Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/249

 CHAP. IV.] Tit ANSU BSTAN TIATION'. 41 for us ! That our Saviour spoke of his body in this coadition, none can deny. If, therefore, we understand the words literally, as Roman Catholics would have us, we must admit one of the grosseat contradic- tions in the world. We must believe that Christ's body was both alive and dead at the same time. If we cannot believe this, then it is im- possible that our Saylout's words should be taken in a literal sense, namely, that the bread he gave them was truly and really, and without figure, his dead body. Moreover, Romanists say that the soul and divinity of Christ, as well as his body and blood, bones and sinews, &., are contained in the bread. If his words are to be taken literally, how can they' account for the presence of the soul and divinity of Christ ? They believe that the bread and wine are not changed until the words of consecration, "This is my body," and "This cup is the new testament,"&c., are pronounced. Here are several thin that make against them. If Christ spoke literally, his words would not imply his identical body, for that of which he spoke was bread. But they tell us that the bread was transubstantiated. Be it so; but that could not be Christ's body, but newly created flesh, which before had no existence. Besides, we may observe, what all before us have observed, that what Christ took he broke, what he broke he blessed, what he blessed was distributed, and what was distributed was eaten. Bread, then, was taken by Christ, therefore bread, and not flesh, was eaten. According to their literal meaning, the cup oF chalice was really the blood. of Christ, and he commanded his disciples to drink or swallow down the cup. The cup must.also be the new testament, if their mode of interpreta- tion be right. Now unless the cup in which the wine was contained was really the wine poured into it, and unless the same cup was at the same time the new testament or cove.nant, the interpretation of Roman Catholics is wrong. Secondly, Our sense is natural and easy', and agreeable to the com- mon way of speaking; and the only sense in which it was possible for the apostles, to whom our Lord spoke, to understand them. We have shown that the words of our Lord cannot be taken in en- tirely a literal sense; they must therefore be. taken in a figurative sense, which we now come to.consider. And the only figure which we could apply would be that whereby we give to the sign the name of the thing signified. Now, according to this figure, we would under- stand the words thus: -that this bread which he had broken, and the wine which he poured out, were apt signs, symbols, emblems, or repre- sentations of his broken body and shed blood. No sense can be more easy than this; and to prove it we will advance the following reasons: (1.) When Christ said, This is my body, he had nothing in his hands at that time but part of the unleavened bread which he and his disci- ples had been eating at supper; and therefore he could mean no more than this, namely, that the bread which he was now breaking nted his body, which in the course of s few hours was to be crucified. To suppose that the bread and wine, and every particle of each, con- rained the body, blood, bones, sinews, &c., and the soul and divinity of Christ, and that Christ held his own body in his hands, and that he and his disciples did eat it, baffles all human and divine faith. (2.) Them is no figure more usual in every language than that 'VOL. I.--16

�