dated into all the mysteries of the church, and who also ridicules the doctrines of the incarnation, divinity of Christ, &c., would certainly no.t pass over so glaring an absurdity as transubstantiation is, prodded any such doctrine were taught. 4. B?sides, the primitiveChristians, who were sometimes accused of eating human flesh, from misappre- hensions arising fwm the figurative language used in the eucharist, uniformly deny the accusation; which they could not do with any show of consistency had they believed the popish doctrine of the eucharist.* 4. From the language of the ancient liturgies, and from the phrase- ology of the early ecclesiastical writers, Roman Catholics argue in t?vour of transubstantiation. Some of the early Christian fathers express themsolves respecting the sacrament of the eucharist in the same figurative style in which the Jews were accustomed in their sacraments, and according to the figurative style of Scripture. Hence some of their expressions, de- tached from their connection, and interpreted according to the modern style, might seem to make for u real presence. But certainly they were far from expressing themselves with accuracy on this, or indeed on many other subjects. For instance, on the divinity of Christ, many of their expressions, by a rigid interpretation, and detached from their contexts, need much qualification. But when we make this concession we would also remark, that they speak of the consecrated elements of this sacrament as symbols, ,figures, /magea, or types of the body and blood of Christ. This is a mode of expression which can never be consistent with transubstantiation; but with our views of tiffs sacrament it certainly a?ees. However, it is said, in order to shun this di?iculty, that a thing ma?/be a symbol of enether tldng, and yet be the same identical thing which it is employed to
- ymboli?e. Then, according to this new mode of employing language,
the serpent, which was among the Egyptians a symbol of the world, was the very world itself. And Hair, who allegorically represented Mount Sinai, was really a mountain. ,And hence, with equal propriety, the wine in the sacrament is both the symbol of Christ's blood, and his blood, at the same time.$ 5. They say this doctrine is no more mysterious than the doctrine of the trinity, incarnation, &c. When we urge that the doctrine of transubstantiation is absurd and contradictory, they think to awe us into silence, as they do their own deluded hearers, with the following hatangus: "Will you be a Chris- tin, or will you not ?. If you will, then you must be led by faith, and not by sense. You must believe what God hath said, and not what your own carnal fallible reason suggests. You cannot conceive how that which appears bread should be the real body of Christ which is in heaven. Your. ideas of many of the Christian mysteries are equally obscure. Is not the incarnation of our Saylout, the manner how God and man can be one person, every whir as unaccountable ? Are you not at as much loss when you endearour to reconcile the doctrine of the trinity with your reason, as you are in the case you object against
- See Faber'e I)if. of Rom., pp. 98-120, where this point is fully discussed.
t See this targumout, first adduced by the bishop of Me?ux, confMerod at large by Faber, p. 1?. 1
�
