"the trinity, incarnation, &c. with this faith he "believes that what descended upon our Saviour "at his baptism in Jordan, was really the Holy

66

66

Ghost, though senses or reason could dis"cover it to be nothing but a dove; with this "faith he believes that the man that Joshua saw "standing over against him with his sword drawn, "Josh. v. 13. and the three men that Abraham "entertained in the plains of Mamre, Gen. xviii. were really and substantially no men; and that "notwithstanding all the information and evidence "of sense, from their colour, features, proportion, talking, eating, &c. of their being men; yet "without any discredit to his senses, he really "believes they were no such thing, because God's "word has assured him of the contrary: and with "this faith he believes Christ's body and blood "to be really present in the blessed sacrament,

66

though, to all outward appearance, there is "nothing more than bread and wine: thus not at "all hearkening to his senses in a matter where "God speaks, he unfeignedly confesses, that he "that made the world of nothing but his sole "word: that cured diseases by his word: that "raised the dead by his word: that commanded "the winds and seas: that multiplied bread: that changed water into wine by his word, and sin"ners into just men, cannot want power to change "bread and wine into his own body and blood by "his sole word. And this without danger of multiplying his body, of making as many Christs as "altars, or leaving the right hand of his Father.

66

66

But only by giving to his body a supernaturál "manner of existence, by which, being without "extension of parts rendered independent of "place, it may be one and the same in many "places at once, and whole in every part of the symbols, and pot obnoxious to any corporeal

C

"contingencies. And this kind of existence is no "more, than what in a manner he bestows upon every glorified body; than what his own body "had, when born without the least violation of "his mother's virginal integrity: when he arose "from the dead, out of the sepulchre, without removing the stone: when he entered amongst "his disciples, the doors being shut. And though, "he cannot understand how this is done, yet he "undoubtedly believes, that God is able to do "more than he is able to understand."*

66

This elaborate exposition of the doctrine in question, embraces all the arguments that are generally adduced in its defence. They may be classed under three topics, to which we shall attend separately. The first argument is derived from the words of our Lord, when he instituted the "Sacrament of the Eucharist." (Matt. xxvi. 26.-29. Mark xiv. 22-25. Luke xxii. 17-19. 1 Cor. xi. 23–25.) All the sacred historians inform us, that our Lord "took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples saying, "This is my body broken for you," &c. "After the same manner he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, "This cup is the New Testament in my blond," &c. Matthew and Mark relate that he said, "This is my blood of the New Testament," &c. According to the Romanists, our Lord in these declarations, intended to assert that the bread and the wine were literally and actually his body and his blood; although St. Luke and St. Paul inform us, that he said nothing about the wine, but declared that the "cup" was the "New Testament." Now on this principle of verbal and literal interpretation, I have as good reason for asserting that the cup is the New Tes

* Gother's "Papist truly represented,” § 5. p. 7, 8.

tament, &c. as they have to say, that the bread and wine are the body and the blood! There is something so inexpressibly absurd in the supposition, that there is no small difficulty in refuting it.* But as something must be said, lest it should be said, there is nothing to say, I remark, that this interpretation is not necessary in order to ascertain the meaning of the passage-that it is highly irrational and opposed to several explicit testimonies respecting the human nature of Jesus Christ-and that it is an interpretation highly injurious to the interests of Christianity.

This strangely literal interpretation is by no means necessary to the understanding of the passage. The structure of all languages, and the ordinary habits of speech admit of representations which are not verbally correct; but which at the same time are easily and universally understood. Figurative allusions and metaphorical terms continually occur even in the ordinary intercourse of society, and are so interwoven with our conversation, that we are often unconscious of the use of them. If we were to analyse minutely the sentences which are uttered casually and incidentally, on any subject whatever, we should find terms and phrases which, if taken literally

*"It might well seem strange," says Archbishop Tillotson, "if any man should write a book to prove that an egg is not an elephant, and that a musket bullet is not a pike: it is every "whit as hard a case, to be put to maintain, by a long discourse "that what we see and handle, and taste to be bread, is bread, and "not the body of a man; and what we see and taste to be wine, is "wine, and not blood and if this evidence may not pass

for suffi

cient, without any further proof, I do not see, why any man, that "hath confidence enough to do so, may not deny any thing to "be, which all the world sees it is; or affirm any thing to be "what all the world sees, it is not; and this without all possibi"lity of being further confuted." Tillotson's Sermons, Vol. II. Serm. xxvi.