at the same time; for it necessarily enters into the idea of it, that it occupies a particular portion of space. It is contrary to its nature, that it should exist after the manner of a spirit, or without filling any portion of space; for extension is as essential to it as life is to a living being. It is contrary to its nature, that its properties should remain after it is annihilated; for its properties are modifications which as necessarily exist with their subject, as the shadow disappears with the body which projected it. The ubiquity of a particular body, is want of extension, and the continuance of its qualities after its destruction, are things absolutely impossible; and to appeal to the power of God, serves only to confound the minds of those who are too ignorant or too indolent to examine the subject with accuracy. These things even the power of God cannot do, because they cannot be done. They imply a contradiction; and we might with equal reason say, that although two and two are four, yet divine power could make them five. To every mind but that of a Papist, the contradiction is as manifest in the one case as in the other.

Thirdly, Transubstantiation contradicts the testimony of our senses, which assure us, as we have repeatedly observed, that there is no change of the elements. Our senses are the means by which we become acquainted with external things and their properties; and as we are instinctively led to confide in their evidence, so we find from experience, that the notices which they give us are true. The offices which they perform are of the most important nature. They are not only our guides in providing for the welfare of our bodies, and guarding against the dangers to which they are exposed; but it is by them that we perceive the proofs of the existence and perfections of God, in creation and providence; and to them were addressed the proofs of the supernatural communications which he has made to us concerning his gracious purposes, and the realities of the invisible world. If it be said, that our senses frequently deceive us, we acknowledge the fact, but deny that on this account their evidence should be suspected. They deceive us when they are in a diseased state, when their functions are carelessly performed, when the object is in such a situation as not to be fully subjected to their test; but, in other circumstances, their testimony is infallible No man whose eye is sound, supposes an object which is green to be red, or mistakes a bush for an animal, when it is near; no man in health calls sugar sour, or vinegar sweet. About these things there is no question, except among sceptical philosophers, who do not believe, or at least pretend not to believe, the evidence of their senses, while they rely upon it as implicitly as any of the vulgar.

The doctrine of transubstantiation subverts the evidence of our senses. We see bread and wine in the Eucharist; we smell them, and we taste them; and yet we are told that they are not bread and wine, but a collection of unsubstantial accidents, under which the body and blood of Christ are concealed. Here, then, is one case in which our senses deceive us, and how can we depend upon their testimony in any other case? If they have misled us once, they may mislead us a thousand times. Should it be said that the deception, for such we must call it, is in this instance effected by a miracle, it may be asked, How are we certain that we shall not be imposed upon by a miracle on other occasions? How shall we know when the notices of our senses are true, and when they are fallacious? If God had told us, that in this case alone he would impose upon our senses, but in all others would leave them to their natural operations, we might have been satisfied. But he has told us no such thing, and consequently we are reduced to the greatest perplexity. We can never be absolutely sure that objects are as they appear to us. What we imagine to be a tree may be a man; what we suppose to be earth, may be water. We can have no certainty that the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were really performed

l'hose who are said to have witnessed them, may have been the subjects of illusion; and it would not have been more wonderful if they had mistaken common occurrences for supernatural events, than it is that every time when the holy Supper is celebrated, the incarnate Son of God should seem to be a piece of bread. Transubstantiation leads to downright scepticism. We can neither believe our own eyes and ears, nor give credit to the testimony of others. But a doctrine which leads to scepticism must be false. A doctrine cannot be true which contradicts the evidence of sense, any more than a doc. trine which contradicts the dictates of reason. Both are from God, as well as revelation; by both God speaks to us; and what is contrary to their testimony in their proper sphere, cannot proceed from Him who is never at variance with himself.

For this imposition upon our senses, the Church of Rome accounts in the following manner: "Since it is the most horrid thing in the world to the nature of men," says the catechism of the council of Trent, "to be fed with man's flesh, or to drink his blood, God has most wisely ordered, that his most holy body and blood should be administered to us under the species of those things, bread and wine, by whose common and daily use and nourishment we are mostly delighted. And there are adjoined these two conveniences, whereof the first is, that we are freed from the reproach of infidels, which we could not easily have avoided, if we should be seen to eat our Lord under his own spe cies. The other is, that while we thus take the body and blood of the Lord. in such a manner, that notwithstanding what is truly done cannot be perceived by the senses, this avails very much to increase faith in our souls.”* The amount of this reasoning is, that transubstantiation is a miracle which God has found it expedient to conceal, lest Christians should be disgusted, and infidels should laugh; although it is not easy to see how its concealment can hinder the ridicule of infidels, as they are solemnly assured by the infallible church, that this shocking transmutation does actually take place, and that flesh and blood are really swallowed under a different form.

It was impossible that a doctrine so contrary to Scripture, to reason, and to our senses, should have been adopted but by slow degrees, and in an age of gross ignorance and superstition. It is astonishing that it should be retained amidst the increase of knowledge which distinguishes modern times, and after its impiety and absurdity have been so successfully exposed; and that not only should it obtain credit among the vulgar of the church of Rome, but men of genius and learning should be implicit believers of it. Where can we find a stronger proof of the power of prejudice in blinding the mind, than when we observe such a man as Pascal, not to mention many others, adopting and defending an opinion, the absurdity of which he would, in different circumstances, have been the first to perceive, and to expose with unrivalled eloquence. "We should go out of the state in which we are," he says in his Lettres Provinciales, which is a state of faith, and is opposed by Paul as much to the law as to clear vision, if we possessed only the figures without Jesus Christ, because it is the property of the law to have only the shadow, and not the substance of things; and we should go out of it also, if we possessed him visibly, because faith, as the same Apostle says, is not of things which are seen. Thus the Eucharist is perfectly proportioned to our state of faith, because it truly includes Jesus Christ, but under a veil; so that this state would be destroyed, if Jesus Christ were not really under the species of bread and wine, as heretics pretend; and it would be also destroyed, if we received him openly as in heaven, since this would confound our state with the state of the Jews, or with that of glory. This is the reason of this divine mystery. This makes us abhor the Calvinists as reducing us to the condition of the Jews, and aspire to • Pars ii. de Euch. Sac. § 46. † Let. xvi.

VOL. II-51,

212

the glory of the blessed, which will give us the full and eternal enjoyment of Jesus Christ. Hence we see that there are many differences between the manner in which he is communicated to Christians and to the blessed, and that among others, he is received here by the mouth, and not so in heaven; but that all the differences depend solely upon the difference between the state of faith in which we are, and the state of clear vision in which they are."

Whatever ingenuity may be displayed in this passage, it is liable to this objection, that it assumes the doctrine of transubstantiation to be true, and then proceeds to prove its truth by a mistaken view of its adaptation to the present condition of the church. The argument entirely fails. The difference between us and the Jews does not consist in our having Christ really and corporeally under a veil, while they had the figure without the substance; but in the fulfilment of the types in the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ, by which the full enjoyment of all spiritual blessings has been obtained. The superior excellence of the Christian dispensation does not arise from the bodily presence of the Saviour, but from the clear revelation of him in the gospel, and the abundant communication of grace, in consequence of his ascension into heaven. Any person who reads the Scriptures without prejudice will perceive, that these are expressly mentioned as the privileges of the present church, while there is not a single hint concerning such a presence of Christ as Papists imagine. When the Apostle Paul represents him as a High Priest of good things to come, or in whom the figures of the law have been realized, he, at the same time, describes him as a High Priest who has passed into the heavens. It is equally a mistake to suppose the difference between the militant and the triumphant church to be, that although both are favoured with his bodily presence, he is veiled from the saints on earth, but manifested to the saints in heaven. This statement is directly opposed to that of Paul, who expressly affirms this to be the difference, that on earth we are absent from the Lord, and in heaven we shall be present with him. Knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord; we are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."* This single passage overthrows the idea, that in the Eucharist he is present with us, but under a veil.

66

Transubstantiation is not only contrary to Scripture, and reason, and common sense, but it leads and has led to other dangerous errors. A view of these will tend more fully to expose the doctrine, and to show that it is not a harmless absurdity. It has polluted the Church of Rome with idolatry, obscured the glory of the sacrifice of Christ, and given rise to the audacious mutilation of the sacred institution of the Supper. These consequences will be considered in the next lecture.

• 2 Cor. v. 6, 8.

LECTURE XCI.

ON THE

SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

Errors Consequent on Transubstantiation; Idolatry; Sacrifice of the Mass; Mutilation of the Sacrament.-Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation.-Objections to it.-Doctrine of Zuinglius Respecting this Rite, and of Calvin.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION is not a speculative opinion, which, although erroneous in itself, leads to no practical consequences of an objectionable nature. While there is sufficient reason to reject it for its contrariety to Scripture, and reason, and common sense, it will appear worthy of reprobation to every person who considers the other dangerous errors to which it has given rise.

The first which I shall point out to you, is the idolatry which is founded on the doctrine of transubstantiation. When the priest has changed the bread into the body of Christ, by pronouncing the words, "Hoc est corpus meum," he adores it with bended knee, and rising, elevates it, that it may be seen and adored by the people. The same forms are observed after he has consecrated the wine. Such is the order of procedure in the Roman missal; and it is founded upon the doctrine of the church as declared by the Council of Trent. "There is no room for doubt, that all believers in Christ, according to the custom always received in the catholic church, should offer to this most holy sacrament the worship of Latria, which is due to the true God, for it is not to be the less adored, because it was instituted by Christ our Lord to be taken. For we believe that the same God is present in it, whom the eternal Father, introducing into the world, says, "Let all the angels of God worship him." This declaration is supported by the following canon. "If any man shall say, that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored, even with the external worship of Latria; and therefore that it is not to be venerated by a peculiar festival, nor carried about in processions, according to the laudable rite and custom of the universal church, nor to be publicly exhibited to the people that it may be adored, and that those who worship it are idolaters; let him be accursed."

It

Notwithstanding this dreadful denunciation, we do not hesitate to affirm that the worship of the elements is idolatry. One argument might suffice to establish this charge, namely, that we have proved that there is no such thing as transubstantiation, to the satisfaction of every person whom God has not given up to strong delusion to believe a lie. If our former reasonings are conclusive, the elements are simple bread and wine; and those who worship them are as gross idolaters as the heathens, who adored a naked sword or a shapeless stone. may be thought that, although Christ should not be present in the elements, yet, as they suppose him to be present, and direct their worship to him, their mistake will excuse them. But it is not our intention, it is the law of God which is the rule of our conduct; and to suppose our intention to be a valid apology for our transgression of it, is to set aside the authority of the law, and make man a law to himself. In no part of Scripture are we commanded to worship the elements; nor are we commanded to worship God in every thing, or in any thing in which he is present. We are to worship himself, but not the objects around us, under the pretext that we worship God himself, who is in them. It may be said that there is a difference in the present case, because what we see is

• Sessio xiii. de Euch. cap. v. et can. 6.

Christ himself in his body, and blood, and Divinity. But, granting that it is Christ, we may still question whether, as he does not manifest himself to us, we are authorized to worship him here, any more than in the sun, in which we are certain that his Divinity, the proper object of worship, is as truly present as in the sacrament. Besides, the Church of Rome commands us to worship the "sacrament," which undoubtedly signifies not only Christ corporeally present, but the species which remain. Now, if the accidents can subsist by themselves, as they suppose that they do, they are created things, however shadowy; and he, therefore, who adores the whole sacrament, worships them together with Christ, or the creature together with the Creator; the veil, as well as the thing veiled; the dress, as well as the person who wears it; and how can he escape the charge of idolatry? Although the doctrine of transubstantiation were true, no Papist can be certain that Christ is in the sacrament; and consequently, upon his own principles, he may be guilty of idolatry every time that he partakes of it. If the intention of the priest is wanting, the elements remain simple bread and wine. But this is not the only ground of apprehension. "If the bread is not of wheat," says the Roman missal, "or if, being of wheat, it is mixed with grain of another kind, in such quantity that it is not wheaten bread, or is otherwise corrupted, the sacrament is not effected. If it is made of rose water, or of any other distillation, it is doubtful whether it is effected." Again. "If the wine is turned into vinegar, or is wholly putrid, or is made of sour or unripe grapes, or is mixed with so much water that the wine is corrupted, the sacrament is not effected." Once more, "If any man shall diminish, or change any thing in the form of consecration, and by the change of the words, the words have not the same signification, the sacrament will not be effected."* This mighty miracle, it seems, depends upon many pre-requisites, the omission of which will completely prevent it. Here, as in the incantation of magic, unless the ipsissima verba are repeated, the expected effect will not follow. It appears, too, that there are some substances which cannot be converted into the body and blood of our Saviour, as, sour wine, and bread made of barley or oats; but how they happen to be so stubborn as to retain their nature, in spite of all the power of the priest, we must leave to the abettors of this mystery to explain. It is evident that, according to their own ideas, they are in constant danger of idolatry. It is their concern to extricate themselves as they can.

The second error founded on transubstantiation, is the notion that the Eucharist is a true and proper sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, or the souls in purgatory; Christ who is corporeally present, is not only given to the communicants, but is offered to God as a propitiation for them. The Council of Trent expressly affirms that this sacrament is a sacrifice by which God is appeased, and that its benefit extends not only to men upon earth, but to the departed saints who are not yet fully purified; and in the usual manner, anathematizes every man who shall dare to controvert its decision. "If any man shall say that, in the mass, a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God;" or shall say, "that in these words, 'This do in remembrance of me,' Christ did not constitute the Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his body and blood;" or shall say, "that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a naked commemoration of the sacrifice made upon the cross, but not propitiatory: let him be accursed." The subject is farther explained in the catechism which was pub lished by order of the council. "The Eucharist was instituted, that the church might have a perpetual sacrifice, whereby our sins might be expiated, and our heavenly Father, who has oftentimes been grievously offended by our wicked* De Defect. circa Missam occurrentibus, iii, iv, et v. † Sess. xxii. de Sacrif. Missae, can. 1, 2, & 3.