"Christ, the subject of our adoration, not being visible in the eucharist, our attention may very easily be diverted from him, by objects affecting our senses, or imagination, &c. at the very time that we celebrate these mysteries. In order to guard us against this misfortune, we are particularly commanded to direct our attention to our Divine Saviour-to his death upon the cross: we are not to receive his flesh and blood mechanically; but whilst we receive them, to remember the infinite love of Jesus Christ, in immolating that sacred flesh and blood for our salvation, and in feeding our souls with the same.

“The command then to remember the death of Christ, when we celebrate or receive the Lord's Supper, so far from excluding the real presence of Christ, is rather founded upon it."

Now what is the substance of this explanation? It is that the word remember here signifies, not the calling to mind of what is past, but attention to what is present: but no two faculties of the human mind can be more distinct than memory and attention, and remembrance is always an operation of memory. This little treatise, then, about attention, is just as little to the purpose, as a dissertation on the properties of light and colours. The words do not respect the manner of attending to the institution, but declare its nature and end. The thing itself is a remembrance of Christ-" Do this, as oft as ve drink it, in remembrance of me."

In a work entitled, "A Treatise which clearly showeth the only Religion that is truly conformable to the express Word of God, by J. S." we read thus "As for these words which you produce in your own defence, viz. Do this in remembrance of me,' 1 Cor. xi. 24, they were spoken by Christ after he had consecrated the bread, and after he told the disciples that it was his body which he then gave them, as is evident by the 24th verse of that chapter. Wherefore it is manifest, that Christ's intention, by these words, was to oblige us to remember that death which he suffered for our salvation, when we eat his flesh, and drink his blood; and hence St. Paul concludes (verse 26) from these words, that we de

clare the death of our Saviour, as often as we make use of that sacrament; so that we are so far from having reason to say, that this solemn commemoration excludes the real presence of Christ's body in this mystery, that on the contrary, we see by this remembrance, that there his very flesh ought to be taken, seeing it is not possible for us to forget, that it was for us he gave his body in sacrifice, when we see that he gives us daily the same body to eat; whence it follows, that we ought not to consider, that Christ does not command us only to remember him; but to remember him as he died for us, when we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, even as the Jews in eating the peace-offerings, remember that they had been immolated for their sins."

Here is a volume in a sentence; and if the explanation is not clear, it is not that the author has been niggardly of his words. If there is any definite meaning in this chaos of words, it seems to be, that the injunction is to remember, not Jesus, but his death. Now it is readily admitted, from the nature of the ordinance, as well as from Paul's explanation of it, that it is a commemoration of his death. This, however, by no means invalidates the objection against his real presence, founded on the form of the expression. We are commanded to remember Jesus himself. That the point in his history on account of which chiefly we are to remember him, is his death, is known from the nature of the emblem, and the declaration of the apostle-"Do this, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of Jesus." Labour as you will, gentlemen, you will never make remembrance apply to one who is present. The illustration alleged at the end of the quotation cannot be admitted. The Jews in eating the peace-offerings, could not be called on to remember them. I demand an example of such a form of expression, in a case where the person to be remembered is alive and present. If you cannot do this, strike your colours.

That the bread still continues bread, is seen also from its being three times called bread by Paul, in his account of this institution, and once on another occasion: "For as oft as ye eat this bread;" 1

Cor. xi. 26. "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread;" verse 27.-"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread;" verse 28. The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" 1 Cor. x. 16. What madness then to deny that it is really bread! It is bread even in the eating of it.

The phraseology in the sixth chapter of John's Gospel, is alleged as importing that Christ is really eaten in the eucharist: " Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh," &c.-upon this I remark-1. If this passage is taken even literally, it does not import Transubstantiation. It would confine salvation to those at that time who should eat him. For some to eat him at that time was possible, for any to eat him now is impossible. If this passage is to be taken literally, no man will ever be saved, for no man ever ate the Lord Jesus Christ. Literal then the words cannot be. 2. Admitting for argument sake that this refers to the eucharist, the laity cannot be saved; for it is as necessary to drink his blood as to eat his flesh. The assertion that there is blood in the flesh, cannot be admitted as an answer to this objection. Not to insist on the fact that in the eucharist, whether the words are literal or figurative, there is a separation of the blood from the body; the eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood are here considered as two distinct actions. They are marked as distinct no less than five times in this passage. You might say of a wild beast devouring its prey, that it eat the flesh and drank the blood; for although the animal is not bled, its blood may be literally drank. But when a shark swallows a man alive, which is the way that Roman Catholics eat Christ, you cannot say that it drank his blood. There is no drinking here; the laity then do not drink the blood of Christ, and consequently, according to this doctrine, cannot be saved. 3. If this passage is literal, and refers to the eucharist, then every man who has eaten the eucharist shall be saved: : every such man has eternal life, and Christ shall raise him up to glory in the last day. 4. If this passage is literal, Christ's flesh is really meat, and his blood

66

really drink, that is, they will support the body, and satisfy hunger and thirstMy flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." Now Roman Catholics deny that his body and blood are literally meat and drink. 5. If then Christ's flesh is meat, and his blood drink, not literally, but figuratively, that is, the spiritual food of the soul by faith, why may not the bread and wine in the eucharist be figuratively flesh and blood, and thus spiritually meat and drink to the soul? If Christ's flesh is not literally meat—if his blood is not literally drink-if these are the spiritual food of the soul, and not the carnal food of the body, why is it necessary that they be literally eaten and drank, in order to be spiritually meat and drink? I presume Christ's flesh and blood can become spiritual nourishment to the soul, as well without literal eating, as with it. Why is literal eating necessary when the nourishment is spiritual? Cannot the soul eat without literal teeth? To eat spiritually is to understand, to believe, to digest; and this is the very sense for which Protestants contend. 6. That to eat and drink here means to believe, is clear from verse 35, in which to come to Christ is represented as satisfying hunger, so as never to hunger again; and to believe on him is represented as satisfying thirst, so as never again to thirst. 7. From verse 56, we see that the effect of this eating of Christ, is that Christ dwells in us. Now we are told (Eph. iii. 17.) that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith. 8. In John vii. 37, Christ invites all who thirst to come to him and drink. This he explains to be believing in him:- In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, if any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him shall receive," &c.) Here the drinking is believing on him. Besides, what other way could they drink of him at that time? He was not yet sacrificed, either in the Mass, or on the Cross. There is the same absurdity in supposing literal eating and drinking, in John vi. 53, as there is in John vii. 37. What suppose some

fanatic were to assert, on the authority of this passage, that rivers of water are always literally flowing out of the belly of every one who believes in Christ? Upon his own principles, a Roman Catholic could neither turn away from him as a madman, nor refute him as a false reasoner. It might be said, that it is an absurdity to suppose that rivers of water should be always literally flowing out of the belly of a man. Not more absurd than the literal eating of Christ in the Mass. But do we not see, it might be said, first such a river does not actually so flow. And does not the same thing hold with respect to Transubstantiation? The next verse, it might be said, declares that he meant the expression figuratively. These, however, are not Christ's words, but the words of the historian. No such expla nation was given by Christ at the time. Besides, if the words are so interpreted, they must be capable of the interpretation. Here, then, we have an inspired explanation of such figurative phraseology, to guide us in the explanation of all similar expressions. If such a figure is not proper in itself, no explanation could make it proper. Besides, the connection of the words, "This is my body," and of the expression, "Except ye eat my flesh," &c. as clearly demand a figurative explanation, as if there had been a direct assertion of figure.

But our opponents argue that the Corinthians could not be blameable for not discerning the Lord's body in the eucharist, if that body was not there. How could they discern an object that was not present? I ask in reply, how can they discern that body, even supposing it present in their own sense? They themselves tell us that they do not discern the body and blood of Christ, but the accidents of bread and wine. Well then, the discerning, both with Roman Catholics and with Protestants, must be spiritual. If there is a dispute about Christ's presence, there is none about his visibility in the eucharist. Instead of refuting us, this word fights on our side. If the discernment or seeing of Christ in the eucharist is not by the eye of the body, but by the eye of faith, why may not the eating of Christ be by faith also, and not by the teeth?

Thus it appears from an impartial examination of the scriptural accounts of this institution, that there is not the slightest grounds for Transubstantiation—that instead of compelling us to receive this doctrine, in opposition to reason and the senses, the Scriptures afford ample materials for its refutation. Leaving out of view altogether, the evidence of necessary truth, revelation clears itself of this absurdity. So far from being the unavoidable result of fair interpretation, to candid and enlightened criticism it would never occur. The phraseology in which it is pretended to be found, so far from necessarily containing it, does not in its analysis in another view, even present a difficulty. This is more than can be said in the vindication of almost all divine truths, and in the refutation of very many important errors. It is the manner of revealed truth to afford a handle to those who are disposed to pervert it. In this way an opportunity is afforded to the human mind to discover its enmity to divine truth, or manifest its allegiance to Jesus. There are difficulties on the very subject of the Godhead of Jesus-difficulties in the evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures-difficulties in the very works of Creation and Providence. On all these subjects perverseness may pick up something plausible against truth, even from the Scriptures themselves. A handle is afforded also for Transubstantiation, but certainly the weakest one that ever moved so mighty a machine: it is one of the slightest pretexts that ever gave birth to

error.

The more I consider this subject, the more I stand amazed at the strength of that delusion, that has led rational creatures into the belief of a dogma so fantastic, so absurd, so monstrous. As it is the most extravagant fanaticism ever promulgated by either philosophers or religionists, it naturally excites surprise, that the professors of it are not universally considered as frantic. What can be the reason that Mother Southcott was thought crazy, for pretending to give birth to one little Messiah; and that every priest of the Church of Rome can, without exciting ridicule, make a Messiah every time he says Mass? The priests make them

selves merry with the follies of this wretched enthusiast; yet these very priests daily produce their Messiah, and create their Creator. When these gentlemen are so prolific themselves, why should they grudge one little Messiah to a neighbour? They have no title, at least, to laugh at her extravagance. Compared to them, she is nothing but the pirate to Alexander. At the head of a small sect she is a fanatic: at the head of millions she would be the august founder of a holy Church. She would have Cobbett to defend her nonsense, and statesmen to give her the fraternal hug in the senate. Her errors would be denied, or softened, or vindicated. Privy counsellors would view her religion as a very innocent form of Christianity, and entirely worthy of the patronage of a Christian State. This is the charm, my countrymen-this is the charm that keeps ridicule asleep, while it has laughed the system of Joanna Southcott out of the world.

This is the only reason that can justify me in refuting at such length so wild an opinion. To many persons I am convinced, that it will appear a mere waste of time, to refute a thing so absurdly false. The one-fiftieth of what I have written will be thought enough to give to such a subject. If, as I pretend, the thing is self-evidently false, why do I think it necessary to labour the point at such length? Would not a few sentences be sufficient to refute what is contrary to necessary truth? To state axioms is to establish them. In one point of view I acknowledge this to be just; and I will venture before Turk, Jew, or Pagan, to rest all upon one of my axioms, expressed in a single short sentence. To leave the matter in this way might be sufficient, if the condemnation of my opponents were my object; but as my great aim is to awake my countrymen out of their spiritual lethargy, and force their attention to the Gospel of God, I thought it necessary to present the truth to them in every point of view, and to drive evasion from every subterfuge. Volumes have been well employed by Reid in overturning the most chimerical fancies of philosophers, because these fancies afforded a foundation to universal scepticism. Sure

ly, then, absurdity itself deserves attention from Christians, when it stands in the way of the spiritual good of so many millions of very dear fellow creatures. Prejudice hides absurdity, and to destroy it there is a necessity to exhibit it in all the contortions of its deformity. Truth needs diffuse and exact proof, not in proportion to the real difficulties that surround it, but to its importance, and the strength of the opposition it has to encounter. Prejudice has a great effect on all subjects,

though strongest in religion, it is not weak in philosophy. The system of Sir Isaac Newton itself was long before it could make its way over the prejudice of philosophers. Let us hear an observation of Mr. M'Laurin on this subject: "It was, however, no new thing that this philosophy should meet with opposition. All the useful discoveries that were made in former times, and particularly in the seventeenth century, had to struggle with the prejudices of those who had accustomed themselves, not so much as to think, but in a certain systematic way; who could not be prevailed upon to abandon their favourite schemes, while they were able to imagine the least pretext for continuing the dispute. Every art and talent was displayed to support their falling cause; no aid seemed foreign to them that could in any manner annoy their adversary; and such often was their obstinacy, that truth was able to make but little progress, till they were succeeded by younger persons, who had not so strongly imbibed their prejudices."

If such are the prejudices in favour of an ancient philosophical theory; if such was the opposition to philosophical truth, is it any wonder that Roman Catholics so obstinately cling to their ancient superstitions, and so perversely refuse to submit to the light of divine truth? These absurdities then, however extravagant, demand attention; and to expose them is not unworthy the most dignified talents in the Protestant communion. We are apt to look on the laboured refutations of the errors of Popery, in the writings of the Reformers and their successors, as learned trifling, proceeding from a love of wrangling, or an idle display of controversial subtilty. To those who view the

subject in this light, I recommend the following observations of Mr. Dugald Stewart: "It is probable, indeed, (now that the ideal Theory has in a great measure disappeared from our late metaphysical system) that those who have a pleasure in detracting from the merit of their predecessors, may be disposed to represent it as an idle waste of labour and ingenuity, to have entered into a serious refutation of hypothesis, at once gratuitous and inconceivable. A different judgment, however, will be formed by such as are acquainted with the extensive influence, which from the earliest account of science, this single prejudice has had in vitiating almost every branch of the philosophy of the mind; and who, at the same time, recollect the names of the most illustrious men, by whom, in more modern times, it has been adopted as an incontrovertible principle."

As the system of Popery has so long enchanted wise and unwise, learned and illiterate, noble and mean: as it chains down so vast a proportion of those called Christians, and mars the happiness, both temporal and spiritual, of so great a proportion of the human race; no effort to undeceive our brethren ought to be spared, till by the fall of Babylon, the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ. Were all Protestant teachers to go to the bottom of the subjects of controversy between Protestants and the Church of Rome, and fully to instruct their flocks, we should hear nothing of the growth of Popery.

Before I take leave of this subject, I must again earnestly and affectionately entreat my Roman Catholic countrymen, dispassionately to examine what I have written. It cannot be their true interest to continue in error; and if they have truth, it cannot ultimately suffer from the severest trial. Truth may be misrepresented, and sophistry may make error plausible, but accurate discussions will in the end strengthen the foundations of the former, and strip the latter of its imposing appearance. Let them sit down then to the examination of this subject, not with the irritated feelings of party spirit, but with a desire of knowing the truth, and a cool determination of bringing all things

to the test of reason and Scripture. Let them not shut their eyes against light, nor steel their hearts against conviction. Let them beware of imitating the conduct of the Jews, who though they could not resist the evidence of the mission of Jesus, out of mistaken love to their nation and their religion, determined to persist in their opposition. This obstinacy only hastened the destruction of their country, and brought eternal ruin on themselves. Many of you, my countrymen, seem to make it a point of honour to abide in the religion of your fathers; you think it a sort of treachery to your ancestors, your country, and your profession, to change your religious views. Look at this for a moment, and with your usual good sense, you will perceive that this conduct is irrational and dangerous. Acting on this principle, would ever your ancestors have turned from paganism? To continue in error against light, is treason against truth; and is eternal self-destruction. Such romantic fidelity to party, is a reproach to rational nature, and the highest manifestation of contempt for the God of truth. If you see that your system cannot stand before reason and Scripture, do not vainly continue to fight against God. Fly from the wrath to come. Trust no longer in vain superstitious rites-put your trust in the blood of the cross only! The reason you so fondly cling to the doctrine of the Mass is, your blindness to the glory and efficacy of the atonement. This infinitely valuable sacrifice needs not to be continued or repeated. It perfects for ever those who are sanctified by it. To attempt to add to its efficacy, leaves men still in their sins, and makes them debtors to do the whole law. (Gal. v. 3.) I beseech you, then, my brethren, renounce the vain hope of adding to the perfection of the atonement. Cease that blasphemy that represents the work of Christ even yet unfinished, and keeps him continually on the altar. Come to Him, and he will give you salvation without money and without price.

Be assured, my countrymen, I indulge towards you feelings of unmingled love and compassion. I write not from party motives, nor the irritation of sectarian