"derstanding our Saviour's words of eating his "flesh and drinking his blood, according to the "letter, is a letter that kills." If then we can prove that the words of St. John and in the institution can bear another sense, consistently with the Jewish customs, and the style of the Scriptures, then the advantages which it has from being unattended by any horrid consequences, should make that sense preferable by the rule which we have mentioned. But further, our doctrine concerning the sacrament, of a mystical presence of Christ in the symbols, and of its effects on the worthy and unworthy receivers, is acknowledged by the Roman Church, who have added to our doctrine that of the corporal presence. It is not necessary for us, therefore, to support our opinions; it is sufficient to show that the arguments they advance in its support are vain and inconclusive. This we have already done, and any objections we have urged against it, serve as additional proofs of its falsehood.a

5. It is opposed to the doctrine of the primitive Church. The arguments from antiquity may be divided into two kinds, 1st, presumptive proofs, and 2nd, direct proofs.

a See Jewel's Def. of Apol. par. 2. c. 13. div. 1. and Reply, Art. 5. Usher's Answer to the Jesuit, p. 45. Gibson's Preserv. ag. Popery, v. 2. tit. 7. c. 4. and Bilson on Christ. Subj. part. 4. p. 759.

a

1st. As to the presumptive proofs. (1.) In the statement of this doctrine, it has appeared how many difficulties it involves. These difficulties are obvious; and since the introduction of this doctrine into the Roman Church, numerous attempts have been made to explain them. Even the principles of natural philosophy have been reversed, in order to countenance it, and endless subtleties and distinctions invented. Now none of these subtleties are found in the works of the ancients; they seem to apprehend none of those difficulties, nor study to solve them. They had a philosophical genius, which they displayed on other subjects. They disputed with great accuracy concerning the attributes of God, his essence and the persons of the Trinity. They treat of the Incarnation of the Word, the decrees of God, the state of the body at the resurrection. On all these subjects they discovered difficulties, and laboured to remove them; sometimes with rather too great a degree of nicety. Yet they never treat of any difficulties in this sacrament, though they are much more apparent than on the former questions, nor do they use such caution when speaking on philosophical points, as men per

a These arguments, and the testimony of the Fathers which supports them, are fully stated by Patrick in his View of the Doctrines of the Ancient Church, relating to the Eucharist.-See Gibson's Preserv. v. 2. tit. 7. p. 176.

suaded of this doctrine must have exercised. On the contrary, they deliver their opinions in a way that shews they had no such ideas. They thought that all creatures were limited to one place, and thence argued against the heathen who thought their deities were in each of the statues dedicated to them. They prove the divinity of the Holy Ghost, from his power of working in many places at once. They affirm that Christ can be no more on earth, since he is now in heaven, and can be but in one place. On all occasions they appeal to the testimony of our senses as infallible; they say, that to believe otherwise tended to reverse the whole state of life and order of nature, and that we should be led to doubt of our faith, if the testimony of hearing, seeing, and feeling, could deceive us. In their contests with the Marcionites concerning the truth of Christ's body, they appeal to the evidence of the senses; and even treating of the sacrament, they say without reserve, that it was bread and wine, as their eyes witnessed, and that in this very particular, we ought to trust to the testimony of our senses. These and similar assertions are inconsistent with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

(2.) Another presumptive proof is the silence of the heathen and the Jews as to the existence of this doctrine, in the charges brought by them against the early Christians and their religion.

These charges are mentioned by the first Apologists for Christianity, who relate the reproaches urged against them for believing in the crucifixion and burial of a God; in a future judgment, in the resurrection of the body, and other doctrines. Yet they do not speak of any such charges advanced against them on account of their belief of transubstantiation, in which reason and common sense would have supported them. This silence is most remarkable in the case of Julian. He was a man of an inquisitive and philosophical genius, and having besides been related to Constantine, it is probable that great care was taken in instructing him in the doctrines and sacraments of Christianity. After he apostatized from this religion, he exhibited the greatest malice against it. He reproached its advocates with the doctrine of regeneration by baptism, and ridiculed their faith; yet he never charged them with the absurdities of transubstantiation. Nor can it be said, that "the eating of human flesh" and "the Thyestean suppers," which were objected against the Christians, were founded on this doctrine. For the Fathers, in answering this objection, do not attempt to exculpate themselves by explanations derived from the sacrament, but at once tell the heathen it is a gross falsehood and calumny. These accusations probably arose from the practice of the Gnostics, to which they may have been applica

ble.

(3.). Most of the doctrines, and all the mysteries of the Christian faith have at various times been canvassed and disputed; and since the introduction of the doctrine of transubstantiation into the Church, several debates have arisen. upon it, and great numbers of persons endured persecution in their opposition to it. Yet no such debates existed respecting it in the early ages. Now, how can it be imagined that such an opposition should have been made to this doctrine during the last thousand years, while no disputes whatever existed for the former eight hundred and that while all other points were so much questioned, that several fathers wrote and councils met to settle the belief of them, yet that for about eight centuries this was the only point so universally admitted that no treatise was written to support it, nor council summoned to establish it? It is evident that the reason of such silence in the early ages is, that the doctrine was then unknown.

(4.) There are several rites and practices which have arisen from this doctrine, as necessary consequences, which were not known in the early ages; such as the elevation, adoration and processions, with a vast number of ceremonies and rubrics. It follows therefore, that since these are of so modern and certain a date, the doctrine on which they are founded is not more ancient. The simplicity of the primitive