men as wise, and learned, and truth-judging as himself. History says, on this point, Anacletus, bishop of Rome, and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, treated each other as equals. The presumption of Victor, bishop of Rome, was totally disregarded alike by the bishops 15 of Europe and the East, who made no scrapie to resist him to the utmost. At the First General Council there is to be found no recognition of the superiority of the bishop of Rome ; but by its sixth canon, the bishop of Rome is placed on an equality with the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. In the fifth century, the four patriarchs of Rome, Constan-^ tinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were declared to be all equal. In the sixth century, Gregory I., bishop of Rome, anathematizing John, patriarch of Constan- tinople, for assuming the style of universal bishop, declares that title to be ^* a presumptuous, profane, sacrilegious, unchristian name." History tells us, it was from Phocas, the murderer of his sovereign, and successor to his throne, that Boniface III., bishop of Rome (606 a.d.) obtained, as his own privilege, that title condemned as unchristian by his infallible pre- decessor. Unbroken mccession tells us of the quarrels of Bamasus and Ursisinus — of the exhuming of the bones of Formosus, bishop of Rome, and of his con- demnation as a heretic by Stephen VI., almost the next occupant of the seat of infallibility. Unbroken succession tells us of a pope at Avignon, as well as of a pope at the Vatican — of an Urban VI. (suc- ceeded by three pontiffs) and a Clement VII. Nay, more; unbroken succession tells us of Christendom convulsed by the struggles, and shaken by the thunder of a Benedict XIII., Gregory XII., and Alexander V. ( 1409) — all three equally infallible ; 16 all three equally exerting, at the same time, the proud prerogative St. Peter never exercised — ^anathe- matizing, defying, excommunicating each other. Divine tradition tells us St. Jerome said, " He would follow no chief but Christ ;" St. Ambrose speaks of supreme bishops in Gaul ; St. Cyprian says, all bishops are equal in their episcopate ; Nazianzen the elder says, ^^ Csesarea was and now is accounted the mother of almost all churches on which all the Christ- ian world casts its eye" (Baron. Annal. 369, 372, 392) ; and Chrysostoni, on Gal. c. 1 1 , says, St. Peter is not to be called universal bishop, and in many places calls St. Paul rov rriq oiKovfJLBVVQ SiSad^icaXov, the Universal Apostle. The written word declares that St. Paul withstood St. Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed. — Gal. ii. 11. I trust, Sir, this doctrine of your creed will not be considered as sanctioned by the five tests of Catholicity you have yourself selected. II. You believe concerning transubstantiation, that, under the Sacrament of the Eucharist, ''is contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood ^ of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c." — Crnic. Trid. can. 8, can. 1. sess. 13. Argument says, the doctrine that maintains under * A friend has shown me the Paris edition of Catechism of the Council of Trent, in which the body of our Lord is declared to be present in the bread, even to " the bones and sinews" — ossa et nerves. This is erased from some editions circulated in England. ^ 17 the outward figure of the wafer, that the body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered on the cross, which was raised from the dead, (Cone. Trid. Sess. xiii. Oct xi. 1551.) is really, and substantially, and locally present in the Eucharist after consecration, is wholly at variance with every hufnan means of discovering truth. A belief which makes the same flesh and the same blood to be present at the same time in many churches of the same nation, when the Holy Sacrament is simulta- neously solemnized, is not a belief much favoured by argument. Most deeply, Sir, do I lament bringing before the public the discussion of such sacred sub- jects. I know fiiU well the infidel may sneer, the profane may scorn, the weak man be offended as he reads ; but, Sir, the only mode of refuting your as- sertion is the method I have selected — the best answer to your letter is the manifesting that the five tests you yourself propose compel us to reject the peculiar dogmas of your creed. History says most plainly, in the ancient Liturgies of the Western and Eastern Churches, the bread and the wine, the patten and the chalice, were alike ad- ministered to the people. The Council of Lateran (Can. 1215) for the first time, forbade the cup to the people ; Pope Honorius IV. (Greg. Decret. Lib. iii. Tit. iii. c. 10,) for the first time, appointed that ado- ration of the wafer, in which act your communicating now principally consists. Unbroken succession says, Paschase Radbert, Abbot B 18 of Corby, according to your own Bellarmine, was the first who very plainly asserts the corporeal presence in the Eucharist. He was immediately protested against by a host of writers in the Catholic Church — Rabanus Maurus, Bertram, John Scot Erigena, and Heribald. We admit and rejoice in the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. We hold with the Old Fathers a spiritual, not a corporeal presence, — not a carnal pressure with the teeth of the transub- fitantiated body of our Lord, but the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ. Divine Tradition informs us, that Clemens, Bamar bas, Ignatius, Polycarp, in their Catholic epistles, taught the elements of the bread and wine remained the same after as before consecration, and are only in a spiritual sense the body and blood of Christ. So also taught Justin Martyr and Irenseus. TertuUian says, (cent. Marcion. lib. 1) " This is my body, i. e. the figure of my body." Cyprian, " that was wine which our Lord called his blood." Vinum fuit quod sanguinem suum dixit. St. Ambrose (c. 9), post consecrationem Corpus Christi significatur. So also Origen and Augustin. The homilies of iElfric, used in our own Anglo-Saxon Church, menti