they say it is converted into the thing signified; and by consequence there would be no sacrament left for a sacrament is "an outward sign of an "inward grace."

Besides, if our senses can in any case inform us what any thing is, they inform us that the bread and wine continue bread and wine. And if we cannot trust our senses, when we have full opportunity of using them all, how did the Apostles know that our Saviour taught them, and performed miracles; or how do we know any thing around us? But this doctrine is equally contrary to all reason too. To believe that our Saviour took his own body, literally speaking, in his own hands, and gave the whole of that one body to every one of his Apostles, and that each of them swallowed him down their throats, though all the while he continued sitting at the table before their eyes; to believe that the very same one individual body, which is now in heaven, is also in many thousands of different places on earth; in some, standing still upon the altar; in others, carrying along the streets; and so in motion, and not in motion, at the same time; to believe, that the same body can come from a great distance, and meet itself, as the sacramental bread often doth in their processions, and then pass by itself, and go away from itself to the same distance again; is to believe the most absolute impossibilities and contradictions. If such things can be true, nothing can be false; and if such things cannot be true, the Church that teaches them cannot be infallible, whatever arts of puzzling sophistry they may use to prove either that or any of their doctrines. For no reasonings are ever to be minded against plain common

sense.

They must not say, this doctrine is a mystery! For there is no mystery, no obscurity in it; but it is as plainly seen to be an error, as any thing

4

else is seen to be a truth. And the more so, because it relates, not to a nature infinite, as God; but entirely to what is finite, a bit of bread and a human body. They must not plead, that God can do all things. For that means only that he can do all things that can be done; not that he can do what cannot be done; make a thing be this and not be this, be here and elsewhere, at the same time; which is doing and undoing at once, and so in reality doing nothing. They must not allege Scripture for absurdities, that would sooner prove Scripture false, than Scripture can prove them true. But it no where teaches them. We own that our Saviour says, "This is my "body, which is broken;" and, "This is my blood, which is shed." But he could not mean literally. For as yet his body was not broken, nor his blood shed; nor is either of them in that condition now. And therefore the bread and wine neither could then, nor can now, be turned into them, as such. Besides, our Saviour said at the same time, “This cup is the New Testament in 66 my blood." Was the substance of the cup then changed into the New Testament? And if not, why are we to think the substance of the bread and wine changed into his body and blood? The Apostle says, "the rock" that supplied the Israelites with water in the wilderness, 66 “ Christ.”7 that is, represented him. Every body says, such a picture is such a person, meaning the representation of him. Why then does not our Saviour's words mean so too?

was

The Romanists object, that though what represents a thing naturally, or by virtue of a preceding institution, may be called by its name, yet such a figure as this, in the words of a new in

(4) 1 Cor. xi. 24. (6) Luke xxii. 20.

1 Cor. xi. 15.

(5) Mat. xxi. 28.

(7) Cor x. 4.

situation would not be intelligible. 8 But the representation here is natural enough, and though the institution was new, figurative speech was old. And the Apostles would certainly rather interpret their Master's words by a very usual figure, than put the absurdest sense upon them that could be. They object further, that if he had not meant literally, he would have said, not "this," but "this "bread," is my body. 9 But we may better argue, that if he had meant literally, he would have said, in the strongest terms, that he did. For there was great need, surely, of such a declaration. But we acknowledge, that the bread and wine are more than a representation of his body and blood; they are the means by which the benefits arising from them are conveyed to us; and have thence a further title to be called by their name. For so the instrument, by which a prince forgives an offender, is called a pardon, because it conveys his pardon; the delivery of a writing, is called giving possession of an estate; and a security for a sum of money, is called the sum itself; and is so in virtue and effect, though it is not in strictness of speech, and reality of substance. Again, our Saviour, we own, says in St. John, that "He is "the bread of life; that his flesh is meat indeed, "and his blood is drink indeed;" that "whoso "eateth the one and drinketh the other, hath eter"nal life;" and that, without doing it, "have no life in us.' 19 2 But this, if understood literally, would prove, not that the bread in the Sacrament was turned into his flesh, but that his flesh was turned into bread. And therefore it is not to be understood literally, as indeed he himself gives notice: "The flesh profiteth nothing; "the words which I speak unto you, they are

1

66 we

(8) Preuves de la Religion, tom. iv. p. 166. (9) Ib. p. 168. (1) See Cod. 8, 54, 1. (2) John vi. 48, 3, 54, 55.

"spirit, and they are life." It is not the gross and literal, but the figurative and spiritual, eating and drinking; the partaking of a lively faith of an union with me, and being inwardly nourished by the fruits of my offering up my flesh and blood for you, that alone can be of benefit to the soul.

And as this is plainly the sense, of which he says that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood ❝is drink indeed;" so it is the sense, in which the latter part of the third answer of our Catechism is to be understood; that "the body and blood "of Christ are verily and indeed taken and re"ceived by the faithful in the Lord's Supper;" words intended to show, that our Church as truly believes the strong assertions of Scripture concerning this Sacrament, as the Church of Rome doth; only takes more care to understand them in the right meaning; which is, that though, in one sense, all communicants equally partake of what Christ calls his body and blood, that is, the outward signs of them; yet in a much more important sense, "the faithful" only, the pious and virtuous receiver, eats his flesh and drinks his blood, shares in the life and strength derived to men from his incarnation and death; and though faith in him, becomes, by a vital union, one with him; "a member, (as St. Paul expresses it) of "his flesh, and of his bones ;"4 certainly not in a literal sense; which yet the Romanists might as well assert, as that we eat his flesh in a literal sense, but in a figurative and spiritual one. appearance, the Sacrament of Christ's death is given to all alike; but "verily and indeed," in its beneficial effects, to none besides the faithful. Even to the unworthy communicant he is present, as he is wherever we meet together in his name; but in a better and most gracious sense, to the (4) Eph. v. 30.

(3) John vi, 63.

In

worthy soul, becoming, by the inward virtue of his spirit, its food and sustenance

This real presence of Christ the Sacrament, his Church hath always believed. But the monstrous notion of his bodily presence was started 700 years after his death; and arose chiefly from the indiscretion of preachers and writers of warm imaginations, who, instead of explaining judiciously the lofty figures of scriptural language, heightened them, and went beyond them; until both it and they had their meaning mistaken most astonishingly. And when once an opinion had taken root, that seemed to exalt the holy Sacrament so much, it easily grew and spread; and the more from its wonderful absurdity, in those ignorant and superstitious ages; till at length, 500 years ago, and 1200 years after our Saviour's birth, it was established for a Gospel truth by the pretended authority of the Romish Church. And even this had been tolerable, in comparison, if they had not added idolatrous practice to erroneous belief; worshipping on their knees, a bit of bread for the Son of God. Nor are they content to do this themselves, but with most unchristian cruelty, curse and murder those who refuse it.

It is true, we also kneel at the Sacrament, as they do; but for a very different purpose; not to acknowledge" any corporal presence of Christ's "natural flesh and blood;" as our Church, to prevent all possibility of misconstruction, expressly declares; adding, that "his body is in

heaven, and not here;" but to worship him, who is every where present, the invisible God. And this posture of kneeling we by no means look upon, as in itself necessary; but as a very becoming appointment, and very fit to accompany the prayers and praises, which we offer up at the instant of receiving; and to express that inward spirit of piety and humility, in which our partak