spite of the plainest common sense, to be understood in the literal sense? That, in his own hand Jesus held his own body, but in the first instance without the blood belonging to it; and having, by breaking it into eleven or twelve pieces, converted each of those parts into the whole, gave those his eleven or twelve bodies, one to each guest-he himself, with or without his body, looking on all the while to see them eat it, and thereupon, immediately after gave to each of them the whole of his blood, viz. the wine which had just been poured out, and by him converted into blood,-the bodies, into which the bread had been converted, not having any blood in them,- -that of all these self-contradictory extravagances the existence should be more probable than that, on an impassioned occasion, Jesus should have made use of a figurative expression-and that too in a language which scarce offered any other? In a barbarous age, and thence, under the influence of blind caprice, even in a more improved age,-under the Roman Catholic edition of the religion of Jesus .... Yes: under such a system, in the admission given to any such style of interpretation, how little soever there may be of abstract reason, there is but too much of consistency. But, under a government calling itself Protestant, and oppressing Catholics, because they are Catholics, and, for these very extravagances, branding them with the name of Idolaters! . . . . Believe that Jesus, having held his own body in his own hand, gave to each of twelve men, the whole of that same body, and then saw them eat 66 it, &c. &c.-Believe this, because Jesus is related to have said so?-Well then-(not to speak of a way*) believe that Jesus was a door-a door always open for as many men as pleased to go "in and out" through it:† for this too is among the things, which, in the same sacred books, it is related of him that he said. In the mouth of a Protestant, among Protestants, this argument, when addressed by them to Catholics, is relied on as conclusive. Conclusive? and against what? why, against this very cannibal story, of the truth of which every Church of England child is thus forced to declare itself persuaded. Compared with this, the supposition about the door would be rational and probable. Consider Bright and Lambert: the least of these great men had quantity of matter enough in his body to admit of an aperture, through which, as through a door, a man of ordinary size might have passed without much difficulty. Believing and teaching the mystery of Cannibalism, will a man refuse to believe and teach this other mystery of the door? If so, what will his faith avail him?-When bread and wine, and body and blood, and every thing else is swallowed, still, unless he will swallow the door likewise,-still, if he is consistent, he is an unbeliever; he is still an infidel, and all that he has swallowed has been swallowed in waste. * John xiv. 6. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the father but through me. † John x. 9. I am the door; by me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. Question 20.-What is the inward part, or thing sig nified? Answer. The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken, and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. OBSERVATIONS. Body and Blood, without the Bread and Wine, the Bread and Wine being metamorphosed into Body and Blood,-in the pure grimgribber of modern technical theology—in the theology of the Roman school-this is transubstantiation. Body and Blood, with the Bread and Wine-in the adulterated grimgribber-the produce of Luther's unmatured attempts to throw off the load of pernicious rubbish heaped up by the Romish school -this is consubstantiation. In respect of absurdity, self-contradiction, and groundless inference, -between the trans and the sub, is there so much as a shade of difference worth thinking of? On the con plan the mess has more matter in it than in the trans: and the more the worse. 66 Verily and indeed!"-Danger is here foreseen,—and, it being foreseen, provision is thus made against it:-the danger, lest, here or there, the stomach of this or that intractable and refractory child, should, in the midst of all this instruction, be tempted to listen, in preference, to the testimony of his own senses: lest, accordingly, not finding in his palate the taste and consistence of flesh, any more than, under his eyes, the colour of blood, he should thereupon, notwithstanding all assurances, and the threatenings that may be seen glittering in the back-ground, be perverse enough to harbour doubts of his own Cannibalism. Of the reiterated intensity of these asseverations, se, if there be any true they are. osis, you couple the ith the word sense. ion that you please, -a still more absurd il proposition, if— 1 to do the nature more absurd one.hout that support, n has in store for it is, in the mind of ring to admit of its entary acceptance. al sense. To the tual, and now, inse-false to a degree nires nothing but a ue. Have you any to subdue,-to sofwhich you want to eady to be moulded whatsoever that r way to go to work these absurd proabsurd the betterfirst place, without in its natural sense. swallowing it, so find him giving it ible or refusing to to him a second › spiritual sense-a no other, is the and it. Question 20.-What is the inward part, or thing signified? Answer. The body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken, and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. OBSERVATIONS. Body and Blood, without the Bread and Wine, the Bread and Wine being metamorphosed into Body and Blood,-in the pure grimgribber of modern technical theology-in the theology of the Roman school-this is transubstantiation. Body and Blood, with the Bread and Wine-in the adulterated grimgribber-the produce of Luther's unmatured attempts to throw off the load of pernicious rubbish heaped up by the Romish school -this is consubstantiation. In respect of absurdity, self-contradiction, and groundless inference, -between the trans and the sub, is there so much as a shade of difference worth thinking of? On the con plan the mess has more matter in it than in the trans: and the more the worse. "Verily and indeed!"-Danger is here foreseen, and, it being foreseen, provision is thus made against it: the danger, lest, here or there, the stomach of this or that intractable and refractory child, should, in the midst of all this instruction, be tempted to listen, in preference, to the testimony of his own senses: lest, accordingly, not finding in his palate the taste and consistence of flesh, any more than, under his eyes, the colour of blood, he should thereupon, notwithstanding all assurances, and the threatenings that may be seen glittering in the back-ground, be perverse enough to harbour doubts of his own Cannibalism. Of the reiterated intensity of these asseverations, |