946 Tt&NO?BOTAW?r?Tnm. ['Boor In our Idml's notqble discomso at Cspernsum, on the subject feeding the church with his flesh and blood, his language was strong that his hearers efclaimed, How ca? rA? man ?ve �ea? ? To correct their misapprehension ?le declared, t? his language was figurative, in the following words: Ir ? the ?r? r/uu the j?rA ?Of?A sotA?,?. The t0ord? t/ur? I ?peah ?uo you, tAey are
- pirit and they ar? ?ife, J?hn vi, 63. Here, on a subject having a near
affinity to the eucharist, our Lord teaches us that his style is figurative when such expressions are employed, as, C/a/st/s the /s bread; /? &/ood /s dr/nk; and therefore the exposition of Roman Catholics is opposed to that of our Saviour. It was foretold by David that Ood tooedd not su.?er h/s HOLY O?qE to see corrtfpt?m, Psa. xvi, 10. St. Peter applies this to the flesh of Christ, (Acts ii, 22-?,) which saw no wrr?p?/o?. Now if the doctrine of transubstantiation be true, his body continually undergoes corruption, by the necessary process of digestion. Again, according to Scripture, the body of Christ was offered but om?, Heb. ix, ?28; x, 10; I Pet. iii, 18.. But accordling to the Latin C?hurch, in the celebration of the eucharist thb priest ofers up really the body and blood of Christ to Oed, as a propitiatory saczifice for th? living and the dead. By them Christ is often offered up. According to Scripture he is offered up only once. Therefore they and Scripture are at variance. The following text is inconsistent with the doctrine of transubstan- tiation: "For ye have the poor always with you, but me ye have not always," Matt. xxvi, 11. If Christ were to be in the host, soul, body. and divinity, then he must be a/ways with his disciples, contrary to the assertion in the text. But the most accurate reasoners in the Church of Rome have been aware that Scripture does not support transubstantiation. Accordingly some of them have dwelt principally on the authority of tradition, and the support to be derived from ecclesiastical decisions. Ve'hen some have striven to maintain iz by Scripture, their arguments have mani- festly laboured for want of support. Others have candidly' acknow- ledged that it is not among those doctrines which are proved cleaxly 5y Scripture. � The do? of tran?uSsM, u?u?m com?ra?�? our By our senses we can readily discern that what is in the cup is wine, and that the bread in the sacrament is not human flesh. To obviate this difficulty it is said that the species o� bread and wine remain, after their change into the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. They also teach sometimes, in their manuals, to re, orate ,u? the ?m?n,?t of ?A?r ?es, a?d a/? Auman um?erstam?. Now if our senses cannot be trusted, how do we know that these words, TA/? ?s m? body, are to be found in Scripture, or on this paper now before our eyes ? The doctrine of transubstantiation contradicts our ?,. and on this account proves itsel? to be a false doctrine, contra? to the Scripture, and not originating from Him who gave us our senses for infallible directors. This doctrine, when viewed in reference to the evidence
- See M'Oavin's Protestant, vol. i, p. 419, ch. 57. Also Hughes and Breckea-
r,rigs, pp. 19t, ?44. 1
�
