IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 k 
 
 // 
 
 
 {./ 
 
 
 <(. <it 
 
 /. 
 
 t/j 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 
 us 
 
 I 
 
 40 
 
 20 
 
 L8 
 
 JA IIIII16 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 /J 
 
 >^^ 
 
 / 
 
 # 
 
 "% s^ 
 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
4r 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIKM/ICIVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes tachniques et bibliographiquas 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming, features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images In the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 Q Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 □ Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagie 
 
 □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^ et/ou pelliculie 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 
 I I Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 ReliA avac d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion !• long de la marge intirieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans lo texte. 
 mais, lorsque cela 4tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas M filmies. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentairas supplimentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-^tr'i jniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui fjeuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mithode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquis ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagies 
 
 r~~1 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 T 
 t( 
 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculAes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxei 
 Pages dicolories, tacheties ou piquies 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ditachees 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Qualiti inigale de I'lmpression 
 
 Includes supplementary materii 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disporible 
 
 r~7 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 r^ Pages detached/ 
 
 fyTl Showthrough/ 
 
 rri Quality of print varies/ 
 
 nn Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 pn Only edition available/ 
 
 n 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les psges totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc.. ont iti fiimies d nouveau de facon ^ 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film^ au taux de rMuction indiqui ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 IfX 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
Is 
 
 J 
 
 ifier 
 
 le 
 
 ge 
 
 The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thenks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Seminary of Quebec 
 Library 
 
 The imeges sppeering here ere the best quelity 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and In keeping with the 
 filming cotitract specifications. 
 
 L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grice i la 
 gAnArositA de: 
 
 Siminaire de Quebec 
 Bibliothique 
 
 Les Imeges sulvantes ont At6 reproduites avec ie 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at 
 de la nettetA de rexemplaire filmA, et en 
 conformity eve les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other originel copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated Impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or Illustrated Impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimie sont filmAs en commen^ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 derniire pege qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmte en commengant par la 
 premiere pege qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminent par 
 la derniire page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —^^-i meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la 
 derniire imege de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cfirtes. planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre 
 fUmis A des taux de reduction diffirents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 A partir 
 de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche h droite, 
 et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mAthode. 
 
 ta 
 
 ure, 
 
 ] 
 
 !X 
 
 \- ■* 
 
 : t 
 
 ;■ ^^■* ' 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
PURGATORY, 
 
 TRANSUBSTANTIATION & THE MASS, 
 
 fiXAMIMXB BT 7BB UaBV 0> 
 
 HOLY SCRIPTURE, RIGHT REASON AND CHRI8TIA» 
 
 ANTIQUITY; 
 
 THREE SERMONS 
 
 PREACHED ON THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD SUNDAYS IN 
 
 ADVENT, 18*^2, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV, HENRY ROE, B. A., 
 
 CVBAT8 OF BT. UATTBBW's FHEB CBA,PBL, QUBBBO. 
 
 QULBECi 
 
 f^BINTED AT TBB " UOBNlNa CBBOMICLE" OFPIOB, FOOT OF MOCJiTAW BILL. 
 
 1863. 
 
The profits of this publication will be given to the Endowment 
 Fund of St. Matthew's Free Chapel. 
 
 -<% 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The following are ihe circumslances under whicli 
 these sermons are printed. The Rev. Dr. Cahill, a 
 Romish controversialist of some fame, visited Que- 
 bec, and gave a series of public lectures in the Music 
 Hall. The first two lectures were on scientific subjects, 
 and were followed by three controversial lectures, 
 addressed to Protestants, upon Purgatory, Transubstan- 
 tiation and the Mass. Dr. Cahill's addresses having been 
 heard by many chureh-peoplo, and moreover reported at 
 much length in the newspapers!, 1 was requested by 
 several members of my congregation to lay before them 
 the grounds on which the Anglican Church rejects 
 the distinctive teaching of the Church of Rome on those 
 points, I did so in these sermons. The request for 
 fheir publication is so general, and urged upon me by 
 so many on whose judgment I rely, that 1 do not feel at 
 liberty to refuse. 
 
 QUEBEC, Advknt. 18«2. 
 
*« 
 
 The present adherents of the Church of Rome are not, in my judg- 
 ment, Catholics. We are the Catholics. We can prove that we hold 
 the doctrines of the primitive Church for the first three hundred years. 
 The Council of Trent made the Papists what they are. 
 
 The course ot Christianity and the Christian Church may not 
 inaptly be likened to a mighty river, which filled a wide channel, and 
 bore along with its waters mud, and gravel, and weeds, till it met a 
 great rock in the middle of its stream. By some means or other the 
 water flows purely, and separated from the filth, in a deeper and nar- 
 rower course on one side of the rock, and the refuse of the dirt and 
 troubled water goes oflf on the other in a brooder current, and then cries 
 out, " vrcarethe river!" 
 
 A person said to me lately, " But you will, for civilitv'a sake, call 
 them Catholict, will you not?" I answered that I would not ; fori would 
 not tell a lie upon any, much less upon so solemn an occasion. The 
 adherents of the Church of Rome, I repeat, are not Catholic Christians — 
 S. T, Oot«niDQHi, Table Talk, April 29, 1823 
 
PURGATORY. 
 
 HEBRBWS, ii. 14, 15. 
 
 " Forasmuch, tbea, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, 
 He also Himself, likewise took part of the same ; that through death 
 He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil, 
 and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime 
 subject to bondage." 
 
 This is one of the most consoling passages in the 
 blessed Bible. God the Son took upon Him our flesh and 
 blood for a two-fold purpose ; that through His own death 
 He might destroy him that had the power of death, that 
 is the devil, and deliver them who ihrouffh fear of death 
 were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 
 
 My brethren, we — Christians though we are — know 
 something in our own experience of what it is to be 
 subject to bondage through the fear of death. The fear 
 of death — the fear of what is beyond the grave — is a 
 bitter thing. The Gospel that announees to us deliver- 
 ance from it, Is a Gospel of joy indeed. Alas! that wo 
 should s<;e a large seclion of the disciples of the Saviour 
 reduced under slavery to a fear of death worse than that 
 from which He came to set " lh(> children" fref. For, 
 can they b<' said to he delivered from the fear of death, 
 who are taught 'hat after dfalh they must go into a 
 place of punishment, where in fire they will be tormented 
 for their sin- until they have paid the uttermost farthing.'' 
 IVo. It has been said* — :uid of /Aem, with such a fear of 
 d>'ath before their eyes, it is emphatically true, — that " as 
 long ar. the ij^rave exists Jhey do penance their whole 
 lives." 
 
 • Rev. Dr. Cahill's Lecture on Purgatory. 
 
6 
 
 In preaching upon llie subject of Purgatory at this time 
 I do not address myself to those my fellow Christians, 
 That would be going out of the way of my duty, which is 
 to minister to you. My heart's desire and prayer to God 
 forthein i.s, that their eyej^i may bO opened to understand 
 that the blood of Christ is the \nv\ the only Purgatory, 
 and that it cleanseth i'rom nil sin ! Much less do 1 desire 
 to send you, my brethren, hom«; triumphing over them, 
 and Vciunting your own exemption from their errors. I 
 wouU! to God that you v^ould rather consider how vastly 
 better you ought to b(^ than yon are, with all the light 
 and all ihc privileges yon enjoy. For when we look at 
 them, and see Uieir iiniiy, iheir obedience, their zeal in 
 propagating wliai they tliink the true faith, their con- 
 stancy and earnestness in using the means of grace wbiTi 
 they possess, ought we not lo feel ashamed.'' — No, far 
 be proud, boastful thoughts from us. This ... Advent 
 Sunday, with its solemn warnings that the coming of the 
 Lord, judgment, heaven and hell are drawing nigh. It 
 becomes us, then, to be in earnest about our fitness for 
 meeting our Lord — to have oar hearts filled, not with 
 proud thoughts of fancied superiority, and with bitter 
 controversy, but with a deep sense of the reality of 
 things unseen, with lowliness and meekness, ond with 
 a yearning love for all mankind. 
 
 That love obliges you to be " always ready to give 
 to every man that asketh you, a reason of the hope that 
 is in you.^'' It is, therefore, your duty to know the truth, 
 as it is my duty to guard you against error. And as 
 the Romish doctrine of Purgatory has lately been pub- 
 licly vaunted among us, on the platform and in the 
 press, as reasonable, scriptural and catholic, nay more — 
 strange as the language was — as ' a beautiful doctrine,' 
 I lake advantage of the challenge to set before you the 
 grounds on which the Anglican Branch of the Catholic 
 Church, in which it is our happiness to find our place as 
 Catholic Christians, declares it to be a "fond thing, 
 vainly invented, grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, 
 but rather repugnant to the word of God." * 
 
 I shall first state the doctrine as held and taught by 
 the Church of Rome, then examine the arguments 
 
 • Art. xxii. 
 
 * 
 

 brought forward to support it, and finally place before 
 you the teaching of the true Catholic Church a« to the 
 state and condition of the blessed dead. 
 
 The Romish doctrine of Purgatory Btated. 
 
 First, then, what docs the Cliurch of Rome teach on 
 the subject of Purgatory ? According to a recent state- 
 ment, * " Purgatory is a place of punishment in the other 
 world, where some souls have to suffer for a time before 
 they can enter i raven." But let us look at the author- 
 ized teaching of the Church of Rome herself. 
 
 The Cornell of Trent (A. D. 1546,) decreed that 
 " there is t Purgatory, and the souls there detained are 
 aided by the sulirages of the living, and, above all, by 
 the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." f The Catechism^ 
 of the Council of Trent goes farther into the point and 
 says, " There is a Purgatorial Fire, in which the souls 
 of the pious, being torment<^d for a certain time, are ex- 
 piated in order that an entrance may be open to them 
 into their eternal home, into which nothing defiled 
 enters." In the Douay Catechism is a still fuller exposi- 
 tion of the doctrine — " Whither go such as die in mortal 
 sin ? To Hell, to all eternity. Whither go such as die 
 in venial sin, or not having fully satisfied for the punish- 
 ment due to their mortal sins ? To Purgatory, tUl they 
 have made full satisfaction for them, and then to 
 Heaven." 
 
 With respect to this distinction of temporal and eternal 
 punishment as due to sin, the Council ot Trent decreed 
 as follows : 
 
 " If any one shall say, that, after the grace of justification received, 
 unto every penitent sinner the guilt is so remitted, and the penalty of 
 eternal punishment so blotted out, that Ihere remains not any penalty of 
 temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world or in the 
 next or in Purgatory, before the entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven 
 can be laid open to him, let him be anatbema."§ 
 
 As to the nature of the torments of Purgatory, St. 
 Thomas A lUizias taught that " it is the very same fire 
 that torments the damned in Hell and the just in Purg' 
 aiory." || Cardinal Bellarmine — the great Champion of 
 
 * Rev. Dt. Oabill. f Session zxv, ad init. tPt. i. Art: 6, § 6. 
 § Seas, vi., Can. 30. || In 4 Sent : dist. 21, qu. 1, «rt. 1. 
 
8 
 
 Rome, — in his learned defence of Purgatory, confesses 
 that " almost all their divines teach that the damned and 
 the souls in Purgatory are tormented in the same fire and 
 in the same place ;"* and he gives it as his own opinion 
 that " the situation ol' Purgatory, in which souls are 
 cleansed, is adjacent to that in which the damned are 
 punished and that it is a subterraneous place" — and 
 Dens states that " Purgatory is situated under the earth, 
 contiguous to Hell." 
 
 We gather, then, the following to be the authorized 
 doctrine of Rome on this point : — 
 
 1. That there are two kinds of sins — mortal and 
 venial. Mortal sins are such as merit eternal punish- 
 ment. Venial sins are slight offences, or sins in trifling 
 matters, which are in tliemselves pardonable without an 
 express act of God, and do not merit eternal death ; but 
 they deserve some punishment, which they must receive 
 in this world or in Purgatory. They also teach that to 
 mortal sins there are two penalties attached by God, 
 namely, eternal damnation and temporal punishment. 
 
 2. That al) Christians who die in mortal sin are 
 immediately consigned to hell, from which there can be 
 no deliverance. 
 
 3. That God's true servants — penitent believers — 
 are forgiven, by the Priest's absolution, the eternal 
 punishment of their sins, which was all that Christ died 
 to expiate ; but that the temporal punishment of mortal 
 sins, and all the punishment of venial sins God's true 
 servants must undergo themselves, by voluntary penance 
 here (which, however, may be commuted by an indulg- 
 ence) and by suffering hereafier in Purgatory, until the 
 uttermost farthing is paid. 
 
 4. That souls in Purgatory are helped (that is their 
 debt is paid in part or in full) by the alms and prayers of 
 the faithful, and especially by the offering of masses. 
 
 Then, as to the moral condition of souls in Purga- 
 tory, the Romish Divines hold,f 
 
 6. That souls in Purgatory becojuu neither better nor 
 worse, neither sin, nor add to their good works ; they 
 are one and all, perfect in love and ready for Heaven, 
 were it not for this debt, which hangs about them as so 
 
 • De Purgat., Lib. 2, cap. 6. t Ibid. Lib. ii. cap. 4. 
 
9 
 
 much rust or dross, which may at any moment be 
 entirely purged away by the application of the appointed 
 external remedies. Morally and spiritually, the souls in 
 Purgatory are as good and as fit for Heaven, and as sure 
 of it at last, as those who are already there. The nole 
 reason of the appointment of Purgatory is for a natia- 
 faction to God's justice. 
 
 This is the doctrine of Purgatory, as laiighl by the 
 Church of Rome and her great divines. 
 
 You will remark, brethren, — and doubtless many will 
 have heard it with surprise, — that the Romish doctrine 
 is that none but faithful Christians go to Purgatory. 
 Those who are washed in ths' blood of Christ and at 
 peace with God, and whose sins arc fully and fni'ly for- 
 given, — none but these go to Purgatory, and all tliesn 
 or nearly all, do go thero i'or a longt-r or shortt^r time 
 Ihey do not go there to be made betlfv, lor theyaie 
 made perfect in a moment nt their death and are quite 
 fit for Heaven, but simply to srnfier punishment, to pay 
 the debt to God's justice which Christ our Saviour h.-fi 
 unpaid ; and the torments 'hey there endure, are, accord- 
 ing to Cardinal Bellarrainc,* "horrible and far worise 
 t hail anything in this life." 
 
 rhis is that doctrine, which we have jait-ly been told 
 is a beautiful doctrine, and the proofs of which, as 
 alleged by its defenders, I prorved now, in the first place, 
 to examine. 
 
 ALLEGED I'KOOlsS OF TlIK HOMISll 1H;R(jIAT0I{Y. 
 
 ' The Jews believed in a Purgatory, and our Lord did not 
 
 contradict it.' 
 
 I. i he first argument oflercd to us 1?=, ' Thai the Jews 
 of our Lord's day believed in a purgatory, and that as 
 our Lord did not, so far ars we read in the Gospels, con- 
 trndict it, therefore it must be true.' 
 
 This is certainly a very extraordinary argument. The 
 fact alleged — that the Jews of our Lord's day believed 
 in Purgatory — I utterly deny. But even supposing they 
 did, are we to accept as articles of our (Christian Faith 
 all the Jewish fa bles and traditions of our Lord's day, 
 
 * Pcenas Furgatorii esse atrocissimas, et cum illis nuUas poenas hujus 
 vite comparan<JaB decent constanter patres. Bellarm : De Purg. ii. 14. 
 
10 
 
 i 
 
 which we are not expressly told that He contradicted ? 
 Was this the meaning of our Saviour when He said to 
 the Jewish Scribes and Doctors of the Law, " Why do 
 ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradi- 
 tions?" * Does He encourage us to this when He says 
 to them again, " Ye *^ave made the commandments of 
 God rf none effect by your traditions," f and again, " In 
 vaindothey worship Me, teaching for doctrines the com- 
 mandments of men ?"| Does the Lord Jesus ever in one 
 single instance refer to Jewish traditions, of doctrine or 
 practice, with approval ? Does He not always call the 
 people and the priests bnck from their traditions to the 
 written word of God ?§ Do«^s not St. Paul, too, expressly 
 warn Timothy against giving heed to the fables and tradi- 
 tions and endless genealogies of the Jews? *' Refuse 
 profane and old wives' fables." || And to Titus, " Rebuke 
 them sharply that they may be sound in the faith, not giving 
 heed to Jewish fables and traditions of men, which turn 
 from the truth." IT 1 he Jews of our Lord's day seem, to 
 have believed in tlie tranj^migration of souls, ** and our 
 Lord does not contradict it, — must it therefore be true ? 
 This mode of establishing an article of the faith, if not 
 convincing, has at least the merit of novelty, f * 
 
 Meantime no proof is offered to us that the Jews did 
 believe in any such place as Purgatory, and for a very 
 good reason, because nothing authentic is known as to 
 what they thought on this and kindred subjects. We 
 gather from the New Testament that they were alto- 
 gether unsettled on these points. They had no fixed or 
 anthoritalive belief as to the state of the soul after death, 
 a large and influential party, the Sadducees, even hold- 
 ing that the soul perished with the body. They were all 
 in darkness with respect to what was beyond the grave ; 
 and therefore our Lord is said to have " brought life and 
 immortality to light through the Gospel."|* 
 
 * St. Matt. XV. 3. t St. Mark, vii. 13. | St. Matt. xv. 9. 
 
 § See C.K., St. Liiko x. 26, St, Mark xi. 17, S. John x. 34, St. 
 Mark xii. 10, and especially St. Mark xU. 24. 
 
 II I Tim. iv. 7. 
 
 ^ Titus, i. 14. See also Uol. ii. 8-23. •• St. John, ix. 1-3. 
 
 t* So I thought when I wrote the sermon, but I find on referring to 
 modern Romanist writers tliatitia a standard Romi.sh argument. 
 
 t' 2. Tim. i. 10. 
 
11 
 
 This first argutnent, tlien, is not convincing, and we 
 may pass it by. 
 
 Proofs alleged from Holy Scripture in support of Purgatory. 
 
 II. Next, Rome appeals to the Holy Scriptures, and 
 now we are on safe and stable ground ; if she can prove 
 to us her Purgatory fromtlie Scriptures we will yield. 
 
 And here I may remind you, in passing, of the vantage 
 ground on which we, of this day, stand, because we 
 know all that can be said on the subject, and nothing 
 new can be brought forward. There have been giants 
 on both sides of the controversy between us and Rome 
 — giants of learning, reason and eloquence. All Scrip- 
 ture, all antiquity, liave been tlioroughly ransacked for 
 arguments. 
 
 The great Cardinal Bellarmine, at fhc end of the six- 
 teenth century, produced out of the Scriptures 19 texts 
 in support of Purgatory. Seveiiteen of these, however, 
 he confesses to be only probable arguments, and cer- 
 tainly they are very strange proofs to our ears, as for 
 example this text from the 38th Psalm, " O Lord rebuke 
 me not in thy wrath, neither chastise me in thy hot dis- 
 pleasure" — by wrath is meant hell, by hot displeasure, 
 Purgatory ! Or this again, Ps. G6. 12, " We went through 
 fire and through water, but thou broughtcst us out into 
 a wealthy place." Water is baptism, fire is Purgatory. 
 
 Alex. Natalis, another eminent Romish Doctor, who 
 wrote a few years after Bellarmine, rejects utterly seven- 
 teen out of these nineteen texts, thus venturing to allege 
 only two. Most Romish writers, however, claim a 
 third. Three texts, then, remain for ns to examine, 
 two of which only ar<! from the Holy Scriptures, the 
 third being from the Apocryphal Second Book of Mac- 
 cabees. Is not this, brethren, romarkM bio ? Out of the 
 whole blessed Bible — and it is not a small 'book — 
 many of the greatest Romish writers venture to 
 allege only two, and some of the most eminent of them 
 only one ains;le text of Scripture to support this most 
 extraordinary doctrine ! 
 
 Let us look first at the passage from the Apocrypha ; 
 and let me tell you, in passing, why we do not ackow- 
 ledge the Apocrypha to be inspired Scripture. Not, as was 
 
12 
 
 
 I -^ 
 
 lately said here, * ' simply because it praises a suicide/ 
 but, first, because the Jews, to whom God committed and 
 from whom the Christian Church received the oracles of 
 God, and who kept them and still keep them faithfully 
 pure and uncorrupl, never admitted the Apocryphal 
 books among the inspired Scriptures ; and, secondly, 
 because no part of the Christian Church ever admitted 
 them, until they were declared to be inspired Scripture 
 by the Romish Council of Trent, in the year 1546. They 
 were utterly unknown to the Jews, and in fact are not 
 so much as mentioned by any writer for several centu- 
 ries after Christ. This is why the Anglican Church, 
 
 holding 
 
 with the pure ancient Church, never has 
 
 admitted the Apoorypliul books into the canon of Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 Nevertheless, iel us look iniotliis text from the second 
 book of Maccabees, The book professes to be an 
 abridgment of another larger work, and the author 
 modestly apologizes for not having done it better. The 
 passage is this, Vhr author relates f that Judas Mac- 
 cabeus, the Jewish General, vv^hen he went to bury the 
 dead, after one of his battles, " found under the coats of 
 every one of them that had been killed things consecrated 
 to the idols of the Janinites," and if so, these men must 
 have died in the mortal sin of idolatry. Hereupon, 
 Judas and .11 his men betook themselves to prayer and 
 besought God that thf sin mif^rht wholly be put out of 
 reraemberance. 
 
 " Besides tliat, noble .J mhis exhorted the people to keep themselves 
 from ein, forsomuch as they siuv before their eyes the things that camo 
 to pass lor the sins of those that Avere slain. And when he had made a 
 gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms 
 of silver he sent it lo Jeriipalem to offer a sin offering." 
 
 This is tlu' History ; and if the writer had stopped 
 here and only given ns these facts, we should have un- 
 derstood that tiio prayers and offerings of Judas and his 
 men were to bes'och God noi lo punish the livins^y that 
 is, the whole nation, lor this sin of idolatry. But the 
 compiler of tiie book i;oos on to say tiiat Judas 
 
 " Did therein very well rm^ lionestly in ihiU he was mindful of the 
 resurrection. For if ho had not. hoped timt they that were slain should 
 have risen again, it had been superflr jus and vain to priiy for the dead. 
 
 By Rev. Dr. Cahill. 
 
 t 2. Maccab, xii, 39-45. 
 
13 
 
 And aiso in tbat he perceived that there was great favour laid up for 
 thoie that died godlj, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon 
 he made a reconciliation for the dead that they might be delivered 
 from Bin." 
 
 Now, the author of this book, writing probably several 
 hundred years after the event,, and probably more than 
 an hundred after the temple was destroyed, explains 
 what Judas did in this way. But he was evidently 
 mistaken, for we know that the law of Moses allowed of 
 no sacrifices for the sin of idolatry and no sacrifices for 
 the dead. But let us pass that by, and suppose that 
 Judas really did send and offer a sacrifice for those dead 
 men, yet, surely, thi.s will never prove the Romish 
 Purgatory. 
 
 . For, first, those men died in n.ortal sin., and according 
 to Rome, went undoubtedly and (iirectly to Hell. 
 
 And, secondly, the prayers and sacrifices were not for 
 deliverance from Purgatory but for the resurrection in 
 the last day of those that were slain. 
 
 And, thirdly, it is absolutely impossible the passage 
 should speak of Purgatory, because there was as yet, 
 according to the Church of Home, no such place in 
 existence, and therefore these soldiers could not be 
 there. 
 
 This, I hope, is a auificient replv to this first passage. 
 
 We come now at length to Holy Scripture. And the 
 first of the two passages which they allege is from the 
 Xllth of St. Matthew, where our Saviour, speaking of 
 the sin against the Holy Ghost, tells us, that " it shall 
 not be forgiven^ neither in this world, neither in the 
 world to come.'''' From this they argue, that when it is 
 said that this one sin is not to be forgiven in the world to 
 come, it is implied that some sins may be forgiven in the 
 world to come ; but as no sins can be forgiven after the 
 day of Judgment, it must be in the time between death 
 and judgment, and therefore it must be in Purgatory. 
 
 Now Bellarmine himself acknowledges that this 
 argument is not sound according to the rules of logic, 
 and any man's own good sense will tell him, on 
 looking candidly at this text, that the phraoe ' neither 
 in this world, neither in the world to come' is only a 
 strong way of saying that the sin against the Holy 
 
 / 
 
14 
 
 
 Ghost shall never be forgiven. But whatever meaning 
 you give the text, how can it reasonably be alleged in 
 proof of Purgatory ? What has theforgiveneat qf %ins 
 to do with Purgatory ? Purgatory is not a place where 
 sins ^xe forgiven but where they &:te punished with the 
 greatest severity. Nay more, no one goes to Purgatory 
 whose sins are not fully and freely forgiven, so far as 
 God can forgive them. Christians are sent to Purga- 
 tory to suffer certain punishrnenis which God has bound 
 himself not to remit. This is the Romish Doctrine. 
 How then can a text which espeuks of forgiveness in the 
 world to come prove that there is a place in the world 
 to come where sins are 710/ forgiven but punished — 
 where the faithful Christian, alreadv forgiven before he 
 dies, must stay till he has expiutej his own sins, and 
 either by himself or others ' paid the uttermost far- 
 thing.^' If there is a Purgaloiy, it e.i-rtainly cannot be 
 proved by this text. It is bud iuith to allege a text 
 which contradicts the doctrine it is brought to prove. 
 
 The third and last passage alleged in support of Pur- 
 gatory ib in the third Chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, whore, speaking of the Christian minis- 
 try, and warningthe Corinthians against teachers of spu- 
 rious doctrine, the Apostle says : 
 
 "As a wise master builder 1 hnvo laid the foundation, aud another 
 buildeth thereon ; but let every man take heed how bo buildeth 
 thereupon . For other foundation can uo man lay than that is laid, 
 which is Jesus Christ. If any man build upon this foundation, gold, 
 silver, precious stones ; wood, hay, stubble ; every man's work shall 
 be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be 
 revealed by fire ; and the firo shall try every man's work of what sort 
 it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon he 
 shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall 
 snffer loss ; nevertheless, he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."* 
 
 Now the question is, what is ' the fire' that is to *try 
 every man's work?' It is Purgatory, say some of the 
 Romanists ; but not all, for Cardinal Bellarmine says that 
 the fire is not the fire of Purgatory ; and Cardinal Bellar- 
 raine's reasons to prove that the lire in this passage is 
 not the fire of Purgatory are no good and so conclusive 
 that I shall give them to you in his own words. He 
 says, 
 " The fourth difficulty is, what is the ./??<• which in the day of the Lord 
 
 "• 1 Cor. iij. 10— 15^ 
 
15 
 
 iB to try every man's work ? Some underBtand it to be the pains of 
 Pnrgatory, but that cannot be truly said ; firit, because the fire of 
 Purgatory, does not prove the works of those who build gold and 
 silver, but the fire spoken of here shall prove every man's work what 
 it is. Secondly, the Apostle clearly makes a distinction between 
 the works and the workmen, but the fire of Purgatory, which is a 
 real fire, cannot burn works, which are transitory actions and already 
 past. Lastly, it would follow that all men even the most holy would 
 pass through the fire of Purgatory, aad be saved by fire, for all are to 
 pass through the fire of which the Apostle speaks . But that all are to 
 pass through the fire of Purgatory, and be saved by fire, is clearly 
 false. It remains therefore that we should say that the Apostle here 
 spealts of the fire of the severe and just judgment of God, which is not a 
 'purging or punishing fire but one tbnt probes nnd examinss . ' " 
 
 So far Cardinal Bellarmine. 
 
 "The day" here spoken of — "the day shall manifest 
 it" — the Cardinal decides to be the day of judgment. 
 With this exposition 1 entirely agree, for when the 
 Scriptures speak of the day, or the day of the Lord, they 
 always mean the day of judgment. Moreover it suits 
 the passage. The Apostle says that "the day shall 
 manifest every man's work," and the day of judgment 
 shall certainly do so ; God'y sifting judgment shall make 
 it plain to all the world whether the work was good or bad; 
 just as fire tries gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, 
 stubble in this world, burning up the wood, hay and 
 stubble, but not injuring gold, silver or precious stones. 
 This, then, is what the Apostle means. Ho tells us that 
 .Jesus Christ is the only true Foundation ; but yet that 
 builders, that is, Christian teachers or ministers, may 
 build ill upon this true Foundation. If a workman 
 builds upon that true Foundation, grounds his own faith 
 and hope and leads others to ground theirs upon Jesus 
 Christ, — but builds ill upon it, erects a superstructure of 
 unsound doctrine upon it, — u crazy superstructure of 
 Jewish Fables and traditions of men, his woi'k will be 
 burnt up, — the falsehood and folly of all his teaching 
 will be made plain by the fire of God's judgment, and he 
 will suffer loss, the loss of the reward of those who build 
 well upon that Foundation. And although he himself 
 will be saved because he has built on the true Founda- 
 tion, by grounding his own faith and hope on Christ, 
 yet it will be with difficulty, and as it were like a man 
 who escapes through the fire out of a burning house. 
 This is evidently the true interpretation of the passage ; 
 
 'w 
 
16 
 
 . \ 
 
 and we can only wonder that any Romanist, after the 
 lucid exposition of Cardinal Bellarmine, should ever 
 venture to bring it forward again in support of Purg- 
 atory. 
 
 But Cardinal Bellarmine was only a fallible man, let 
 us hear the infallible Church speaking. 
 
 The Church of Rome adopted a certain rule of inter- 
 pretation of Holy Scripture at the Council of Trent— a 
 rule very absurd in itself, but very useful to her oppo- 
 nents, for it prevents her champions from bringing 
 forward a single text of Holy Scripture in support of 
 any one of her errors. The creed of Pope Pius the 
 Fourth contains the following oath which every Priest of 
 the Church of Rome takes at his ordination : " Nor will 
 I ever take or interpret the Scriptures^ otherwise than by 
 the unanimous consent of the Fathers^ Let us apply 
 this rule to the texts we have been examining. — In the 
 first place tho Fathers, lor many Imndred years, are 
 uiMnimously against admitting the Second Book of 
 Maccabees into the canon of Scripture, — and, secondly, 
 for the text in Corinthians, n ;arly all the most eminent 
 of the Fathers agree in interpreting the jfre there men- 
 tioned of the J?re q/'^Ae /a»<jurf^wicn< day. This is the 
 interpretation of St. Jerome, St. Basil, St. Augustine, 
 St. Gregory, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 St. Ambrose, St. Anselm, Alcuin, Lactantius and others. 
 So whatever sense we may choose to put upon those 
 passages, the Church of Rome is bound not to allege 
 them in proof of Purgatory. 
 
 Purgatory alleged to be reasonable. "■ There ought to be a 
 
 Purgatory.'' 
 
 III. Tiiere is not much ground, then, for Purgatory in 
 Holy Scripture ; let us pass on to reason. Perhaps rea- 
 son and common sense will compel us, if we fairly listen 
 to their voice, to believe in a Purgatory. 
 
 So it has been lately said,* that " the first argument in 
 favour of Purgatory is that thete ought to be a Purga- 
 tory." Might we not fairly answer that, in so awful a 
 matter, and one so intimately concerning our highest 
 
 • By Dr. Cahlll. 
 
17 
 
 interests, if there is a Purgatory, and if there is a way 
 of deliverance from it, wo ought to be told of it plainly 
 in the Bible, and not left to reason it out for ourselves ? 
 And yet there is not a word in the Bible about Purga- 
 tory, or how we are to be delivered out of it, not a word 
 about indulgences, not a word about prayers for the 
 dead, or the sacrifice of ihe mass for the relief of souls 
 in Purgatory — for this whole system of Purgatory, 
 indulgences and masses for the dead, must stand or fall 
 together. 
 
 So that this, remember, is what we are to discover 
 by the light of reason, — or at least, which being once 
 proposed to us our reason is to confirm : — 
 
 That there ought to be a Purgatory, and that to it all 
 or nearly all the faithful servants of Christ ought to go — 
 though they are washed in His blood and sanctified by 
 His Spirit, and have died in His grace and favour, in 
 love with God, and charity with all the world, and are 
 morally and spiritually fit for Heaven — ought to go there 
 to pay a debt of veni J sins and temporal punishments, 
 which God ought not to forgive, though He has 
 promised to forgive them all their sins : that they ought 
 to be there tormented for a time — it may be for hundreds 
 oi years — in a fire which inflicts on them dreadful 
 torture, worse than anything in this life, not to make 
 them better, but simply because God chooses that it shall 
 be so ; all this ought to be, for this is Purgatory. 
 
 Then, next, there ought to be indulgences, by which 
 the good works which the Saints do morethanihey need 
 to do for themselves, go into a Treasury and are applied 
 to the souls in Purgatory at the Pope's discretion. 
 
 Then, there ought to be a way of delivering souls out 
 of Purgatory before they pay the debt ; and as God cannot 
 forgive them and set them free, they ought to be assisted 
 by the prayers and alms of good Christians on earth and 
 especially by the sacrifice of the mass. 
 
 And one thing more 
 
 ought to be — that 
 
 is, that of the 
 
 poor souls in Purgatory, those who were rich and .}ros- 
 perous here and have rich friends on earth ought to get 
 out soon or at once if their friends are willing to pay 
 enough, while those who were poor while here and 
 leave poor friends only behind them, ought to be con- 
 tent to stay there the longer. 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 ■■\ I 
 
 !i 
 
 !■' . 
 
 All this ought to be, we are told, and our rea- 
 son and good sense ought to convince us of it. 
 But to this I must demur. My reason, instructed by 
 the light of Moly Scripture, goes against it all. It is all 
 such a mass of contradictions to what even nature 
 seems to teach me of God's goodness and justice and 
 mercy, that my good sense revolts against it and pro- 
 nounces it emphatically unreasonable. 
 
 But let us listen to the reason why there ought to be 
 a Purgatory. " There ought to be a Purgatory," it is 
 said, * " because it would be unjust to punish an idle 
 word with hell. Can an idle word, be justly punished 
 
 with Gods' 
 
 everlasting anger ? 
 
 Impossible, 
 
 3) 
 
 Now this is a very dangerous sort of argument, for if 
 you push it a little farther, you may argue away hell 
 altogether. It is also strangely contradictory to what 
 the eloquent person who used it had said but a moment 
 before. Arguing against an infidel, who is supposed to 
 object that it was absurd to turn man out of Paradise 
 for eating an Apple, it was answered, very justly, that 
 " Adam's sin was a breach of all the Ten Command- 
 ments together, because it was an act of disobedience to 
 Gods' command." But, is not all sin disobedience to 
 Ood^s command ? Can anything be a sin^ which is not 
 disobedience to His command ? Certainly not, nor would 
 the Church of Rome say so. And yet if an idle word 
 (whatever is meant by the expression), f is a sin — it is an 
 act of disobedience to God, and is therefore as deserving 
 of punishment as was the sin of Adam in Paradise. 
 
 I do not deny that some sins are more offensive to 
 God than others, but I deny altogether the Romish dis- 
 tinction between vonial and mortal sins — yet let us 
 grant it for the sake of argument, and allow that good 
 Christians may and do commit many sins which do 
 not justly deserve eternal punishment ; — there ought, it 
 is argued, to be a third place where they may be pun- 
 
 • Rev. Dr. Cahill's lecture ; the argument, however, I3 from Bellarmine. 
 
 1 1 find the sin of an idle word, with reference to S. Matt, xii, 36, cited 
 in all Romish books as an instance of a venial sin Avhich could not be 
 justly punished with Hell. Yet the idle, loord against which our Lord 
 ■was then denouncing God's just judgment, was the frightful blasphemy, 
 " He hath Beelzebub, and by the Prince of the devils casteth he out devils." 
 It is an unfortunate text for them, but a fair example of their habit of 
 citing the words of scripture against its seme. 
 
19 
 
 ished. But why bo ? '' Because they deserve fiome pun* 
 ishment." Yes, all sin ought to be punished, but Qod 
 forgives sin — and why may not our venial sins be for* 
 given as well as our mortal sins ? If He forgives the 
 greater why not the less ? " Because (it is said,) God 
 does not choose to forgive lliem. He chooses that you 
 shall suffer for them." Yes, but this is the point to be 
 proved, that God does not choose to forgive our venial 
 sins. Prove this and we have nothing more to say. 
 Meantime to say, that there ought to be a Purgatory 
 where venial sins can be punished, proves nothing, until 
 you make it clear that there are venial sins, and that 
 God will not forgive them. 
 
 So much for the appeal to fiecfson. 
 
 Did the early Chrisllan Fathers believe in Purgatory? 
 
 IV. Reason refusing to be convinced, and Scripture fail- 
 ing her, Rome appeals to History. She claims that this has 
 always been the teaching of the Catholic Church from 
 the beginning, and that it could not be so if it was not of 
 apostolical and tiierefore of divine origin. But this is 
 the weakest point in her defence of her Purgatory — her 
 greatest doctors and ablest divines being compelled to 
 acknowledge that it is not an ancient Catholic verity, 
 but an invention of modern times. 
 
 The great Cardinal Beliarmine in a very learned 
 treatise in defence c. 'urgatory appeals to the Fathers 
 of the first 500 years, and quotes many passages from 
 them — passages which, at first sight, seem to make 
 strongly in his favor.* Will it be believed that Beliar- 
 mine, in a subsequent part of the very same work,f 
 quotes some of the very same passages from five of the 
 mo t eminent of the very same writers,^ to prove that 
 they were at variance with the doctrine of Purgatory 
 and mistaken in their notion of it ? Strange inconsist- 
 ency ! But so it is ; and the explanation is this, that 
 the Fathers, the Holy S^Miplures, Reason are nothing 
 to Romanists ; whatever the existing church says, is true 
 for the time — no matter how grossly the last utterance 
 may contradict a former utterance, or the Fathers, or 
 
 • De Purgat. i, 10. f De Purgat. ii. 1. 
 
 t Origen, St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, St. Jerome and Lactantius. 
 
mmmmm'fii'^^^ 
 
 120 
 
 fi 
 
 the Scriptures, or man's own reason and common sense. 
 How hopeless, then, is it to contend witii Romanists, 
 when we are so widely separated as to what is the 
 foundation of the faith ! Ours is antiquity, tlieirs the 
 existing Church ; its inl'allibity their first principle. 
 It ie quite clear thai the combined decisions of all the 
 fathers, would not have a feather's weight with them 
 against a decision of tlie Pope in council. 
 
 But Cardinal Bellarmine is not our only witness. 
 Another learned Romish controversialist, Cardmal 
 Fisher,* Bishop of Rochester in King Henry VIlI's 
 time, writing against Luther says : " Whoever reads the 
 commentaries of the ancient Greek Fathers will find no 
 mention, as far as I set;, or the slightest possible, con- 
 cerning Purgatory. Nay, even the Latin Fathers did not 
 all at once, but only gradually enter into the truth of this 
 thing. For some time Jl was unknown ; it was but lately 
 known to the Catholic Church. Then it was believed 
 by some by little and little, partly from Scripture, and 
 partly from Revelations. "f 
 
 Polydore Vergil, | another eminent Roman Catholic 
 writer, quotes Fisher's words, and confirms them, and 
 adds, " The use of indulgences is but new and lately 
 received among Christians, and they are not used by 
 the Greeks to this day. As long as there was no care 
 for Purgatory no man looked after indulgences, for the 
 use of indulgences began after men had for a while 
 trembled at the torments of Purgatory." And to quote 
 only one other admission from a learned Romish writer, 
 Alphonsus a Castro says :§ " There is scarcely any 
 
 mention of 
 
 Purgatory 
 
 among 
 
 the Fathers, especially 
 
 • Art. xviii contra Luther. (Quoted iu Jer. Taylor'tJ Dissuasive from 
 Popery. 
 
 t " Partly from rcvdathns," i, c, protended visions, apparitions and 
 legends. Even the illustrious Bellarmine gravely cites these " revel- 
 ations" as proofs of Purgatory, as for example, one from the life of St. 
 Christina, " who died and came to life again," and in the meantime had 
 Been Purgatory— " a dark and horrid place, lilled Avith the souls of 
 men. The torments which T there witnessed were too dreadful to des- 
 cribe."— With these stories the people are deluded, and fresh visions 
 are always ready to sustain their faitli, or rather, to kee]! their fears 
 alive and their pockets open. 
 
 t Invent, rerum Lih.viii, Cap, 1. (juoted by Bishop Taylor. 
 
 §Lib. viii 'Indulg'. Lib. xii, ' Purgat.' pp. 578,888. Bishop Tay- 
 lor's Dissuasive, Book ii. Sect. 2. 
 
21 
 
 among the Grcc! Father.s, and lor this reaHon Purgatory 
 is not believed by the Greek Clmrch to this very day." 
 
 But these arc negative testimonies from antiquity, let 
 lis hear a positive declaration a*' to the condition ol' the 
 faithful departed. The great St. Ambrose, archbishop 
 of Milan, writing towards the end if the fourth Cen- 
 tury, on The Good or Advantage of Death, says : 
 
 '* Death is ovory way a good. When our day shall arrive, we shall go 
 where holy Abraham opcna his arms to rccotvo tho poor, as he received 
 Lazarus ; where thoy rest, who ia this life endured heavy and sharp 
 atlliction3....Wo shall go to those who sit dowa in tho Kingdom of 
 Heaven with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, because when aiked to 
 supper they did not excuse themselves. Wo shall go thither, where 
 there is a Paradise of delight, where Adam who fell among thieves, has 
 forgotten to lament his wounds, where too tho thief himself rejoioCB in 
 the fellowship of tho Kingdom of Heaven, w)/(ere arc 7io doMd» ;^where 
 no thunder, no lightning, no storm of wind, no darkness, no evening, no 
 summer, no wif'tor will vary tlio seasons. There will bo no cold, bail, 
 rain, nor tho p jscnce of this sun, moon or stars ; but the brightneta oj 
 tight will alone shine forth." * 
 
 Now I jjausc hero. And if, according to the admis- 
 sions of Romanists themselves. Purgatory was not 
 known to the Primitive Church — if it was not known at 
 all to the Latin or Romish Church for many hundred 
 years — if the Romish Church never received it till the 
 Council of Florence in the year 1432, and the Greek 
 Church has never received it to this day — then, certainly, 
 an appeal to History makes nothing in its favour. It is 
 not an Apostolical doctrine — not primitive — not Catho- 
 lic — but a novelty and an innovation. 
 
 The Catholic doctrine of the immediate happineas of the saved. 
 
 V. We have now examined the Romish defence of the 
 doctrine of Purgatory. We have appealed to scripture 
 in its favour — it is silent. Wc have appealed to reason 
 — it rejects it. Wc have appealed to antiquity — it knew 
 it not, its very defenders being the witnesses. 
 
 Let us now change places with them, and see wha' 
 Catholic Christians have to say in their own defence, 
 aH holding tho contradictory of it all. My appeal shall 
 be to Scripture only. Antiquity, — the burial-places,f 
 
 ' Do Bono Mortis, 4, 12. 
 
 t Tho Catacombs of Rome, — excavations which extend very widely 
 just outside the city,— were tlae hiding-places, tho churches and the 
 burUi-places of thecarly Cliristians. They abound with inscriptiona teati- 
 
mmmmmm 
 
 /Hi 
 
 |i I 
 
 22 
 
 as well as the books of the ancient Christians, — are full 
 of voices, witnessing to the immediate happiness of all 
 who die in ihe Lord. The History of the Komish Pur- 
 gatory is its most convincing refutaiion. But time would 
 fail were I to try to set all the evidence before you. I 
 confine myself to a very brief appeal to Holy Scripture. 
 I proceed, therefore, at once to show how entirely 
 Purgatory is opposed to Holy Scripture and contradicted 
 by it. 
 
 Romish distinctions of sins and punishments contradicted by the 
 
 Scriptures, 
 
 And, first, as to the distinction of mortal and venial 
 sins, and of temporal and eternal punishments as due to 
 sin, we find not a word of Holy Scripture in support of 
 it. We are told, in the simplest and broadest terms, 
 that *' sin is the transgression of the law,"* and that 
 "the wages of sin is death. "f Oar Blessed Saviour 
 tells us that not gross open acts only are sin, but sinful 
 thoughts even — that an imjaire look is adultery, and a 
 thought of hatred murder. He tells us that " except we 
 repent, we shall perish, "J that " unless we become 
 converted and like little children, we shall never enter 
 in'io the Kingdom of Heaven. "§ In a word, it is not so 
 much what we have done, as what we are thai God 
 regards. 
 
 Again, the Blessed Saviour opens before us a new 
 view of the love of God, telling us that God is not a God 
 of hatred and wrath and vengeance, but a God of love, 
 and that "God so loved the world — the lost, sinful, 
 wicked world — that Ho gave His only Begotten Son, 
 that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but 
 should have everlasting life." He saith, " Verily, verily, 
 I say unto you. He that lieareth My word and believeth 
 on Him that sent Me hath everlasting life, and shall not 
 come into condemnation but is passed from deah unto 
 
 fying to the faith of the early Church in the immediate joy and felicity 
 of all who die ia the Lord. Bishop Kip'3 Catncombs, and Mr. Burgon'n 
 Letters from Romp, abundantly prove from those inscriptions that the 
 early Christians knew nothing of Purgatory. 
 
 • I S. Johu, iii. 4 
 i S. Mfttt, xiii. 3. 
 
 I Roto. vi. 23, { S Luke, xiil. 3. 
 
23 
 
 /i/c." * These gracious promises and comfortable words 
 seem quite inconsistent with Purgatory. 
 
 *' The blood of Jesus Christ (saith S. John) cleanseth 
 us from all sin."j Tliat is, says Rome, not from Tenial, 
 but only from mortal sin. " I will be merciful," saith 
 the Lord, " to their unrighteousness, and their sins and 
 iniquities will I remember no more.^^ | That is, saith 
 Rome, I will neither forget nor forgive the temporal pun- 
 ishment of your sin?, but condemn you to Purgatory to pay 
 the uttermost farthing. " If we confess our sins," saith 
 St. John, " he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, 
 and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.^^ § No, saith 
 Rome, — not all iniquity, — the iniquity of venial sin, and 
 half the iniquity of mortal sin, you must bear and 
 expiate yourself, by suffering the punishment due, on 
 earth and in Purgatory. St. Paul saith, " Now once, in 
 the end c*" the world, hath Christ appeared to put away 
 sin by the sacrifice of Himself." || Only a part of sin — 
 only some sins — only mortal sins, saith Rome. And, 
 finally, St. Paul, as the conclusion of a long argument, 
 in which he describes the struggle between sin and 
 grace in the soul, emphatically asserts, " There is, there- 
 fore, now no condemnation to them which are in Christ 
 Jesus.^" ir 
 
 My brethren, are these Scriptures — and you know 
 that these are only specimens of passages with which 
 the Bible is filled — are these Scriptures consistent with 
 the Romish Purgatory ? Remission of sins, in the most 
 general terms, is the first blessing, the first offer of the 
 Cospel — remission of sins full and free, without any 
 reserve, or hint of any reserve. Is it not most dishon- 
 ouring to the goodness and justice of God to say that He 
 means not what He says — (hat He secretly intends to 
 punish where He openly offers lull pardon — and that 
 though He proclaims that He will remember our sins no 
 more, yet He intends to remember and require and 
 exact the uttermost farthing? It is a maxim, not 
 only of tht' law of nations, but of nature, that all offers 
 of pardon are to be understood in the fullest extent 
 of the words, without any reserves or limitations, 
 unless plainly expressed. If a Prince offers an indem- 
 
 • S. Joha iii. 16, v. 24. f 1 John, i, 7. 
 
 5 1 John, j, 9. II Heb. ix, 26, 
 
 t Heb. viii, IL, 
 ^ Romany viii, 1. 
 
24 
 
 ^■i 
 
 .': I 
 
 
 nity to his rebellious subjecls, to persuade them lo return 
 to their obedience, in the fullest terms possible, 
 what would be said of him, if, when his sub- 
 jects came in, trusting lo the indemnity, they were 
 to he told that they were secured by it from capital 
 punishment, but that as to all inferior punishments tiiey 
 were still exposed to them, and at the King's mercy? 
 Would it not be said to be a most perfidious and detest- 
 able act ? What, shall we say tlien, of those who would 
 represent the Holy and Merciful God whose name is 
 love, as such a cruel and perfidious Tyrant ? When His 
 offers of pardon are conveyed in the largest possible 
 terms, it is most dishonouring to God and in the highest 
 degree blasphemous to supposeany secret intention to 
 punish. 
 
 ' God dues punish, even after forgiveness:^ 
 
 But, it is objected, that " God does punish in this life 
 those whom He has forgiven, and why then may He 
 not in the next ? He forgave David, but yet punished 
 him for his Gin." 
 
 There is a double sense of the word punish. God 
 punishes the vickcd, exacting the debt due to His jus- 
 tice. Not so does Ho punish His children. " Whom 
 the Lord lovetli He chastenth, even as a father the son 
 in whom He delightcth."* And that chastening is not for 
 the satisfaction of God's justice but lor our profit — be- 
 cause it is necessary to our sanctification ; for our growth 
 in grace and that we may be partakers of God's holiness ; 
 and " it yieldeth th(^ peaceable fruit of righteousness 
 unto them which are exercised lliereby." The afllictions 
 of Christians are to no looked upon not as marks of 
 God's anger against sin, but as the proofs of His loving 
 care, as a wise Physician, for our eternal happiness. 
 
 Even in a case where God is said to judg(? and ))un- 
 ish Chrisiians, it is expressly staled that this is done 
 with a view to awaken those so punished to repentance. 
 To the Corinthians, afllicted with sickness, disease and 
 death, for their irreverent approach to the Holy Commu- 
 nion, St. Paid says : " If we would judge ourselves, we 
 should not be judged ; but when wo are judged we are 
 chastened of the Lord that ive should not he condemned 
 
 * Heb. xiii. 6. 
 
25 
 
 with the world. "* How different this from the cruel and 
 liorrible and useless tortures of Purgatory ! No, our 
 Heavenly Father chastens us here for our profit — and if 
 He had told us of any such necessary loving correction 
 in store for us in the world to come, surely we should 
 have received the announcement with Immble confidence 
 in His Fatherly tenderness and goodness. 
 
 The Scriptures expressly leach the immediate happiness of all icho 
 
 die in the Lord. 
 
 But, tvhat if He has >xpres3ly told us that there in 
 none ? 
 
 And this brings nie to I'le second great Scriptural 
 proof o(\h(} falsehood of the Romish Purgatory. The 
 Scriptures teach us plainly and clearly that all ivho are 
 saved are, at once upon their death, in joy and felunty /n 
 peace and at rest. 
 
 The Scriptures teach that this life is our lime of pro- 
 l)ation, and that our state is eternally fixed at death for 
 weal or for woe. And so does the Church of Rome 
 l(^ach, too, remember. According to the Church ol' 
 Home, the souls who go to Purgatory, go there not 
 lor further trial, or to give them another chance. They 
 are forgiven sanctified and certain of salvation before 
 they die. They gc there simply and solely to snfier the 
 piiishment of their sins. 
 
 Now, what saith the Scripture? " Blessod are \\\v 
 dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth. Yea, sailii 
 llie spirit, that they may rest from their labours."! This 
 text is a demonstration oftiie immediate bless'?dness of 
 all the saved. The dead who dit* in the Lord (and none 
 exc(;pt those who die in the Lord, go to Purgatory, 
 according to Rome), do enter into rest and are blessec! 
 at once. 
 
 Look next at the Parable in which our Savicur carries 
 us beyond this world into the abodes of the dead, — the 
 Parable of Lnzarus and the rich man. Lazarus died 
 and was carried at once by tli(! angels into Abraham's 
 bosom — the rich man lifted up his eyes in a place of 
 woe. Lazarus was comforted.^ and that immediately. 
 
 Tak(? next the case of a man converted in his last 
 
 •i'Cor. xi. 32,32. 
 
 t Rev. sir. 13. 
 
26 
 
 joyful 
 
 higher 
 
 groan, 
 
 house 
 
 moments. The dying robber on the cross received for 
 an answer to his prayer to be remembered, " To-day 
 shalt thou be with me in Paradise." If any one 
 required to go to Purgatory, surely it must have bean 
 this robber, whose temporal punishment was all unpaid ; 
 but lo ! he is taken at once to Paradise with Christ. 
 
 St. Paul several times speaks of the death of the saved 
 and always as the passage to immediate rest. To 
 the Corinthians, he says : * " We know that if our 
 earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we 
 have a building of God, an house not made with 
 hands, eternal in the Heavens." Notice the 
 confidence of this language, which rises to a 
 strain as the Apostle proceeds, " For in this we 
 earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our 
 which is from heaven.... Therefore, we are always 
 confident, knowing that whilst we are at home in the 
 body we are absent from the Lord, — we are confident, I 
 say, and willing rather to he absent from the Body and 
 present with the Lord." Mark what the Apostle says. 
 He says that " we," that is all Christians, " do groan 
 while we are in the body, earnestly desiring (not — mark 
 you — the happiness which follows upon death, but) 
 earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house 
 which is from heaven," that is the resurrection body of 
 glory. ' Yet, though this (he says) is our hope, so desir- 
 ous are we to be with Christ, that we had rather die so 
 as to be with Him, than live on in the flesh absent from 
 Him ; for " absent from (he body, present with the Lord." 
 The certQi/idy^ the glorious consolation of this text, all 
 the sophistry in the world can never explain away. 
 Faithful Christians as soon as they are absent from the 
 body are present with the Lord. This establishes beyond 
 all controversy the immediate happiness of the blessed 
 dead ; and it is confirmed by what the Apostle says in 
 his epistle to the Philippians, " To me to live is Christ, 
 and to die is gain. I am in a strait betwixt two, having a 
 desire to depart^ and lo be with Christ ; which is far 
 better^j 
 
 [tt his Epistles to tlit; Thessalonians and CorinthiansI 
 St. Paul speaks at great length of the blessed dead to 
 
 • 2 Cor. V, 1-8. 
 
 1 1 Th03. iv, 13-20. I Cor. xy. 
 
 tPhil. i. 21—23. 
 
27 
 
 comfort their surviving friends. And what is the com- 
 fort he gives them ? Is it the hope of deliverance from 
 Purgatory ? How could the Apostle have possibly 
 avoided speaking of Purgatory in those chapters if there 
 is one ? But there is not the remotest hint of any such 
 thing. The present rest of the blessed dead the Apostle 
 takes for granted, and comforts their sorrowing friends 
 with the assurance of their joyful resurrection. 
 
 This, then, is the doctrine of Holy Scripture- The 
 dead, who die in the Lord, are, immediately upon their 
 departure from the body, " at rest," and are, therefore, 
 emphatically "■ blessed ;" they are, in some high and 
 consoling sense, "with the Lord ;" they are " comforted.^^ 
 What shall we say, then, of Purgatory ? It is proved to 
 be a fable — to be, as our Church speaks in her 22nd 
 Article, " a fond thing, vainly invented, having no war- 
 ranty of Holy Scripture, but, rather, repugnant to the 
 word of GodJ^ 
 
 Where are the dead between death and Judgment ? 
 
 VI. But this is not yet the whole of the Scripture testi- 
 mony. May I ask your patience, while, in conclusion, I lay 
 briefly before you the teaching of Holy Scripture as to 
 where the dead are during the interval between death 
 and judgment ? It is necessary this should be 
 known, first, because it is truth and God's revelation to 
 us, and in itself very important and practical ; and, 
 secondly, because it quite effectual ly overthrows the 
 Romish doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 The Romanist thinks, if he can prove from Scripture 
 the existence of a ' third place' — any third place or state 
 besides Heaven and Hell, the final abodes of the saved 
 and lost, that he establishes Purgatory. The churchman 
 knows how to meet such proofs, but the un instructed 
 protestant has nothing to answer. 
 
 The Scripture, then, teaches that the stale of all men 
 h fixed at death, and their trial over then. But it also 
 teaches that after death comes the judgment, the judg- 
 ment of the great day, " when all men must appear 
 before the judgment seat of Christ that every man may 
 receive th-. hings done in his body, according to that he 
 hath done whether it be good or bad." Man is on his 
 
28 
 
 lt;i 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 l^d 
 
 '^l(!'' 
 
 :i H 
 
 j h 
 
 trial in this life ; that trial is over at death. Between 
 death and judgment men are waiting for the judgment 
 of the great day. That day will assign to them their 
 everlasting povtion, in weal or in w^oe. To the one class 
 the Judge will say : " Depart ye cursed into everlasting 
 lire prepared for the devil and liis angels." To the 
 other : " Come yo blessed inherit ihe kingdom prepared 
 for you from the foundation of the world." Now, think 
 for a moment, my bretliren ; is this language of the 
 judge — is the general judgjnent itself at all consistent 
 with what you so often hear thoughtless Protestants say — 
 in this am-eeinc: with the Church of Rome — that at death 
 ihe wicked go at once to hell, the righteous at once to 
 Heaven? Does not rea.so/i tell us that there cannot be 
 rewards and punishments before judgment ? You speak 
 of men going at death to Heaven, and to Hell ; but you 
 do not know that this is very unscriptural language, un- 
 churchly, uncatholic — that it is from the darkest ages of 
 [lomish corruption, you have received it by tradition, 
 and not from the Bible. The Bible tells you that no 
 human being is in Heaven save Jesus Christ nor will be 
 till after the day of judgment, — and that no human being 
 is in Hell nor will be till after the day of judgment. 
 Heaven and Hell are ihe rewards and punishments 
 reserved for those who i>;hall be acquitted or condemned 
 at the day of judgment. Strange is the blindness — ought 
 [ not rather to say, sinful and blameable is the indolence 
 of christians, who read their Bibles and remain ignorant 
 of this, content with repeating a false and unreasonable 
 tradition, in the place of the revelation of God's holy 
 word — a hurtful tradition which has practically deprived 
 us of the hope of the Resurrection ! 
 
 Where, then, are the souls of the dead, if not in 
 Heaven and Hell ? They are in t!ie place of safe-keep- 
 ing which God has assigned them, until the judgment of 
 tlie great day ; in two bands (so to speak) not in three, 
 the saved and the lost; the saved in rest and at peace, 
 the lost, in unret^t, and without peace ; the lost awaiting 
 the dread future, " with a certain fearful looking for of 
 judgment and llery indignation," tlie saved absent from 
 the body present with the Lord, in joy and felicity, 
 " looking lor and hasting unto the coming of the Day 
 of God." 
 
This is the key for openinj?; all the difficulties of the 
 Scriptures and for rebutting all the arguments of the 
 Romanists. For if none of the Saints are as yet in 
 Heaven, if none of the wicked in Hell, if all are as 
 yet in a state of expectancy awaiting the judgment of the 
 great day, then the whole Romish system of the Worship 
 and Invocation of Saints, and Purgatory, and Indulg- 
 ences, and Masses for the dead, falls to the ground to- 
 gether. 
 
 The scriptural proof of the intenuediate state is too 
 large a subject for me now to enter upon, but one or two 
 texts I may allege. Our Blessed Saviour when He was 
 going away said to His disciples " In my Father's House 
 are many mansions : if it were not so, I would have told 
 you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and 
 prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive 
 you unto myself ; that where I am, there ye may be 
 also." * Christ comes again not till the last day. He 
 is now preparing the Place. He will come again in 
 glory. The dead in Christ shall rise first ; the living 
 Saints shall be caught up with them to meet the Lord in 
 the air ; and then shall they bo taken to the place He is 
 now preparing. So will those words of Christ be ful- 
 filled, which He has told us He shall speak to all on His 
 hand, in that day, addressed to all the saved. 
 
 Come ye blessed children of my Father inherit the 
 kingdom prepared for you." How could such words be 
 addressed to all the saved, if most of them had b en for 
 ages in possession of that kingdom ? 
 
 Again, must not the souls oi" the blessed dead be where 
 the human soul of Christ and the soul of the Penitent 
 robber were on the day of His death ? But w'cre they 
 in Heaven ? They were in Paradise and Christ des- 
 cended into Hell or Hades ; but did the soul of Jesus go 
 to Heaven when He died ? Certainly not, for Christ 
 Himself said, on the day of His resurrection, to Mary 
 Magdalene, " 'J'oueh me not ; for 1 am not yet ascended 
 to my Father.'''' f Where lh(! soul of the man Christ 
 
 ' S. John, xiv, 2, ::. 
 
 \ H. Jolmxx, 17. tioo the same thing snid of David, in Acts, ii, 34 ; 
 and notice tliat S. Paul says neither he nor any should receive their 
 crowns till the day of judgment, 2 Tim. iv, G-8. There is an able und 
 exhaustive discourse on this subject in avolumeof Sermons by my friend 
 the Ilevd. John Carry, B, D., published by Mr. John Lovell, Montreal. 
 
 right 
 
30 
 
 I' 
 
 id 
 
 Jesus was liJl He rose again from the dead, there the 
 souls of all the faithful shall be till they rise — for Christ 
 is the Forerunner — Christ is the First-fruits — Christ is 
 the Pattern, and lo ITn* pattern in death, and in resur- 
 rection, and in ascension are all His people to be con- 
 formed. In a word, the resurrection of the dead and the 
 coming and kingdom of Christ are the hope of the 
 Christian and not any rewards or joys which follow 
 immediately upon death. He believes not in Purgatory 
 nor in any forgiveness in the grave. He believes not 
 that Christians go one by one to Heaven when they die. 
 He believes that they are happy and at rest as they are 
 one by one gathered to their fathers. But he believes 
 in the Forgiveness of sins here^ and he looks for the 
 Resurrection of (he body and (he Life Everlasting here- 
 after. 
 
 My brethren this is our faith and hope ; and to this, 
 as the Christian faith and hope, the Holy season of Ad- 
 vent, in its ceaseless round, solemnly bears it witness. 
 0, thai we may all think upon these things with awe and 
 reverence, with deep searchings of heart. These are 
 scenes in which we shall all soon have part. If Christ 
 comes, as we daily pray, in our day (and may he hasten 
 the coming of that day of glory and joy !) or if we must 
 sleep for a little while first, in either case we shall soon 
 all individually be aw^ay from the trifles of time and 
 amid the dre^id realities of eternity. Let me, then, 
 earnestly entreat you not to banish these things from 
 your minds as a mere matter of curious controversy aii.. 
 of idle speculation, but to think that it is high time to 
 awake out of sleep, for the day of salvation to the 
 righteous is growing very near you. Remember that 
 as there is no Purgatory in the grave, so you must be 
 purged here, luive your conscience purged through the 
 sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ — purged, remem- 
 ber, from dead w^orks to serve the living God. Then, 
 indeed, there will remain to you no fear of death. As a 
 member of Ciirist it will not — if you must undergo it — 
 cannot harm you, as it did not, could not harm him. But 
 if He comes — as come He w\\\ and quickly — and finds 
 you w^atching and serving Him, blessed above all bless- 
 edness will you be. 
 
 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 
 
 1 COR. X. 10, 17. 
 
 " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it uut the communion of 
 the Blood of Christ? The Bread which we break, is it not the com- 
 munion of the Body of Christ? For we, being many, are one Bread 
 and one Body, for we are all partakers of that one Bread." 
 
 My task to-night is to vindicate the true doctrine of 
 the Holy Eucharist, which has always been held and 
 taught by the Catholic Church, against the modern 
 Romish novelty of Transubstantiation. I have selected 
 this text because, while it most clearly sets forth that 
 true doctrine, it quite overthrows, at the same time, the 
 dogma of Transubstantiation. 
 
 It is from this text that the second great sacrament of 
 the Christian Church obtains that name which is 
 perhaps the most frequently used, — the Holy Com- 
 munion. That beautiful and affecting name must 
 always remind us that this sacrament is the bond and 
 pledge of that mutual charity, kindness and forbearance, 
 which should be the distinguishing mark of christians. 
 What pain, then, what shame should fill every christian 
 heart, to think that the one Bread, which, by our joint 
 partaking of it, ought to make and keep christians one 
 Body, is perverted into one of the most effectual means 
 of separating them ! 
 
 With this text before me, I cannot begin my subject 
 without most earnestly protesting against any desire to 
 awaken angry or bitter feelings in any of your hearts. 
 I do indeed feel very deeply the aggravated sinfulness 
 of apostacy from our pure Church to Rome's corrupt 
 communion, and the extreme peril of the eternal loss of 
 
32 
 
 III 
 
 :s« 
 
 their souls incurred by such apostates. I would, there- 
 fore, earnestly warn you against all crafty endeavours 
 which may be made to hide the deformities of that 
 fallen Church, and to till yon with admiration of those 
 points (and I freely grant that they are many) in her 
 constitution and practical working which, in a pure 
 scriptural Church, would be most excellent. Remember, 
 and never forget, that with Rome as she is there can 
 never be to us a religious peace. 
 
 Would to God that I could show you any gleam of 
 hope of her reformation. To Him all things are pos- 
 sible, and in any case our duty is plain, to be always 
 seeking the blessing of " the Peace-makers, who shall be 
 called the children of God." We must never rest 
 satisfied with the miserable divided and distracted state 
 of the Christian world, but always be earnestly looking 
 forward to, and praying for, the time, when once more 
 all who name the name of Christ shall be again visibly 
 one Body, and all be seen partaking together again of 
 tiiat one Bread. 
 
 One indispensable qualilicalion for the office of a 
 Peace-maker in a controversy of faith, is, to be well and 
 clearly instructed in the question at issue — to know your 
 adversary's real opinions, why lie holds them, exactly 
 how far he is right, and where ho begins to be wrong. 
 
 Now here, I ihink, it is thai our people are in 
 general lacking. They are brought up in a fixed tradit- 
 ional hatred of ihe (n-rors of the Church of Rome, and 
 with an extreme; jealousy of everything that Rome has 
 in any way ptn-vcrted — nay, too often, a jealousy of 
 everything that Rome even uses, simply because she 
 uses it. T am far from saying that our people are 
 altogether wrong in this. The mass of men have not 
 time to look into the niceties of doctrinal distinctions, 
 ihey muM be content with the great and prominent 
 truths of relifj^ion; and when anything seems to them to 
 savour of error, they are right to be jealous and fearful, 
 and if possible look closely and carefully into it. I 
 think this one of our great safeguards, and I should hr. 
 sorry to see it entirely broken down Nevertheless it is 
 in many eases, practically very hurtful ; and crafty men, 
 playing upon the fears of our people, have often done 
 them an immensity of harm. It becomes us in our 
 
 It,' 
 
 m 
 
33 
 
 religious enquiries, to proceed with care and caution, 
 with much prayer to God, with a jealous fear of the 
 deceitfulness of our own hearts, and with constant 
 watchfulness against being betrayed by our vanity and 
 love of novelty into error. But we should, at the same 
 time, remember, that our religion, to benefit us at all, 
 must be something more than a mass of negations. It 
 must be positive, a faith and a life — a life of faith, and 
 not sim[)ly a cold freedom from error. Religion is a 
 faith — a system of positive truth; and Religion is a 
 life, — a course of positive obedience. That you are not 
 superstitious — that you do not believe in fables and 
 traditions of men, nor practice superstitious rites and 
 austerities, is very well, but it is not religion. For He, 
 of whose coming this holy season so solemnly reminds 
 us, will " come to reward every man according as his 
 works shall be." 
 
 In preaching to you, then, upon these points, I do not 
 take * the broad ground of our common Protestantism,* 
 of which you so often hoar, and which means just 
 nothing at all, but I take the sound and safe ground ol 
 the pure catholicity of the Anglican Church. It shall, 
 therefore, be my endeavor to point out clearly, not simply 
 why you ought not to hold the doctrine of Tran substan- 
 tiation, but also what doctrine you ought to hold. 
 
 I propose to take the same general line of argument 
 followed in my last Lecture, and to bring Transubstan- 
 tiation to the test of Reason, Scripture, and a pure 
 Christian Antiquity. 
 
 Protest of the Anglican Church against Transubstantiaiion. 
 
 The Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation has been 
 lately stated in these words — " The doctrine of Tran- 
 substantiation is that the Bread is changed, in the whole 
 substance, into the Body of Christ and likewise the 
 Wine into His Blood. Nothing remains behind bu. 
 the mere form,'colour and taste of the Bread and Wine."* 
 
 Of this dogma, the Anglican Church declares, in her 
 28th Art., as follows : — " Transubstantiation (or the 
 change of the substance of bread and wine) in the 
 Lord's Supper cannot be proved by Holy Writ ; but it is 
 
 *Rcr. Dr. GahiU'a Lecture on Transubstantiation. 
 
 
 
84 
 
 repugnant to tho plain words of Scripture, overthroweth 
 the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to 
 many superstitions." Again, in the Rubric, at tlie end 
 of the Communion office, our Churcli says : — " No 
 adoration ought to be done either unto the sacramental 
 bread and wine there bodily received, or unto any cor- 
 poral presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For 
 the sacramental bread and wine remain tiie same still in 
 their very natural substances, and therefore may not be 
 adored ; (for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all 
 faithful Christians ;) and the natural Body and Blood of 
 our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here ; it being 
 against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one 
 lime in more places than one.'' 
 
 Now, every word of this calm and temperate protest 
 of our Church I shall make good. 
 
 Romish Doctrint of Transubstantiation Stated. 
 
 I. I begin with stating as fairly and clearly as I (*an the 
 Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation. The Council 
 of Trent decreed on this point, as follows : — 
 
 " The Body and Blood together with tho Soul and Divinity of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and 30 wholo Christ, is contained in the Sacrament of the 
 Eucharist." • 
 
 " There is a wonderful and singulnr conversion of the whole sub- 
 Itance of the bread into the Body and of tho whole substance of the 
 yt'ire into the Blood, the species only of bread and wine remaining."! 
 
 " Christ is contained whole and entire, true God and true man, 
 under .the appearance of each of tho elements, and under every part 
 and part'/il*^ o'i each species when they are separated." f 
 
 "Christ i": to be adored in the eucharist with the external signs of 
 that worsbii' 'vhich is duo to God, and the eucharist is, therefore, to bo 
 ■olemnl? carried about in processions, and publicly presented to the 
 peoplo Tof their adoration." § 
 
 So far the Council of Trent. 
 
 That the Body of Christ here spoken of is his very 
 natural body, taken in the most literal sense, is proved 
 by the following extracts iVom the Catechism of the 
 Council of Trent. It says, *' There is contained in the 
 Sacrament not only the true Body of Christ and whativer 
 
 • Sess. xiii. Can. 1. t Canon 2. 
 
 X Canon 3.— The statements in these two Oanons are reconciled by 
 t^hat the Romanists call the doctrine of concomitance, namely, that 
 Tvhere any one part of Christ is, e.g., His Body, there also whole Christ 
 must always be. 
 
 U Caaoa 6. 
 
85 
 
 belongs (0 th$ true condition pf a hody^ euch a$ b&nts 
 and nerves^ but also a whole Christ.'* 
 
 Romish Doctrine of Intention. 
 
 I roust here add, as a necessary part of the doctrine, 
 Ihe following from the Council of Trent and the Roman 
 Missal on the Romish dootrine of Jnienlion. 
 
 The Council of Trent decreed that " there is required 
 in the Minislers, while they perform and confer the 
 Sacraments, at least the inlenlion of doing what the 
 Church does.' * 
 
 In the rubrics of the Missal we read : — 
 
 " If the bread is not of ivheat ; or if it is of 'wheat, and yet grain of 
 another kind is mixed in such quant ties with the wheat, as that th« 
 bread is not wlieaten, or if it is corrupted in any other way, ther* u no 
 Sacrament effected. 
 
 "If the wine is altogether sour, or altojfether corrupted, or made of 
 sour and not of ripe f;rapps-or it' there ia so much water mixed with 
 it that the wine is corrupted, there ii no Sacrament made. 
 
 " If after the consecration of the Body, or even of the wine, the 
 defect of either kind bo discovered, one hviag consecrated ; then, if the 
 matter which should be placed cannot be had, to avoid scandal he must 
 proceed, [in which case lie lifis up what he knows to be only bread, but 
 what the people believe to be Ood for them to worship IJ 
 
 " If any Priest does not intend or design to complete the Sacrament or 
 to Transubstantiate; 
 
 "In like manner, if any hosts (or wafers) remain forgotten upon the 
 altar ; 
 
 " If any part of the wine or any hosts be concealed, when no on'iy in« 
 tended to consecrate those he sees ; 
 
 " Likewise, if the Priest has before him eleven hosts, and intends to 
 consecrate only ten, notdetermiuin;; which ten, in these cases he does 
 not consecrate, (and no Transubstauuatioa takes place) because his 
 intention is wanting." 
 
 Here then you have the doctrine of Transubstantia- 
 tion : — 
 
 1. That the moment the words of Institution, "This 
 is my Body," and " This is my Blood," respectively) are 
 uttered by the consecrating Priest — the moment the last 
 letter is out of his mouth — the whole substance of the 
 bread and wine is changed into ihe very natural Body 
 and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 
 2. That though the Council of Trent, as I quoted 
 above, says that " the Bread is changed in the whole 
 substance into the Body and likewise the wine into the 
 Blood," yet it declares again that nevertheless there is 
 
 * Session vii,, Canon II. 
 
36 
 
 
 I*' 
 
 tt! 
 
 a^H 
 
 contained under each species the Body and Blood to- 
 gether with the soul and diviniiy of Christ. 
 
 3. That this is to be understood literally and not 
 in any spiritual sense ; that the Body of Christ which is 
 theie and is eaten with the mouth is His natural Body, 
 with bones, nerves, &c., and naturally eaten and is not 
 spiritually. 
 
 4. That every communicant — good and bad, atheist 
 and infidel* — when he takes the Eucharist, receives and 
 eats the Body and Blood of Christ. 
 
 5. That every particle of the bread contains the Body 
 of Christ and so also every particle of the wine. 
 
 6. That we are not to understand that the bread 
 and wine are annihilated or made 1o disappear, and the 
 Body and Blood of Christ to take their place — but that 
 the bread and wine are chon^^ed in^o the Body and 
 Blood of Christ, and that, therefore, the Body is made 
 of such bread and theBiood of such wine. Thus, ihey 
 do not hesitate to say, shocking as it is, that the Priest 
 mines the Body of Chri.U out of the bread, and even 
 that he is the maker of His Creator ! 
 
 7. That the change, though real, is not evident to 
 tho senses; that the remaining substances look, taste, 
 feel, and smell like bread and wine, and yet there is 
 notwithstanding notliing of bread and wine remaining, 
 save and except the outward appearance. 
 
 8. That the natural Body of Christ can be in 
 Heaven, and yet in ten thousand places upon earth at the 
 same moment of time. 
 
 9. That the bread and wine so consecrated are to 
 be honoured with the same bodily and mental worship 
 which we owe and pay to Almighty God Himself; 
 and that for this purpose they are to be carried about 
 and exposed to the people that they may worship them. 
 
 10. Yet we are taueht that the whole of this vast 
 series of miracles depends upon the Priest's intention, 
 and may all be thwarted by him at any moment — by 
 his malice or carelessness, or misfortune ; nay more, 
 that even the baker or the wine merchant can whenever 
 they choose prevent any valid consecration. 
 
 or 
 
 • " 111 men receive the Body and Blood of Christ, be tbey i 
 ilMiyers," Rbero. Annot. in 1 Cor. zi. 27. 
 
 infidels 
 
37 
 
 This is the doctrine which is to be proved to us, and 
 you will all feel, my brethren, how difficult it is to treat 
 it with any patience or respect. One of the worst 
 features of Rome's corruptions of the Christian religion 
 is, that she exposes its most awful mysteries to the 
 scoffs of the profane and the ridicule and contempt of 
 thoughtless persons, and causes the minds of even Ihe de- 
 vout and pious to incur extreme danger of making total 
 shipwreck of their faith, in their endeavours to escape 
 from such a system, so degrading io the mind of man and 
 so dishonouring to the wisdom and greatness of God, 
 Let me, then, entreat you to be on your watch never to 
 speak lightly or scoffingly of these sacred subjects. If 
 you cannot speak of thcni with reverence (and I hope it 
 is not iinpossible to speak severely of errors without 
 irreverence) then keep silence, yea, even from good 
 words, lest your own mind and spirit, and that of those 
 who hear you, be defiled. 
 
 I pray God to teach and help us all to remember, now 
 ind always, that His Holy Eye is upon us ! 
 
 Transubstantiation Contradicts our Senses and Reason, 
 
 I. In attempting to maintain this doctrine, the first 
 thing, with its defenders is, naturally enough, to try 10 
 rennove or weaken the conviction we intuitively conceive 
 against it as unreasonable. Here is a w hoh; chain of 
 ciiniradiclions to our reason and our senses. In the first 
 place, we ar3 to believe that, what i< proved by all our 
 Senses to be broad and wine, is not ?(► at all, but some- 
 thing entirely different — something ns contradictory as 
 posjiible. We sec, and feel, and taste, and smell bread 
 and wine, yet we arc to believe that there is not a 
 particle of bread and v/ine there, but the very nathral 
 Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour. 1 his contra- 
 dicts (it is allov.'ed) in the plainest and most positive 
 way, the tes'itnony of all our senses, yet we must be- 
 lieve it on pain of eternal damnation. 
 
 Next we are to believe, that the natural Body of 
 Christ — His human Body and soul, His glorified 
 humanity — is not, as Ave should otherwise suppose, in 
 Heaven only, but that His very humanity, his natural 
 Body and soul, may be, whole and entire, in 10,000 
 different places at the same moment, and yet that He 
 
 
 M, 
 
38 
 
 
 m 
 
 m. 
 
 remains true and very man as well as true and very God. 
 
 We are further to believe that all these true and 
 natural bodies of Christ are made out of the bread and 
 wine — the substance of the bread and wine being 
 changed respectively into the substance of the Body and 
 Blood of Christ. 
 
 We ars, finally, to believe that aii these miracles are 
 80 placed within the power of mortal, fallible, sinful 
 men, that they may, at any moment, by an act of their 
 will and intention, or simply by neglecti?ig to will or 
 intend, stop the whole (so that the bread and wine remain 
 as they were), and so impose upon the Christian people 
 to whom they minister. 
 
 These are a chain of, it seems to us, irmossibilities — 
 some of them moral and some of lh» y^ p, ?al impos- 
 sibilities. This our adversaries dcMiy. itiey allow 
 them to be contradictions to o^r reason and senses, but 
 they think all difficulty is removed by simply saying 
 that " all things are potssible with God." 
 
 Nothing ought to be believed that Contradicts our Senses and Reason- 
 
 1. To begin, then, with the change of the substance of 
 the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, — 
 they allow it to be a contradic.ion to reason and our 
 senses, but they neverthelcfss think it ought to be believed, 
 because the Church says it is so — or, when they speak 
 to us heretics, they say, because it is asserted in. tno 
 Word of God. 
 
 Now, here I take my stand, and utterly deny t\. - tv- 
 tiling that contradicts the rcasr-n or the senses oi . li 
 kind ought to be believed at all. I am now on deiic. -o 
 ground, and must be careful to be well understood. 
 Understand then, Brethren, what I say I deny, of 
 course, (and shall make good what 1 say presently) that 
 anything of this is revealed in IJoly Scriptnre or taught 
 by the true Catholic Church ; but in the meantime 1 do 
 earnestly protosi, in the name of the God of truth, 
 against the assertion that we ought to believe nnytliing 
 that contradicts [coniradicls^ remember) the te«f;r:ouy of 
 our senses or our reason. God '•■ l!''c author a^u ;.'•,"»? 
 of our reason and senses. Pie h ,,iven us those i irul- 
 ties of mind and body for the very pt^rposo of enabling 
 OS to judge of things bodily arid spiritual j and as there 
 
 U 
 
39 
 
 can be no other revelation in this life than what is mado 
 to our senses and reason there certainly can be none 
 that contradicts them. , , .: 
 
 For remember, it is one thing for a revelation to be, 
 in some respects, above the reach of our senses and our 
 reason, and quite another thing for it to contradict ihem. 
 Our reason may be very well and thoroughly satisfied 
 that a revelation comes from God, — the subject matter 
 of which is in some respects above its own grasp. But 
 when a thing contradicts the evidence of our senses, I 
 mean of course of the senses of all mankind, no other 
 evidence can be sufRcienl to convince us of its truth. 
 
 It may be said that, our senses and reason have nothing 
 to do with the contents of revelation, and that they are 
 only judges of its evidences. This principle, in general, 
 I fully grant, — yet, surely, there must be some limit to 
 its application. Surely nothing ought to be admitted to 
 be a part of the Christian doctrine, which undermines 
 the very foundation of Christianity itself, and quite 
 destroys the reason of our belief of the whole. What 
 was the main argument which the Apostles used to 
 convince the world of the truth of Christianity } Was 
 it not this — that our Blessed Saviour wrought miracles 
 and rose again from the dead ? But how did they prove 
 His miracles and His resurrection ? By asserting that 
 they were eyewitnesses of the miracles, and had seen 
 and heard and handled Him and eaten with Him after 
 He rose fronj the dead.^' But what if their senses might 
 have deceived them in aUthis? Then, the main proof 
 of Christianity falls to the ground. For if the testimony 
 of our senses is not to be trusted in one thing, it can- 
 not be in another. 
 
 So we come to this. If our senses are to be believed, 
 then Transubstantiation is false ; if they ar3 not, then 
 vrc have no proof that Christianity is true. We have 
 
 • A kiad friead has famished me wiih the following note :— " Hence 
 St. Luke (Acts i. 3.) calls tho visible acts of Christ after his resurrec- 
 tioD, •' infallible proofs" of His being alive. Vide Arist. Rhet. Lib. 1. 
 cap 2, § . 19, 20.— The miracles of Scripture were intended as aids to our 
 senses, to excite us through them to the consideration and apprehcniioa 
 of Divine things ; but this pretended miracle is an assault on curt*, asef, 
 And destroys the very intent and the test of all miracles. The miraclei; 
 of Scripture were helps to a weak faith, but this miracle is the greateft > 
 conceivable obstacle to any faith." 
 
40 
 
 m 
 
 m. 
 
 
 m 
 
 the same testimony for the falsehood of Transubstantia- 
 tion, that we have for the truth of Christianity. 
 
 Let me give you one illustration. The whole Romish 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation is founded on these words 
 of the Bible, This is my Body. Now, how do we 
 know that there are any such words in the Bible at all ? 
 By the evidence of our eyes. But the very same 
 evidence of our eyes tells us that the bread is not 
 changed, — nay, far more evidence, for only one sense 
 tells us that these words arc in the Bible, and four senses 
 testify that the Bread is not changed. In a word, if 
 you take away the evidence of sense, you leave us no 
 means of proving a revelation from God at all, nor any 
 means of confuting liic grossest impostures in the world. 
 
 No article of the Christian Faith contradicts our Senses and 
 
 Reason. 
 
 2. But the Romanist has something more to say on this. 
 
 It is true, he says, that Transubstantiation does con- 
 tradict the senses and the reason — nevertheless it may 
 be believed ; for many other things are believed by all 
 Christians, which also contradict our reason and senses. 
 Nov/, this will bring the matter to the test — and if a 
 single point of the Christian faith can bo brought for- 
 ward which contradicts our reason or senses, then I will 
 yield. 
 
 I cannot be too grateful for certain illustrations lately 
 brought forward here* to prove the reasonableness of 
 Transubstantiation for they are all most admirably suited 
 to aid me in vindicating the important principle, that 
 there is nothing in Religion contrary to Reason. 
 
 (1.) It is said, then, "• That we all believe that God is 
 everywhere, whole and entire everywhere ; that thus 
 we believe that infinity fills a point—and this contra- 
 dicts our reason." But here is no contradiction to our 
 reason, for it is reason itself and not revelation that 
 teaches us this truth about the nalnre of Almighty 
 God. Where are we told in the Bible that God is 
 whole and entire in every place at the same time.f 
 
 • Dr. Cfthill'9 Lecture. 
 
 \ In 80 many words, I mean, or in this philosophical form of expres- 
 Bion. Of course it is necessarily implied in the Scriptural doctrine of 
 God's omnipresence. Vide Hooker, Book V. cap. Co, 3. 
 
41 
 
 Nowhere. Do we, then, believe that He is so? 
 Most certainly. But why ? Because it is reasonable 
 to believe it, reason compels us to believe it — in fact, 
 we have reasoned it out for ourselves. Every educated 
 man knows that. And yet we are told that it contradicts 
 reason ! No, my Brethren, it is most agreeable to 
 reason. The manner of God's presence, — how He can 
 be so present personally in all places at the same time 
 is above the grasp of reason, but that He is so, reason, 
 as soon as she is told that there is one infinite God, 
 discovers for herself, and compels us to acknowledge. 
 
 (2.) This illustraiion, then, is not to the point. Let us 
 take the next. " You believe (it is said) that the world 
 came out of nothing, was made out of notliing ; how 
 can something come out of nothing? This annihilates 
 reason — and all human intellect." — But this, again, is 
 not to the point. How is it a contradiction to reason to 
 say that the world was made out of nothing ? What 
 principle of the human mind declares it impossible that 
 God can create matter, give existence to that which had 
 no existence before ? — None. — On the contrary it is every 
 way agreeable to reason. Nay, more, here again reason 
 not only accepts this fact, but herself discovers it. — How 
 matter is called inio existence is, of course, above us, 
 above our grasp ; but that the world, and all things 
 except God must have had a beginning, reason herself 
 teaches us to believe. 
 
 (3.) The next illustration is still more unfortunate. 
 "The God-man was laid in an humble crib. How, (we are 
 asked) is this tobeexpla'ned?" — But that is not the point 
 at issue. The question is not whether we can fully 
 explain all the mysteries of our faith, but wriether any 
 one of those mysteries contradicts the evidence of our 
 reason or our senses ; and, certainly, the wonderful 
 glorious mystery of God and Man in one Person does not. 
 We joyfully believe in the incarnation of God the Son — 
 that He took upon him our iiesh, was born and laid in a 
 manger. This, indeed, is the mystery < f mysteries, but 
 in what respect does it contradict our reason or our 
 senses ? It does not contradict them at all. Revelation 
 tells us that Jesus was a real babe, like any other babe, 
 made in all points like unto us, sin only excepted ; and 
 this is exactly the testimony that our senses would have 
 
 I 
 
 
42 
 
 ht: «, 
 
 given had we seen ihe God-man laid in the humble 
 crib. We siiould liave seen a weali, helpless, human 
 infant, and we should have knelt down with the Shep- 
 herds to adore Him, because our failh would have told 
 us that the child before us was God the Son come in 
 human flesh. But where is the contradiction to sense 
 or to reason? Revelation says. This is a real child — 
 oar senses testify the same thing. Revelation says, God 
 is there, veiled in real human flesh. Reason casta itself 
 upon its knees and answers, " Even so, Father, for so it 
 seemelh good in thy sight." 
 
 But now mark, my Brethren — if we had been there 
 and had been told, — ' What you see is a child, but there 
 is really no child there ; you see a child, you hear a 
 child, you feel a child, but there is no child, only the 
 appearance of a child. There is not a particle of flesh 
 and blood , It is really God appearing under the species 
 or accidents of a child ; but human child there is 
 none ;' — that would have been, certainly, a contradiction 
 to sense and reason, and it would also liavc been a fair 
 illustration of the doctrine of Transr.bstantiation. But 
 will the Church of Rome say that of the Babe of Beth- 
 lehem ? No. She knows that one of the most deadly 
 heresies that ever assailed the Christian faith was that 
 which tried to explain away the reality of the flesh of 
 Christ — and against it, the great Christian writers, as I 
 shall shew by and bye, brought forward the very sacra- 
 ment weave speaking of, to prove, that as there was 
 no substantial change in the bread though it is called 
 the Body cf Christ, so there was no substantial change 
 in the human nature of Christ when it was taken into 
 God. No, my Brethren, the tcstuuony of our senses and 
 of God's revelatior). are in the most perfect agreement by 
 the side of that humble crib ; for both unite in saying, 
 * This is a true child of man, a human body, and a rea- 
 sonable soul.' 
 
 But if our senses are not contradicted by the mystery 
 of the Incarnation, perhaps our reason is ? Faith tells 
 us, This child that you see is not a mere man. He is 
 God and man in one person. God the Son has assumed 
 human nature into eternal and indis?oluble union with 
 His own Godhead — does this contradict reason ? The 
 infinite condescension of God Almighty confounds 
 
43 
 
 reason and casts it into the dust in humble loving adora- 
 tion — but there is no contradiction to any principle of 
 reason. Xay, there is a very striking and woaderful 
 analogy to it,* in the union of body and soul in man 
 himself; "For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one 
 man so God and man is one Christ." Reason is too 
 wise, too reasonable to expect to grasp and trace out all 
 the mysteries — all the secrets of the nature of Almighty 
 God. It is content to receive His revelations, respecting 
 Himself and His own manner of existence, to under- 
 stand their meaning, to believe them and to adore. 
 
 (4.) We find not yet any contradiction to reason. Let us 
 proceed. The next mystery adduced v/asthe awful and 
 glorious mystery of the Trinity in Unity, and we are 
 told that unless we believe in Transubstantiation, we 
 must reject the Trinity also! O Rome, Rome, hast 
 thou then ventured as far as this ! Must, the Catho- 
 lic Faith itself be overthrown unless thou art per- 
 mitted to build up by its side, as of equal authority, 
 thy miserable human inventions of yesterday? — This 
 recklessness of Romanists in arguing for their unreason- 
 able and senseless dogmas is worthy of the severest 
 reprehension. Must, tlien, the mind of man reject all 
 belief in the God of revelation — the God of all grace 
 and love and in His Son Jesus Christ, unless it degrades 
 itself to embrace all the absurdities and contradictions 
 of Transubstantiation? Here Rome s'.ands out before 
 us in her worst form, — as the persecutor of th^ Saints 
 and the forerunner of Antichrist. How manv hundreds 
 of Christ's true and faithful servants has she cut off 
 with fire and sword because they could not — dared not 
 deny the truth of their senses and reason, as well as the 
 truth of God's Word, and bow down before the wafer; 
 and how many teus of thousands more has she driven 
 out entirely from her pale into infidelity, because — their 
 reason revolting against all the absurdities of Transub- 
 stantiation — they were told that the whole Christian 
 revelation and this dogma must "tandor fall together! 
 
 But let us try to be calm and examine into this point 
 
 • " And Christians can now in some measure appreliend the reASon- 
 ableness of God ilic Son assuming tliat liuman nature, which was 
 origiuftlljr created in tho image and likeness of God."— A'o*< by a Friend. 
 
44 
 
 r 
 
 it^ 
 
 also. We are told, Tiiat "there are Three Persons in 
 One God, and yet no scholar can explain that."* Again 
 I say, that is not the point. The point at issue is not, 
 can we explain the Trinity, but does it contradict our 
 reason or our senses, as Transubstantiation does ? No, 
 it contradicts them in no respect ; and this sacred and 
 blessed trutli will enable luc clearly to point out to you 
 the infinite difference there is between a thing which is 
 abwe our reason, and a thing which conti adicts our 
 reason. 
 
 The Trinity is above reason. Man's leeble intellect 
 cannot presume to search out all the mysteries of the 
 Divine mode of existence, because his own manner of 
 existence even man cannot understand. f But the Trinity 
 is in no way con'radicl .ry to reason. God is One and 
 yet Three. But the Christian religion does not say that 
 God is one in the same icnse in which He is three. If it 
 did, there would be a plain contradiction, and the 
 doctrine would be one which no man could believe. If, 
 for example, we were required to believe that there are 
 three distinct and separate Gods and yet but one God, 
 that would be a plain contradiction, and no man could 
 believe it. But is that the doctrine of the Trinity ? No, 
 something vastly different. It is that God is one God, 
 but three Persons. Here is no contradiction. A thing 
 may be three in one sense, and one in another without a 
 contradiction ; as every man is one man^ and yet made 
 of three distinct and widely different substances, body 
 soul and spirit. Man's nature is above reason. The 
 Trinity is above reason. Neither of them is contra- 
 dictory to it. 
 
 But Transubstantiation is contradictory to reason — it 
 outrages it ; for it says, and will have us believe, contrary 
 to the testimony o{ our senses and reason, that what 
 looks, feels, tastes and smells like bread and wine, is not 
 in any sense bread and wine, but another substance 
 wholly different, viz : the human body of Christ ; and 
 that that very same identical human body can be in ten 
 
 * Rev. Dr. Cahill's Lecture. 
 
 1 1 might have added — nor the manner of existence of any other 
 animal — no, nor of the most insignificant weed tliat grows under his 
 feet. There is a mystery in everything that has life, into which man 
 with all his wisdom cannot penetrate. 
 
46 
 
 thousand different places at once, and in all those places 
 be made over again of bread ! 
 
 No illustration has as yet been brought to support this 
 contradiction. 
 
 Nothing in . iture contradicts our senses or reason. 
 
 (5.) But from grace, and the Christian mysteries, the 
 Romanist descends to the ordinary processes of nature,and 
 claims that they too furnish illustrations of Transubstan- 
 tiation. Strange temerity ! How can nature and its 
 processes, of which we know nothing, except through 
 our senses and reason, contradict their testimony ? 
 
 But let us follow on, '* The skins of animals, it is said, 
 are produced from the grass on which the animal feeds 
 — the grass being transubstantiated into skin ; and wood 
 is made out of the moisture which the tree draws in 
 through its leaves and roots ; and our own flesh is made 
 of the food we eat, and which is digested and assimilated 
 to the substance of our flesh." * 
 
 But how can these processes be reasonably compared 
 to Transubstanliation ? How do we know anything 
 about these transformations of grass into skin, and of 
 moisture into wood and of food into flesh ? Is it not by 
 our senses and our reason ? How can these processes 
 then, contradict sense and reason ? If nature were to set 
 grass before us and tell us it was skin, or wood and tell 
 us it was water, or bread and persuade us it was flesh, 
 and make us believe that our eyes and other senses 
 deceived us, those would be fair illustrations, but as 
 yet we have none to the point ; and Transubstantiation 
 remains alone, in grace and in nature, in a magnificent 
 solitude. It contradicts reason ; it contradicts our senses. ; 
 and all the revelations of God to us, in His holy word 
 and in His works of nature, have been searched in vain 
 to find anything like a parallel. Transubstantiation, 
 then, remains as grandly and solitarily unreasonable as 
 ever. 
 
 Things impossible in themselves are impossible to God. 
 
 (6.) You must bear with me while I go thoroughly into 
 this matter, and try to remove all the ditticulties out of the 
 
 * Rev. Dr. Cahill's lecture. 
 
46 
 
 if: 
 
 way. It may be said, that nevertheless, even if we can- 
 not find any illustration of Transubstantiation in graco 
 or in nature, that does not prove it impo^^sible, since 
 " to God all thing-} are possible ;" and if God in His 
 holy Word has told us that it is so, we must believe it, 
 even though it contradicts our reason and senses ; because 
 " un/o God^ (as said the Angel to the Virgin Mary), 
 nothing shall be impossible ^ 
 
 Well, then, lei us look into this point. Are all things, 
 simply and absolutely, possible to God ? For example, 
 can God sleep — can He hunger and thirst — can God be 
 in want — can God /ie, or can there be unrighteousness 
 with God? No, certainly n )f, God caii do none of these 
 things. But why not? B^'nause these things are all 
 coniradiotions to His nature and essential attributes, 
 they all imply a contradiction. Then, all things are not 
 simply possible with God. Things impossible in them- 
 selves are not possible to Him. VVhatever implies a con- 
 tradiction — that is to say, implies that a thing both is 
 and is not at the same time, is impossible to God, as 
 well as to man. God cannot lie — God cannot contradict 
 Himself. He cannot, then, tell us to b^ lieve our senses 
 and to disbelieve them, c;innot himself appeal to our 
 senses and then tell us that their testimony is worthless. 
 Aj^ain, God cannot do what necessarily implies a con- 
 tradiction — God cannot, for example, make the same 
 body both to be and not to be at the same time in the 
 same place. God cannot make the same body — the 
 same created substance — to be at one time whole and 
 entire in two distinct and separate places, because that 
 implies a contradiction ; it implies that the same body 
 is both one body and yet not one body. 
 
 Now, apply this to the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
 That doctrine teaches us ihat Christ who is man as well 
 as God — true man as well as true God, with a real 
 human body and soul — can be at the same time, as to 
 His human nature, His human body and soul, at God's 
 right hand in Heaven, and yet on many altars in this 
 city, and on t(!n thousand altars in other cities of the 
 world. This, however, is impossible, because Christ as 
 man can only be in one place at one time, though as 
 God He can be in many places at the same time. If 
 Christ, as man, is in Heaven, He cannot be as man in 
 
 
 ^mm 
 
47 
 
 ten thousand wafers whole and enliie, because then He 
 would cease to be man, and His manhood would in that 
 case have become God, which is contrary to the Catholic 
 Faith. And this is what our Church means when she 
 says that Transubstanliation overthrows the truth of 
 Christ's human nature ; for it is contrary to the truth of 
 Christ's body to be in more places at a time than one. 
 If Rome were logical — if she were logically to follow 
 out her own doctrine — she must teach also that Christ is 
 no longer man but that His manhood is changed into 
 God, and that He remains now God only. Thank God, 
 she does not do this, and so she is content to remain 
 splendidly inconsistent, teaching that Christ has a true 
 human body, and yet that the very same body can be in 
 ten thousand different and distinct places at the same 
 time. But that is impossible — impossible in itself — im- 
 possible to God — because it implies a contradiction ; 
 and no evidence could be sufficient to convince us of 
 its truth. 
 
 Arg^uments for Transubstanliation from Holy Scripture. 
 
 II. Next wo pass on to Holy Scripture. 
 
 It was lately said by an eloquent person here, that " he 
 would prove Transubslantiation exclusively from the 
 Scriptures." * Now, when we find Romanists appealing 
 to the Scriptures it always gives us pleasure ; especially 
 would it delight us, if we could hope that !hey would 
 give Bibles to their people in general to examine the 
 passages for themselves. 
 
 Transubstantiation, then, is to be proved to us ' from 
 the Holy Scriptures exclusively;' but what if eminent 
 Romanists tell us that it cannot be proved from the 
 Scriptures ? 
 
 Cardinal Cajetan affinris that "there is in Scripture 
 nothing of force or necessity to infer Transubstantiation 
 out of the words of Institution (that is to say — the words 
 of Christ when He instituted the Lord's Supper — " This 
 is my Body, — This is my Blood") ; and that these words, 
 setting aside the decree of the Church, are not sufficient 
 to prove it."f 
 
 • Rev. Dr. Cahill. 
 
 t Quoted in Bp. Jeremy T&ylor^a Real Presence of Christ atid Spiritual, 
 Seclioa ii ; where see all the other passages that follow. 
 
r^ 
 
 48 
 
 I r n 
 
 Cardinal Fislior, speaking of the same passage, says, 
 " There are no words >set down here by which it may be 
 proved that in our ma.*»s there is a triu; presence of the 
 flesh and blood of Clirist." 
 
 Cardinal Cambray de Aliaco says, " Transubstantia- 
 tion does not follow evidently from Scripture." 
 
 Duns Seotus, one of Rome's greatest scholars and Di- 
 vines, says, "There is no place of Scripture so express, 
 that, without the declaration of the Church, it can evi- 
 dently compel us to admit Transnbstantiation." 
 
 Gabriel Biel, another great Romanist scholar and Di- 
 vine, says, " How the Body of Christ is there, whether by 
 conversion of anytliing into it, or without conversion, it 
 begins to be the Body of Christ with the Bread, the sub- 
 stance of Bread still remaining, is not found expressed 
 in the canon of the Bible." 
 
 Melchoir Canus, among the thing not expressed in 
 Scripture, reckons the conversion of Bread an^ Wine 
 into the Body and Blood of Chri:st.* 
 
 Finally, Bellarmine himself is compelled to confess 
 that " this is probably true (viz — that it is not in Scrip- 
 ture) since h is affirmed by most learned and most acute 
 men."f 
 
 Well then, the Scriptures are given up. " It is not in 
 Holy Scripture" — say so many great Romish lights. 
 Rome acknowledges that it is not there. Nevertheless, 
 let us examine the passages alleged. 
 
 Three texts are brought forward — passages from the 
 Vlth chapter of St. .John, the XXVIth of St. Matthew, 
 and the Xlth of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 Does St. John VI treat of the Holy Communion at all ? 
 
 1. Whether the first cf these passages, St. John VI., 
 speaks of the Holy Communion at all, has often been 
 questioned. The Romanists themselves are not all 
 agreed in so interpreting it, for many of their great 
 divines, by Bellarminc's own confession (he mentions the 
 names of six) affirm that Christ in this chapter does not 
 speak of the Sacrament at all. Archbishop Wake num- 
 bers up thirty eminent Romanists, who altogether reject 
 
 • Loc. Com, Lib. iii. cap. 3. Fund. 2, 
 f Bellarm. do Euch., Lib. iii. cap. 23. 
 
49 
 
 llio sacram(3nlal intcrpretalion, viz., two Popes, four 
 Cardinals, two Archbishops, five Bishops, the rest doc- 
 lors and prolessors. iJcllarniine holds that Christ does 
 no! speak in the whole chapter of the sacrament, but 
 only (roni the 51st vcrsv onwards. 
 
 1 shall noi, 
 that 11(; docs. 
 
 however, (jueslion if, for I am persuaded 
 
 1. The discourse in tliis chapter is, perhaps, the deepest 
 and irmsi wonderful in liie IJiljJe, and I earnestly com- 
 iiu;jid il to your consiaul and reiterated study and devout 
 meditation. In il oar Blessed Saviour sets Himself 
 U.'fure us as "the Bread of life," the " Living Bread, 
 which came down from Heaven to give life unto the 
 vvorld." He says, "He Ihat ealclh Me, even he shall 
 live by M(! ;" :iiid again, " the Bread that I will give is 
 My llersh, whi. n i will give for the life of the world." 
 He sayT " whosoever calelh u[ this Bread shall not die — 
 shall live forever — hath eternal life;" and on the Jews 
 objecting, " How can tlii* man give us His flesh to eat?" 
 He repeats what He had said very solejnnly, " Verily, 
 verily. I s;iy unto you, except ye eat the llesh of the Son 
 of Man and drink His IJJood ye have no life in you. 
 Whoso eateth My FJesh and drinketh My Blood hath 
 eternal life, and 1 will raise him up at the last day. 
 For My Fle^li is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink 
 indeed." 
 
 Now, no one denies — as no one can deny — that our 
 Savi(>nr in this passage does promise to give us, in some 
 sense, His llesh to cat and His Blood to drink — in some 
 real and true sense One interpretation of the passage 
 is that Bread signifies the doctrine of Christ and that 
 all thai is meant by eating the Flesh of Christ and drink- 
 ing His Blood is, receiving and taking in His doctrine, 
 believing and ineditating upon it. This I cannot believe. 
 I am persuadtui lliat if this was all our Saviour meant, 
 He would have said so — have so explained His meaning 
 to those .lews who were oflended at His words. There 
 is, T think it is plain from the passage, a feeding upon 
 Christ, an eatingof His ilesh and drinking of His Blood, 
 which is something ([uite different from believing and 
 receiving His doctrine, and v(;ry far above mere faithful 
 contemplation and pious, loving, adoring thoughts of 
 
 D 
 
[I p^ 
 
 •0 
 
 i 
 
 III; 
 II' f' 
 
 ti! 
 
 if. 
 4; 
 
 1^'; h 
 
 
 I 
 
 fi 
 
 u 
 
 Him. That it is not Rome's gross carnal way ol orally — 
 with the moiith and the teeth — feeding on His natural 
 flesh and blood, I shall presently demonstrate. But with 
 the whole Catholic Church from the beginning, and with 
 our own Church, I do interpret it of a spiritual feeding 
 upon Christ, by faith, in the Holy Communion. I do 
 not say, spiritual feeding upon Christ only and exclu- 
 sively in the Jloly Communion ; but I say, spiritual 
 feeding upon Christ, by faith, especially and chiefly in 
 the Holy Communioii 
 
 Is it reasonp„ble* to say that there is in this chapter no 
 reference to the Holy Communion? It is true, this 
 Sacrament was not as yet instituted. But then, it is 
 characteristic of our Lord's discourses, especially those 
 in St. John, that they are aiitiv",ipatory and prophet)'^. It 
 is a weighty consideration, tlu.t if we reject iiie sacra- 
 mental interpretation of this chapter, we must hold that 
 St. John iias not referred at all in his writings to the 
 J-foly Communion ; and surely this consideration is much 
 strengthened by the fact that the other great Sacrament 
 is in precisely the same position ; for no reference is cnn- 
 tained in St. John's writings, to Baptism, except in tiu; 
 discourse with Nicodcrnus,f where our Lord lays down 
 the doctrine of Baptirn by anticipation. 
 
 The discourse at Capernaum was evidently a very 
 great trial to the cusciplee' Tnith ; many of them were 
 so offended at it lliat they " went back and walked no 
 more with Him.":{: It must have sunk deep into the 
 hearts of the Apostles who remained faithful ; and when 
 they lieard their Master speak again of eating Ilis (lesh 
 and drinking His blood, how could they possibly help 
 coupling the two together and interpreting the discourse 
 by the institution ? 
 
 In point of fact the Christian Churcli always so inter- 
 preted it, § until the Romish doctors, on llie one side, 
 found it inconsistent w^ith their communion in one kind 
 and quite destructive of Transubstantiation (as 1 shall 
 
 • S. T. Coloridge, Iho great Thinker, says, '• I caL t l)ut tliink that 
 the same mjsteriouH trutli, whatsocvei it l)o, ia ref'orred to in the 
 Eucharist, and in this chapter of Hi. Join.'' Works, vol. v. p. 22-1. 
 
 f St. John iii. 
 
 I St. Join vi. 6G. 
 
 § Seo thid proved in VVaterland, Docl. of IheEucharisl, cap, vi. 
 
 li 
 
■rm 
 
 51 
 
 
 shew) i and the mere hgurisls;, (»n the oilier, cou'd in 
 nc way reeoncile it with tlieir iVigid notions. 
 
 Our Church so applies it without hesitation whea she 
 says, in the Communion olliee, liiat when we worthily 
 receive the sacrament, " then do we spirituail} eat the 
 rtesh of Christ and drink His blood, then Aye dwell in 
 Christ and Chris' in U8, we are one with Christ and 
 Christ with us." 
 
 And why should we not so inteipret it? Is there a 
 member of our Church io be found who denies or doubts 
 that the faithful do in the Holy Connnunion, in some 
 high and certainly true sense, eat ihe llesh of Clu'ist and 
 drink His blood ? God forbid ? 
 
 Do Ckv hpeople expect to receive nothing in the Holy Communion ? 
 
 2. Now pay attention to this. You will say, ' Yes, of 
 course, we do so eat and drink, but only spiritually.' 
 And you an) right — " We eat the Body of Christ only," 
 says our XXVlIIth Article, "after a heavenly and spirit- 
 ual manner." And again, the same Article says, ".And 
 the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and 
 eaten in the supper is failh.-^ The faithful only receive 
 the Body of Christ, and ihey only after an heavenly and 
 spiritual manner. 
 
 But stop. Are you ((viili' sine you understand what 
 the word spirilutiUtj means ? If you mean by spiritually^ 
 that it is not the mouth of our body that eats the Body 
 of Christ, Init that it is the soul that k'OAh' <»n [lim ; thai 
 His Body is not L-arnally <»r ettrporally |)resent in the 
 bread ami wine, but tli.ti the (lesh and blood of Christ 
 are given and rec-(>iv('d only in a heavenly ;in<t sj)iritual 
 • Manner, then yju mean and speak rightly, for all this is 
 so. But if _v -u mean ilial there i.s no Boily ot Christ 
 given and received at ;ill, that all is iigure and no reality ; 
 if by the word ypirUwiilt/ you mean jignraUvely^ — ihai 
 the Body and BKkhI of Christ are given in a figure only, 
 that the Sa<-rainent is a .s'/>w of noihrng — a sign with 
 nothing signified — ' a hare sign of a tiling absent' — then 
 you s;,eak very wrongly ind 'cd, and contradict, not the 
 Chuvch of Rome, but your own Church, as well as the 
 Holy Scriptures. 
 
 How oflen has Rome, in her subtilty, Iriumpheti over 
 
 H; 
 
 I 
 
 
1 ;: 
 
 i 
 
 lu^ 
 
 I''" 
 
 h 
 
 ''t ' 
 
 
 b'^ 
 
 llio simpliLiiy of ii!( mbert. oi a p'lrc fai^h by catching 
 \}'c\n '■ il.is o('A ! ilow o'icji lia\t' clever Kojnanists, 
 111- ■.•iir,' , ciic j)c()[)lr, Iri .'. lo |,(M^iia(l(' iliem :lial our 
 ri'!iifi<-n i-« iM.liinij; hut a tissue ol' negations— lliat Pro- 
 le-ianis are s.) t:iken up with thinking aliout what they 
 nuist Jiff lieiieve, whnt ihiey ruusl protest and be on the 
 watch agnin-t, that lliey in reality believe nothing! 
 Thuts taevsvtv to uninstrueled Protestants, "You believe 
 tluit t'hc-re is / oihint^ va tJie Holy Faieharlst, that it is a 
 uier(\ enrpty sign — that all the good yon get from 
 it is the good thoughts it raises in your hearts. You go, 
 and come away as empty as }ou \\vn\ ; and yet our 
 Suviour says, ' Tahe., caf, this is my Body!' — You will 
 never get anything i)ut lu-gations in your Church. If 
 you want son-.ething /•«■«', if you wnsh for any fixity of 
 ftiith — tor any real truth, any solid comfort, ^ou must 
 (•ome over and join us." 
 
 But C!mrch-p(>(ipl(> do not believe that the Holy Com- 
 TTumion is a mere 1/arren, emj)ty sign, (dim'ch-j)eople 
 believe their Catechism, they believe their Pr:iyer Book, 
 ltt'y'i)elieve the words of the Communion Office which 
 tlu'v ^!^V to ("rofl Smidav uUrr Simdav in receiving tiie 
 ]io|y Comumnion. Though they may not all have full, 
 clear, dt tinjie views (.)U thi> au'liil and mysterious sub- 
 ject, yet they do believe th;it Christ is not absent, but 
 present with them there, to give them, in some high and 
 blessed sense, His llcvh to ent ;md His blood lo drink. 
 If tlicy do not >crU to enter into all the intricacies of the 
 doctrine, yet they come to receive a great and blessed 
 gilt. Til. y do I ()• go ;.way as empty as they came ; but 
 thev go n\v:i\ believing lli:t1 iIk'V hfve the i>jlt which 
 they c:ime to s(M'k, iind snying to lla insclves softly, " O 
 my (»od. Thou rut true, O my soul, Thou art happy." 
 
 n 
 
 9 
 
 TVie Trvp Vnlli'iIU: Dnrlrhn nf tl>c llohi Cnmmvninn. 
 
 ^. And her'.^heiore ]>assir}gon, I shall set briefly liejore 
 you, in op|.H)sition to Romish 1 vansubstanlialion, the 
 positive teaching of th" Hnglish Church as to what 
 is received by faithful comuuinicants. The 28th 
 Ailiclc of the Church of England says—" To such as 
 rightly, worthily and with f;iifli receive the sujjper of 
 thf! Lord, the Bi< ;id which we brenk it a pnrtahing of 
 
O'.Ji 
 
 Jst8, 
 
 lour 
 ^ ro- 
 be Y 
 lllie 
 
 go, 
 
 ///r /y</(7i, (V' i'liinyt aiii ljjv(:\vi.-t.- lin- ciij) of l>ii'.ssino' 
 wbich \vr .,K's<.. M, ./ /.a/7t< vn^ oi iln: liU>od ('J Cfin-^i}^ 
 The Caiecliism s'dyti iliat iu a -.icriiiui^m aic i w u ii>, 
 Ihe stii^n aiiJ ili ■ 't.mii^- -av'Hci, :l!t' •>^^:^^,il\ \:^ .;, 
 siiLjn, and the inward S|>i I itual L;rac;e iaai Hr- ^ii^^n m 
 ihe Lord's Suppt-r, is bre-id ami , nii-, and Up dur.^; 
 sii,'nified '' ilir ^.-ajy und Hintti of Cfrn.'if ,\ nudi urc 
 ve,!\hf un-' ^^nii.:. i-fkrn n,id rcccir^^d hy :ho. faithful in 
 iiie LoiJ'- ::.ij),i'i ;" iiiul thai " otir.-onisarr sircrt-lhcned 
 .>nd rtdVi'siii i| i.y h Hod}) and PJ-khI of Chri.v as our 
 Bodies a,re oy th- Hrri i .,n w, i .'" 
 
 The C'uiiiiutui on odnv :e u.:a!s w.-a "' A Mi .■.hi ■.-. 
 our Heavenly F >tliei h .s sfivea lf>s o - r- 
 
 Jemiti Ch isi (I ht o .^f) kuol fo d a .. 
 t ai loll/ S c in If ;" au | the ben li s o 
 ing ar(! de hired to I) h .-e— '■* : im \. 
 tliefl-'kif h'>s (id I >!. '/ 1 •' 
 in I h s ami hi is i s lu j / a 
 
 Chi n' LOlh " 
 
 This is r'le io i r ae < ■ ;lt> • 
 is th*^ 1ri.it a )!i • do -l \ < - o. • i' 
 always been heal by (ihr.Si'^ r., ■ 
 
 ginniiii(. 1' i;s, tl.at •'> lli" Holy • . ii.iu. u r 
 we partaki* ni i'.Ch i>i >)<> "-a ,t.., ,, ; 
 and eonv',\ i.. :,s — -r, ..; > ,h i hails 1 
 
 in Him, an ; i s, • ar' ,,!•." 
 
 He Willi IIS. I' i -r ! • au ■ •■ ■,, i 
 no l)arr n lignn; — im • in.iis >il'!— .^a ai! 
 spiriUiul aud Heaven y, v< i al , i' '. ^ • 
 
 full of realilv and lite 
 
 n- 
 
 Yhe Huiiiis/i Inttujo'tlaliun nj .^^ Juhn f i u i.inintu. 
 
 4. Sow, havini; ( hMH'd ih. V\a\,le! n r I re ' 
 
 Scriptures, IVouj wliali lio e \-, ■! \.' i 
 
 doctrine ot I ran^ubslantiaii." I be in w . / li.- 
 Vlth of St. .John. i^Vf in (m| ii of piritna' e; ri'j 
 in ihe \\<>.y Connnunii»n, lhi\ of a- a! aiul b .;,]•. i at- 
 iug. We do not presume to explain the m<(l'', ilie way 
 and manner in wliioli ('hrist iijives us His llesh to eat. 
 We believi! it and are happy. They do [>re>uuje to 
 explain it — and their explanation is that Ji is a gro-^s, 
 carnal, literal eating His literal body, with (»ur bodily 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 hi 
 
T 
 
 54 
 
 In 
 
 meinbeiis. " You must interpret literally," says Rome, 
 " else you make the Lord say what is not true ; and, 
 therelore, lle.sh menns jiioral tiesh." But our Blessed 
 Saviour Hims-eli excludes tliis interpretation and ex- 
 plains ihat Hi-* words are not to be taken literally. For 
 He said to the Jews, " What and ii' ye shall see the Son 
 of man ascend up where lu; was beiore ?" that is to say, 
 if lie was to go l)odily away Irom them, they could not 
 literally t-.'it His Body. And lie j)roceeds, " It is the 
 spirit liiat quiekenelh, the llesh proHtelh nothing. Th'.; 
 words ihal I speak unto you, they are the spirit and they 
 are the lil'e.'" This is a very plain intimation, from the 
 lipf^. of our Saviour Himself, lli;ii ilie words are not to 
 be taken liieially but s|jiviliial!y, 
 
 Neverllieless, iet us try ihis literal interpretation. 
 The Lord says, "He that eatelh of this Bread shall not 
 die." Is this literally true ? Does no one die literally 
 who receives the Kuchr.isl? Certainly, Rome's eom- 
 niunieants are not exempt from death. Are not our 
 Lord's words, then, true ? ' Yes,' says Rome, ' but it is 
 not bodily death that is meant, but eternal death.* Then, 
 the literal interpretation {lo<^■^ iiol stand. — Take it so, 
 however, and is ii even then iit<!rally true that ' all who 
 receive tlie Holy Eucharist shall not die eternally ?' No, 
 certainly not, for the wicl.cd who eat it may die eter- 
 nally ; it is not to t!;em the certain pledge^ of eternal life, 
 i)ut only to tlie faithiul. Then, here is a double figure 
 in this one verse. By Kohkj's own confession, death is 
 not literal death, eating is not literal eating. Where 
 then is her literal interpretation ? 
 
 Take rmotli; r verse: "1 am the Bread of life. He 
 that cometii li me sliall never hunger, and he that 
 believtth on me shall never thirst." Is this literally 
 true ? Ho believers in Christ — do faithiul communicants 
 literally cease to feel himger and thirst ? No. Then here 
 is a not lie r ligure. 
 
 Tak(! anotlier verse. Our blessed Saviour saith, " My 
 ilesh ]s meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." 
 The>e words have been much insisted on, bui evidently 
 irom a surprising want ol <onsideralion. Let me (piote 
 yon the words lately sjiol am her(; among us with reler- 
 ence to this verse — " Look," it was said, " at the strength 
 of this expression — consider the force of the original 
 
 i n 
 
55 
 
 and, 
 ssed 
 ex- 
 For 
 Son 
 
 pay, 
 
 noi 
 the 
 
 Greek word "indeerf." The statement is without a 
 trope, it contains no metaphor, no figure of speech what- 
 ever." * This was said. Now look at the words, " My 
 flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." 
 What is the literal meaning of these words. It is that 
 Christ's flesh is meat or food for the body, bodily food, 
 and His blood drink for the body, bodily drink. Does 
 the Church of Rome teach that ? She teaches, indeed, 
 that our bodily organs, our mouths eat the literal body 
 of Christ, but does she teach that the literal body and 
 blood of Christ enter into and nourish our bodies ? No, 
 she rejects such a statement with abhorrence. She 
 teaches that there is no bodily food whatever in the 
 Eucharist, that the Bread and Wine are gone, are changed 
 into another substance, namely, the Body and Blood of 
 Christ, which do not nourish the body, but only do good 
 to and nourish the soul. — Then, Christ's flesh and blood, 
 according to Rome, are not literal meat and drink but 
 spiritual, and the verse, by her own interpi station of it, 
 i s not to be literally taken, but spiritually. But if Christ's 
 flesh is not literal meat, then, as it must of course be 
 eaten in the same sense in which it is meat, the eating 
 must be spiritual and not literal — in other words, it is 
 the soul that eats Christ and not the mouth of the body. 
 But take one more verse, " He that eateth My flesh and 
 drinketh My blood, dvvelleth in Me, and I in him." 
 Now, according to the Church of Rome, all who receive 
 tlie Eucharist, good and bad alike, ungodly men and 
 infidels, do eat the Body of Christ. Do infidels and 
 ungodly men, then, dwell in Christ, and Christ in them? 
 Nc. ouys Rome, only faithful Christians. Yet Christ 
 says, "He that eateth me, all who eat me, shall live for 
 ever, and dwell in me, and I in them." Are not these 
 words of Christ true ? For if they are, and if in this 
 chap^'^r He is speaking of the Eucharist, Transubstantia- 
 tion, by Rome's own confession, is proved to be false. 
 
 Do the words of institution, in St. Matt. XXVI, prove Transub- 
 
 stantiaiion ? 
 
 (2.) Let us pass on, then, to the XXVIth of St. Matthew, 
 where we have the account of the institution of the 
 
 • Rev. Dr. CaluU'a Lecture. 
 
mm 
 
 56 
 
 li I 
 
 i I 
 
 ^i I 
 
 Lord's Supper. Remember thai great Romisli divines 
 confess that Transubstantiation cannot be proved from 
 this text of Scripture. We read that the Lord Jesus 
 while they were eating, " took Bread and blessed itj 
 and broke it, and gave it to His di^^ciples saying, 'Take,, 
 eat, this is my Body,' and lie took the cup, and gave 
 thanks, and gave it to 1h(,'m, saying, ' Drink ye all of it, 
 for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is 
 shed for many ior the remission of sins.' " Here great 
 stress is laid on the word "is," ("This is My Body," 
 " This/s My Blood,") as necessarily excluding all figure, 
 and the following strange comment is added, " How 
 could any one shed the blood of bread or the blood of 
 wine, or how, under the Spiritual doctrine, could the 
 blood of a spirit be shed r" * What this means I do noi 
 pretend to understand. But let us now look into the 
 text. 
 
 And first, it is obvious to say, why should not the 
 words " This is my Body" be figurative, and mean, 
 " This Bread is a figure f of my Body '" Why not so 
 understand it as we underslanu Ihe words, " 1 am the 
 Vine," " I am the Door," " I am ihe Way? " All these 
 sayings are equally positive, jsnd yet no one ^uppose- 
 them to be anything but figure. — And is all lo be liter alli/ 
 taken ? Then what moan the words " which is shed ? " 
 Was the Blood of Christ actnt.ily shed at the time He was 
 speaking? No, it was to Itc shed. Tliis, then, is not lo 
 be literally taken. — Again, St. Luke lellsus that liie Lord 
 said "This is my Body wiiich is given'''' — Si. Paul, that 
 the Lord said, " which is broken for you," Was His 
 Sacred Body as yet given or broKj-n ? No, tho words 
 mean, ' which shall be given aii'l broken.' Then, here 
 again, all is plainly not literal. But if the wov] '^ is'"' 
 must be laken figuratively in rvne part of the sentence, 
 why may it not be ligurative in liie other part of the S(!n- 
 tence ? '' This is my Body whi'.ih is given ;" — " 7,s' 
 given," Rome a- knowledges io mean '•'■shall be given," 
 
 •Rev. Dr. Cnhill. 
 
 \ I undcrBtand llic wcnl.i to unian, 'JTl.is '^^ My l!ndy to nil inienls and 
 purposes' — or, in 'just coustruclion' — or, la-ltcr ;-lilI, ' My Ho'iy, i.e., 
 the Commuu'ou of My Body,' ibi; moain whtrcby wo do actu.illy receive 
 the body of Cbri.st. Win n I s.iy a fiz'/rc, I nieim /■; ■^ivic ^c?i^c,^.^;«''f///!■^•. 
 Of course, all our Blessed Lord's words arc truth itself, spirit aud life. 
 
ot 
 
 and why then may not the words; '* this is my body" 
 signify, " This represents my Body ?" 
 
 But again, in the words, '" This is my Body which is 
 broken," can tlie first " is" be literally lakf.n ? Could that 
 Bread be His broken body ? His body was not yet 
 broken ; how could a thing'^e literally there which had 
 no existence at all as yet? His Body — His living- body, 
 was before their eyes ; of that He si)oke not, bul'of His 
 broken Body ; bat His broken body as yet urns not. 
 His broken bodij^ tiien, could not be in His hand. 
 Literally, the words could not be true, therefore they 
 must be figurativt;. 
 
 And to the Apostles the figurative sen.se of lh(} words — 
 " This is my Body," that is to say, This represents, is a 
 figure of My Body — w ^s easy and natural, for the very 
 meal in which tln>y were then cugitged was called the 
 Passover— "This is the Lord's Passover" — whereas it was 
 not the literal Passover when the Ang(d of God passed 
 over the Israelites in Egy{)t, but a memorial, of it — an 
 acting of it, as it were, over »gain. 
 
 Does S. Paul teach in i Cor. XI Trtnisubsiantialion ? 
 
 (3) Transuhstantiation cannot be proved by the words 
 of Institution in St. Matthew, but is overthrowii by 
 Uiem. Let us pass on to the XS'di of First Corinthians.* 
 
 The words here insistetl on by tlie defenders of Tran- 
 substantiation ar*" these, '• Whosoever thorefi.'rt' shall eat 
 this bread and drink this cup o,' the Lord unworthily, 
 shall be guilty o( tlie ]5ody and Blood of the Lord." 
 
 Now remember, that this te.ct is cited to prove the 
 Romish doctrine of 'J'ran^Lib^iantiatitm, viz : that after 
 consecration lh<^ wh{»le substance of the bread is changed 
 into the sub^^tanee of llie very natural Body cf Christ. 
 Bat oi what is St. Paul s|)eak!ng in this verse? Is ho 
 speaking of the eleUieuis of bread and wine before or 
 after consecration? ' After the consecration, of course,' 
 says Rome, and she is right, ikit what do(>s the Anostle 
 
 * Cellaroiiiie (Lili. i. I'iiicli. o. 1'!) aflcr a k'ngUiy iirgumeut lo prove 
 a real prosencn from tliia pa3S;ig(N liiuiUy contosiss that a rorporul 
 presence cannot bo coaclmlod liom it.. " ^MI tlic dilHculty, viz.,Mhetber 
 the l)o(iy and Blood aro taken r.orporalhj or only HjurUicaUij, still re- 
 mains.'' 
 
58 
 
 say lliat we eat and drink in the Eucharist ? The 
 Body and Blood of Christ ? No, he says " Whosoever 
 shall eat this bread, and drink ihiscup.^^ The consecra- 
 ted bread then, if the Apostle speaks truly, is bread still, 
 unchanged in substance. Is this Romish language ? 
 Could a Romanist call ihe consecrated bread, Bread ? 
 No, not under pain of an anathema. Was then St. 
 Paul mistaken ? Did he speak untruly, or did the Holy 
 Ghost speak by his mouth ? He calls it bread even after 
 consecration, and therefore bread it is unchanged in 
 substance. But he does this more than once, no less 
 than five times, in this context. He sa^s in the words of 
 my text, in the chapter next before (1 Cor. X. 16, 17), 
 " The cup of blessing which wo bless, is it not the com- 
 munion of the blood of Christ. The 6rcarf which we 
 break is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 
 For we, being many, are one bread and one body : for 
 we are all partakers of thai one bread.'''* Here again 
 twice in succession, he calls the; consecrated bread, bread, 
 which he could not have done "if Transubstantiation 
 were true. 
 
 This, then, is an unfortunate text for the Romanists, 
 for it demonstrates the fiUf>ohood of the dogma which it 
 is produced to support. 
 
 But, it may be said, how can a man be guilty of the 
 Body and Blood of the Lord, if there is no Body and 
 Blood there at all, if all is figun; ? But who says there 
 is no Body and Jilood of the I^ord there, and that all is 
 figure? Not the Church of England.* Denying firmly 
 the Romish Transubstantiation, she is far from saying 
 that her Lord is not there. H.e is there, not to sense but 
 to faith, not carnally but spiritually — this she holds firmly 
 and professes constantly. Hoiu he is there she does not 
 
 hi ^i>! 
 
 * The Church of England says, "Thus ranch we must be sure to 
 liolJ. that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare 
 sign, no untrue fii^nrc of a thini; absent (Matt, xxvi.); but as the Scrip- 
 ture saith, tlie tat)le of tlic Lord, the Bread and Cup of the Lord, the 
 Memory of Christ, the Annunciation of His Death, yea, the Communiou 
 of the Body and iJlood of the Lord, in a Marvellous incorporation, 
 which by the operation of the Holy Ghost (the very bond of our con- 
 junction with Clirist) is tlirough faith wrought in the souls of the 
 faithful, whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely 
 trust to win to their bodies a resurrection to iramortality.— iS'eco?i(Z Book 
 of Homilies, Of tiie Sacrament, pt. i. 
 
59 
 
 presume to say. She is content with St. Paul's blessed 
 and comfortable words, which exclude and contradict 
 Transubstantiation, while they affirm the reality and 
 truth of the presence of the Lord to the faith of His 
 people in the Sacrament, " The cup of blessing which 
 we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ ? 
 The bread, which we break, is it not the Communion of 
 the Body of Christ? For we, being many, are one 
 bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one 
 Bread." 
 
 THE APPEAL TO CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITY. 
 Did the Early Fathers hold Transubstantiation ? 
 
 III. Rome, then, is again driven from Holy Scripture. 
 Reason and Scripture arc against her, — shall we once 
 more appeal to history ? 
 
 Romanists in general are very confident that Transub- 
 stantiation was taught from the beginning, but their 
 greatest Divines, their eminent Controversialists are not 
 so confident. We have important admissions from them, 
 which J shall presently cite. The truth is that the 
 llomanists have long since been driven out of Christian 
 antiquity.* We appeal to the Fathers. f Our learned 
 Whitaker,! nearly 300 years ago, (and Bishop Jewel 
 long before him,) made the Romanists this challenge — 
 " Let but one single plain testimony, from any one 
 orthodox Christian writer of sincere antiquity be pro- 
 duced in support of Transubstantiation and I will yield." 
 The challenge has never been answered, for this very 
 good and sufficient reason, that tliere is no such tes- 
 timony. 
 
 * " It 13 an argument of a bad cause when an adversary abandons 
 the ground on which he once mainly rested. Rot-e once appealed to 
 Antiquity ; now she reviles it."— Wordsworth's Letlci to Gondon, 2nd., 
 Ed., p. 187. 
 
 t The Church of England requires her preachers to "be careful never 
 to teach anything from the pulpit, to be religiously held and believed by 
 the people, but what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New 
 Testament, and collected out of that very doctrine by the Catholic 
 Fathers and ancient Bishops." Canon about Preachers, Convocation of 
 A.D. 1571. 
 
 t Whitak. contr. Durwum, Lib. ii. fol. 220. Bp. Hall, vol. ix., p. 333. 
 
ou 
 
 !* ■ 
 
 
 Ia'I Li^i, then, look very bricily mm ilu- liihlory oi' Truu- 
 subbtuniialion. 
 
 Uittti and jtrogrtSft <>/ Trunttubtilantintion. 
 
 1. The tirsl ihiii'^ wo find is that the V(!i-y ivian ami book 
 liiat flrsi broached the Doelrine ot 'rratisubslanliatioii 
 are well known. 
 
 riie d-)ctrine <)!' I'raasii ).st i:i> i tiiou \vas lirst pro- 
 poimdoil * in a fr aiis- mh ihe l^ » d s Siippiir by a 
 learned MonI; named I'a h aius luidhtrhi.s^ Abi/ot ol" 
 Corbie, in the y(;ar 831. I'his work er.al' d a great 
 sensation, and was ai onee atlaeked by several (thrm' at 
 least f ) ol" the most eniineni divines <!(" ol' tin; clay. The 
 book itself, and some of the writinjf^s in «>[)|)osi;ion to il, 
 have eoincMlown lo us. Kadbi-rl, some y ar? ::j';'. r, A.D. 
 814) dedieale I a seeoUvl . diiioii ol" liis A'(iik 1 > Kini; 
 Charles the Bald ; and that Moaareh r<.'rerr!d il lo 
 Ralrtnnn^ one ol" the mo>i etdebriled 1 h.i>lo,i?ians 
 ol" hus Kini^dom, a monk in. Radbtrt's own Mon- 
 
 aslerv. 
 
 for I 
 
 lis oiyinion 
 
 oi 
 
 Kali an III tli 
 
 '■n.'iioon 
 
 wrote a treatise in -mswer to Kadb(^rl, whitdi luis c»une 
 down to lis; and in it he st'ls hiiiis-ll' t^> i oulLiie Kad- 
 l.H'fl'snew doctrine from reason, scripture, and t e Word 
 of (lod, ;is (Mriu'sily as I am duin.^ ti iiiij;hl. llr as.scrts 
 as the true Caiholie view, that •Mhe Bread and \\-iuf in 
 tin; KucharisI are die Bi»dy and Bhtod of < luisi, not in 
 the jiroper, or natural, but in a mysiical and spiritual 
 S(inse ; that the Bread is called His Body, because it is 
 thcirnai^e and fjied^t of Mis Body.";}: 
 
 II 
 
 e says 
 
 " P>oUi (the Jiread iinu vvitie) jis ihuy aic coi'|K)r;illy li:uidli'il, iiro iu 
 tlicir uauire corporal eitatur(.'& ; but according to their virtue, and what 
 they become biiiniiiiilly, Uicy are llie mysteries ul Christ'a ISody and 
 
 i'.h.'ud Wherefore as ihey are visible crealuret;, tliey leed the 
 
 uudy ; Init a,-; llify have Lhe virtue ol' a more j)(nvorful jiubtluuce, they 
 do Ijoth teed aud sauttil'y the soalrf oC the t'uitiit'ul." 
 
 {^'wvj, C'harles die Bahi also recpiested another still 
 
 ♦ Sec the Note at tlie end of this l^ennou. 
 
 f tlabaaua Maurus, A])p. of Mentz, and tho other two mentioned in 
 the text. 
 
 t Xeandcr, vol. vi., p. 214 ; ITardwiek's :>(iddle A^-e, p. 180; Harold 
 Browne, xxxix. Arth. p. C97 ; Up. ('osiu'.s Hist, of Trausub., pp. 110 — 118. 
 Freeman's PriucJ ' 3 of Divine" Service, Introd. to Pt. ii , pp. ;iG— 41. 
 
(31 
 
 more orniiifMit soliolar unci divino .Tol)n Scott, nn 
 Irish Monk, ilieii r<'.sicliti_i< ut his Couri, to write on 
 the .subject. He did so, }ils»» opposing nnd protessting 
 againnt the new doelrinc of lludherl — as did many 
 others in the eoiirsr ol' the next two centuries ; among 
 them our own /Elirie, Abp. ol York.* i he Controversy 
 went on — the new opinion of Transiibstanliation gradu- 
 ally gaining I'avor — until in the year 1215, in a council 
 held ;it Konie, it wtis (^fltablished by the Koniish Church 
 as an Artiele of Faith. 
 
 -Now, my bctiiien, whfn we can ij;o to History, and 
 place our finger upuu the ver\ man tliat first bronehed 
 this error oi' Transubstantialion — when we can read in 
 the books of tlie time full partieuhirs ol' the Controversy — 
 and trace \hv. growth of the new opinion until we find 
 it made a new Article of Fiiith, — il does seem to be a 
 little too much to jjsk ns to believe that it was held by 
 the Church froiu th<' lieginning. 
 
 Romish AdniisHions of the Nopeltif of Tranauhatantiation. 
 
 2. But let us go tart Iter back i'nd appeal to the netual 
 books ol' the Chrisii;in writers of the first 800 ye^rs after 
 Christ. ""Hial they did not iiold Triinsubst;inti;ilion is so 
 manifest, iliu! many of the most ('minetii Hoinish C^ontro- 
 versialists hav(^ confessed it. J'l'us AI])!!onsu-A (^Jistro 
 says, "there is seldom mention raat'e in llie ancient 
 writers of trnnsubslantiating the Bnad into the Body 
 of Christ. "f Dims >(>r)tus."j: suysthctt Un" <hiCtrine "was 
 not ancient," nnd thai "■ before' the Council of Lateran, 
 A.D. 121.5, it was no! an article o( faith." Bcllarmine 
 denies this, but himself only ventmvs lo elaim that it 
 was made an artiele of faith in the year A.D. lOhO. — 
 Gabriel Biel, says tiial '' liie doctrine of Transubstau- 
 tiation is not v ry ancient."- If ii i> not, lijerc is very 
 little use in out 
 
 ooking aurino;st the ancients for it. — 
 
 ♦ Soain-s" Anglo-Saxon Obnrcli, pp. 218, kc. JtHntwicli's Middle 
 Ago, p 18'?. 
 
 f Oe ll'i'i-., L'ib. viii., Col. ."mR E. Tlii? and the foUowintr admissiong 
 of ttomanitits arc quoted l\v Bp. U:ill, Jcv Ta^'lur, Abp. Rrainlutll and 
 all our great writrr.=: on the [;onv..sh controversy. 
 
 X As qu.*. 1 h> ]>ellann, df. 'ilucli., Lib. iii. cap. 23. See .ler. 
 Taylor's i?i'a'. Provence, Hecu xii. lii. nnd ^^i.'=sna?ive pt. i. cap. i. § r>. 
 
ill 
 
 «s 
 
 Jndeed Bcllarmino Hoems <|uile to jj[ive iip the point of its 
 antiquity, for he confesses that the language of the 
 fathers in many places contradicls it. Thus he says, 
 " It is no unusual thing with the ancients, and especially 
 Ireneeus, Hilary, Nissen, (Jyril and others, to say that 
 owr ftodics are nourished by the Holy Eucharist."* But 
 this is a flat contradiction of the Romish doctrine, which 
 teaches that the substance of Bread and wine being 
 entirely changed and gone, there is nothing to nourish 
 the body of the communicant — the Body of (Ihrist only 
 nourishing the soul. In another place, Bellaniune, citing 
 certain passages of the Fathers which contradict Tran- 
 substantiation, says, " It is not to be wondered at if St. 
 Augustine, Tlieodorct nnd others spoke some things 
 which s(H}m to favv)r the heretics."! liellarmine, of 
 course, tries to explain away llies(; words ' which seem 
 to favor the heretics,' and it is very easy for Bellarmine 
 to explain anything away, when, as you remember 1 
 showed last Sunday (ivening, ho can cite authors to 
 prove a doctrine in one chapter, and in his eiy next 
 chapter tell you that those authors did not hold the 
 doctrine at all. 
 
 Passages from the Fathers inconsistent icith Transuhstantiation. 
 
 3. The fathers say many things about the Holy Eu- 
 charist which, taken by themselves and away from their 
 context, can easily be made to seem to prove that they held 
 a corporal presence and Iran substantiation, but when you 
 have the context, you sec; at once that they meant the 
 words in quite a ditt'erent sense. The Church of England 
 says that " the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and 
 indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's 
 Supper." These words might be cited to prove that the 
 Church of England believed in a corporal presence ; but 
 when we compare the XXVIIIth. Art., in which she 
 says that there is no corporal presence, it is plain thai 
 she does not hold it. So all the strong passages in the 
 world could nevi-r prove; that a writer held Transubstan- 
 
 • Lib. ii. cap. 4. 
 
 t De Each. Lib. ii. cap. 25. 
 
63 
 
 tialiod it" he exprewsly says in <ni(3 piissaijc! that the 
 nature of the consecrated bread and wine in not 
 changed and that the bread and wine are a figure of the 
 Body of Christ. Judge, then, whether the following 
 writers* could have held llie liomish Transubstantia- 
 lion. 
 
 Tertullian, A.l). 200, says«, " In the sacrament Christ 
 gave bread as the figure of His Body, saying. This is 
 my Body, that is to say, Mie figure of my Body."f 
 
 St. Macarius, born A. J. 301, says, " In tlie Church is 
 oifered bread and wine, the anti-type (or figure) of 
 His flesh and blood, and they that partake of the; 
 bread that is seen, do spiritually eat the flesh of the 
 Lord."t 
 
 St. Gregory Naziazen, ordained Priest A. D. 362, 
 says, "Now we arc to be partakers of llie Paschal 
 Supper, but still in a figure, though more clear 
 than in the old law ; for the legal passover, I will not 
 be afraid to speak il, was a more obscure figure o/ a 
 figure.'" § 
 
 St. Chrysostom says, that " after consecration, though 
 it is called the Body of the Lord, yet the nature of bread 
 remains in it."|| 
 
 St. Augustine says so many things which contra- 
 dict Transubstantiation that it is hard to choose 
 among them, but take two extracts — Thus, he says, 
 " If the sacraments had not a certain resemblance 
 to those things whereol they are sacraments, they would 
 be no sacraments at all ; but from this likeness for the 
 most part they receive thenames of the things themselves^ 
 therefore, according to a certain manner^ the sac^rament 
 of the Body of Christ is the Body of Chist, the sacra- 
 
 * I may say here, ouce for all, that the following passages arc cited 
 (among others) by all our Icaiiied writers, and liave been vindicated 
 triumphantly times without number against all the exceptions of the 
 Romanists. 
 
 t Adv. Marcion. Lib. iv., cap. 40. 
 
 i Ilorail. xxvli. 17. 
 
 § Orat. xlv. §23. 
 
 ij Ep. ad Cocsarium Monach. Tom iii. p. 473. The genuineness of this 
 epistle is questioned by Romanists, but if not Chrysostora's it is cer- 
 tainly by a contemporary of his. Other passages, however, equally clear 
 can be cited from him. 
 
HllMianilllWM 
 
 I 
 
 J'' 
 
 64 
 
 ment of the Blood of Christ is 1lic Blood of C'lrist."* 
 And again, giving rules lor the inlerprelation of Scrip- 
 tar(>, among ollicrs he lays down lliis rale — "A precept 
 forbidding a crime, or commanding something good or 
 profitable, is not iignrative ; but if it seems to command 
 a crime, or iorbid a good, I'uin jt is figurative," Now, 
 raariv th<' ovampie from Scripture which ho gives. " The 
 words of Christ, -' Unless ye eat the ilesh of the Son of 
 Man,'' seeiri to couunand a wicJcedness ; it is therefore 
 a figure^ commanding us lo conmiunicale wiih the 
 passion of orir Lord, and swcf-ily and proiitably to lay 
 np in onr nunnory ihni \Ui< Ik-sh \vas crucified and 
 wounded ior us.''f I think it is clear tliat St. Augas- 
 line knew jiolliina of Transubstantiation. 
 
 The Fathers o/' ilir fifth Century ]>osithdy cnntyadict Tran- 
 
 suhstanliatiaa. 
 
 
 4. But there- is oiw. other proof tiiai the early GhristiaTis, 
 at iTis! up to tlic iriiiidle ol' the fifth century, knew noth- 
 inii of anv sub^lantiid change of !he bread and wine — a 
 proof which c^in ivver hi; e\j)lnitjed ••.wny. It is this. In 
 themiiidi'' of the tlfih cenliiry, whrit is called the l"]uty- 
 ciiian hficsy ;^:•o^.»•, Tiial hei-c-sy taught that in Christ, 
 (;d'i'r His asf.'en>iojii;,j there wus but oilt'««^{0"e, and Ihat 
 the Godhead ;u)d rnaniiood wer<^ blended together in His 
 Person, 'lie human nature beinii changed into thedivine, 
 Now, how did the oithoilox Christinn wriieis oppo.se this 
 heresv: Auiouy other ar^'uiaents, thcv urged this one, 
 that as in the Sv.ic.harist the bread und wine, though they 
 wore crdled die Hody aiid i-tiood of Christ, remained 
 >;iill nn(t,aug<'d in. their own ujilure ;in<l substiince, alter 
 consccriition, sn (.'hrisi'- humrm natur"was not tilumged 
 in;o thf divi: by Ik union widi liie Codhead. Hut, 
 if the (i-'«-iiiii, (v; iransubstantintio!) had !hen been 
 ht'hl, ur MiM\vn rirnoni: Christinn^, would the ortho- 
 d'!X have v!'!ilin."d upon •-u>' h an I'.rgument as this? 
 
 • Ep. arl r.oniC:u\ 
 \ Do I) .CUilui, L\h. V:\. (>. 15, ](■.. 
 
 1 A» Ui ilie !'.)no when !lii^ mnnliond was pwnltowcrt iii> by tlio Godlieftd, 
 ttif K^UyciiiiiiiH ;-opiris not to h.'ivr iufii Hgrci-il. 
 
65 
 
 If they had done so, what coald have been easier 
 than for the Eutychians to answer that the illustration 
 was entirely in their favour, and that as all Christians 
 believed that the bread and wine were changed into the 
 Body and Blood of Christ, really and substantially, so 
 ought they to believe that the human nature of Christ 
 was changed into the Divine ? What could the orthodox 
 have said in reply ? Nothing, they would have been 
 silenced. — This, then, I consider a demonstration. The 
 argument of the Fathers that, as there was no change of 
 the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist, 
 so there was none of the human nature of Christ into 
 the Divine, demonstrates, beyond all possibility of con- 
 tradiction, that Transubstantiation had not then been as 
 yet heard of among Christians. 
 
 I will only cite two short passages from those great 
 champions of the faith against Eutyches, one from a 
 Greek, the other from a Latin father. 
 
 Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, (about the year 450), 
 f^avs : — 
 
 " Obrist honoured the symbols aad signs which are seen with the titU 
 of His Body and Blood, not changing the nature, bat to nature adding 
 gfrace ...... For the Mystical signs [that is to say the Bread and Wine,] 
 
 do not recede from their nature ; for tboy abi^e in their prr^ytr subftanct 
 fiKure and form:' * 
 
 I hope this is satisfactory. 
 
 The Latin father I shall cite is Gelasius, Pope or 
 Bishop of Rome. Writing towards the close of the fifth 
 century, he says : — 
 
 " The Sacraments of the Body and Blcod of Ohrist, [i.e., the Bre«<l 
 and Wine,] are a Divine thing, for which reason we become by them 
 partakers of the Divine nature ; and yet, the substance of Bread and 
 Wim does not cease to exist, and the image and likeness of the Body and 
 Blood of Christ are. celebrated in Holy BTysteriei." f 
 
 To this as a proof of the belief of the Catholic Church 
 of that day, as a d«^monptration that the Church then held 
 
 * Dialog, i. Ed. Sirmond. Tom. iv. p. 11 ; Dial. ii. p. 65. 
 t D« duabus Nataria in Obrlito, quoted by Bp. Peanon, On the Crud, 
 Art. ill. p. 162, in a learned QOto, and by all oar ltarn«4 writers. 
 
J 
 
 MHMH 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 i i 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i ! 
 
 
 66 
 
 the contradictory of Transubstanliation, nothing can he 
 added. 
 
 And now I have done. I have again, in examining 
 this doctrine, appealed to Reason — to Holy Scripture — 
 to History ; and I have proved it to be unreasonable, 
 unscriptural, and unknown to the Catholic Church for 
 800 years. It is therefore a fable. It is, like everything 
 peculiar to the modern Church of Rome, a modern 
 novelty, not an ancient Catholic verity. It is contra- 
 dictory to Reason — the calm truth of History refutes 
 it — and it is " plainly repugnant to the Word of 
 God." 
 
 The idolatry of the Mass. 
 
 In conclusion, let me suggest an answer to a thought 
 that may be in the minds of some who hear me. * Alter 
 all — it may be said, Transubstantiation is only an 
 error in opinion, and can do no great harm to any one.' 
 Now, God is their judge, not we, and how far He may 
 excuse their errors we cannot tell — we pray that He 
 may impute none of them. But remember, (to pass by 
 all the other manifold practical evils that have flown 
 from Transubstantiation), that one direct and necessary 
 consequence of the dogma is the worship of the consecra- 
 ted wafer. Our own church does not hesitate to say 
 that " that is idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Chris- 
 tians." 
 
 77te miseraUe inaecmity cf Romanists, according to their aim 
 
 doctrine. 
 
 And here, if I coald have access to the uiembcrs of 
 that Church, I would earnestly appeal to them to con- 
 sider how entirely uncertain it must always be — even 
 assuming theii* own doctrine to be true — whether they 
 are not actually worshipping as God a piece of bread. 
 For the Romish doctrine of Intention unsettles every- 
 thing. No Romanist can have any fair or reasonable 
 assurance that he has been baptized, cr that he has 
 ever received any one of the Sacraments of his Clurch, 
 
o7 
 
 and, in particular, he never can be certain, when he 
 prostrates himself before the wafer, that it has been con- 
 secrated. 
 
 For consider how easy it is, according to the Romish 
 doctrine, to hinder the change of the bread. 
 
 If the Priest err in reciting the words of consecration 
 in any way whatever, (and if the Priest be timid and 
 nervous, or receive a sudden surprise, or be intem- 
 perate how easily may this happen !) there is no 
 consecration. If he leaves out a single letter, or 
 changes a letter, there is no consecration, and the peo- 
 ple never can know anything about it, for the Priest 
 is obliged to speak in a low voice so as not to be 
 heard. 
 
 If no such accident happens, yet he may not intend 
 to consecrate at all — or not all the wafers — he may 
 intend to mock — he may be a secret atheist — or a Jew- - 
 he may be an impious person and laugh at the Sacra- 
 ment — his attention may be distracted at the moment, 
 and he may not think of vrhat he is saying ; then, in all 
 these cases the people, (according to the Church of Rome) 
 worship only a piece of bread. 
 
 But if none of all this happens, yet if he is not a Priest 
 (" which often liappens," says Pope Adrian VI,) * of 
 course there is no c<]|,nsecration. But if he be not bap- 
 tized rightly, (which also depends on the Priest's inten- 
 tion), if there was any defect in his baptism or ordi- 
 nation, or in the baptism or ordination of him who bap- 
 tized him, or of him who ordained him, or of him who 
 baptized or ordained either of them, or in any one of all 
 the succession, from the Apostles downward — in all 
 these cases, by iheir own doctrine, the consecrator 
 is no Priest, the consecration of the Eucharist is not 
 effected, and rhe people worship an idol — a mere piece 
 of bread. 
 
 Bat, even if none of all this haopens (which is scarcely 
 possible), yet by the mere carelessness of the baker or 
 vintner tlio elfeet may be hindered — and the worship- 
 jjer;', by llicir own ('oe'rine, a.e betrayed into gross 
 idolatry. 
 
 • "Itot'tea bappeu3 that the Priest feigns to celebrate and does no) 
 celebrate, or feigns to celebrate and i? no Priest,'' — In qucest. quodlib 
 qu. 3 . q-.ioted by Bp. Jer. Taylor. 
 

 n 
 
 , 1 1 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 % 
 
 68 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that no Roman Catholic 
 can ever be reasonably sure, that what he is wor- 
 shipping is not mere bread, or indeed that he has 
 even received any sacrament al all; and this is con- 
 fessed by the most eminent Ro!)ianists. Thus Bellar- 
 raine says : 
 
 " No one can possibly be certain, witli tbu assurance of faith, that he 
 has partaken of a real Sacrament ; since the Sacrament is not effected 
 without the Priest's Intention, and no ono cnn poaaibly sec the intentioa 
 of another."* 
 
 And Andreas Vega say,s : 
 
 " No one can be sure, by faith, tlmt ho bus ever received even the 
 least Sacrament, There is no way by which, without a revelation from 
 God, we can cprtninly know the intention f i' the Priest. "f 
 
 Surely this is a pitiable cjondition to be in, and one 
 from which every Christian sljonld earnestly and con- 
 stantly pray to be delivered ! 
 
 For ourselves, let us bless God that " the net is broken 
 and we are delivered." Let us learn to prize the free- 
 dom and rich blessings of the pure Gospel of Christ. 
 Let us dwell in devout gratilude to God upon the cer- 
 tainty of faith and assured peace of conscience we 
 possess in this pure reformed branch of His church. 
 And let us ever hereafter, in kneeling at that Holy 
 Table, seek to enter more fully into the meaning of the 
 Apostle when he says, " We being many, are one 
 Bread and one Body, for we are ail partakers of that one 
 Bread." 
 
 • Non potest quis esse certus certitudine lidei, se percipere verum 
 sacramentum, cum sacramcntum siuc intentionc ministrinon conficiatur, 
 et intentionem alterius nemo videre possit. — Rellarm. de justific. 
 lib. iii. c. 8. 
 
 t Nemiui potest per lldcm constare se reccpisso vel minimum sacra- 
 mentum Nulla est via qua citra revclationem nosse possumus 
 
 intentionem ministrantis, vel evidenter, vel ccrto ex fide. — Andreas 
 Vega, Lib. ix. de justific, cap. 1 1. 
 
60 
 
 NOTE TO PAGE 60. 
 
 I haT-o given iu tlio text the account of the origia of Transub- 
 itantiation, which iy found in nearly all the best and most trustwor« 
 thy Church Histories, (such as Ncander, Dean Milman, [cold enough for 
 Gibbon himself,] Hardwick, and all the older Historians), and vrhich is 
 adopted by nearly all our great Divines. The learned ritualist, the 
 Uov. P. Freeman, however, in his Principles of Divine Service, (Introd. 
 to Pt. ii. § 5,) very earnestly controverts the truth of that account, 
 and after a careful reconsideration of the whole subject, I acknowledgo 
 myself a convert to his view. Mr. Freeman maintains, and, I think, 
 proves, that the error of Transubstantiation was not broached till the 
 eleventh century, and that Radbert's doctrine, though perhaps a step 
 towards it, was very far indeed from being identical with it. He shows 
 that Radbert did not teach the annihilation of the elements in their 
 proper nature ; that ho nowhere represents that the elements are no 
 longer food after consecration, nor S3 much as hints at Divine worship 
 being due to them ; and that he rejects as impious the opinion, so 
 boldly avowed after the Xlth century, that the Priest can create God 
 Almighty. It is ri^ht to add thatMr. Freeman's view was also that of 
 Bishop Cosiu, in his learned History of Transubstantiation, (p. 118, ed. 
 1840.) I noid hardly add thatMr. Freeman's statement of the histori- 
 cal question is much more damaging to Rome than the one given in the 
 text of my sermon. I desire here to record my deep sense of the value 
 of Mr. Freeman's Book, (with the exception of one or two points', and 
 my devout thankfulness that one so learned and in every way able as 
 he 18 at the same time so thoroughly loyal to the English Church. 
 
li 
 
 ! i^ 
 
 J |: 
 
 1 
 
 1 ' 
 
 ! 
 
 '1 ' 
 
 
 !■ ' 
 
 
 r 
 
 ; 
 
 1 
 
THE MASS. 
 
 HEBKEWS, X. 18. 
 
 " There iu no more offering for sin." 
 
 1 am to vindicate to-night the all-sufficiency of the 
 One Sacrifice for sins once made by the Son of God 
 upon the Cross against the Romish doctrine of the pro- 
 pitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. In doing so, I must 
 consider first the nature of that one sacrifi'^.e, and its 
 relation to all the sacrifices that went before it, and to 
 the appointed commemoration of it in the Holy Sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 1 . As we take our stand here this evening, and look 
 back to the beginning of the world, the Cross of Christ 
 stands out ever before us as the great central fact of the 
 world's history — a fact which explains all other facts, 
 removes all difficulties, and reduces what would other- 
 wise be a chaos to order and beauty. 
 
 The Cross of Christ and His one sacrifice made on it, 
 is the centre towards which everything else looks, round 
 which everything revolves. All false religions — the 
 religious systems and dogmas and rites and ceremonies 
 of paganism all the world over, which otherwise would 
 be but a revolting mass of confusion — are all explained 
 by the Cross of Christ, and themselves in their turn 
 illustrate and bear witness to it. But the true religions 
 of the world — the divinely appointed rites of religious 
 worship from the beginning until Christ came, and the 
 worship of the Church of Christ ever since — have, of 
 course, direct reference to the Sacrifice on Calvary. 
 
 ^ 
 
BS 
 
 72 
 
 : ! 
 
 H 
 
 U . 
 
 That the sacrifices o( the Patriarchs and Israelites wer^ 
 all of them most beautiful and instructive types of the 
 atoning death of Christ we see at once ; and it requiren 
 very little thought to discern that the great sacrament of 
 the Gospel, which " was ordained for the continual 
 remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ," has exactly 
 taken their place in the Christian dispensation. There 
 are, I suppose, very few Christians who do not discover 
 for themselves, by their own thoughts and reasonings, 
 and the study of God's word, that, all that the bloody 
 sacrifices of animals were to the faithful before Christ 
 came, the memorial of Bread and Wine in the Lor(!'» 
 Supper has been and is lo Christians ever since. 
 
 2. All the religions of the ancient world — the true reli- 
 gion and all the false religions — agreed in one thing, 
 and their agreement in that one thing is certainly most 
 remarkable ; they all agreed in worshipping God by 
 means of animal sacrifices. Not only, however, wan 
 there a perfect agreement in this one point of the offer- 
 ing of slain beasts, but there was also u wonderful and 
 striking coincidence in all the main outlines and in many 
 of the details of that sacrifieal worship, in all ages and 
 lands.* 
 
 This correspondence i.s abundantly .sufficient to estab- 
 lish the fact, that all sacrifices throughout the ancient 
 world had one common origin. That origin could have 
 been nothing else than God's own express appointment 
 of animal sacrifice, ns the means of communion v/ith 
 Himself. 
 
 3. Intotli'. whole subject of the Mosaic sacrifices I can- 
 not, of course, now enter. It will be sufficient for my 
 purpose to say that they all had a direct connexion with 
 the one oblation of Christ, which was to be in due time 
 offered once for all upon the Cross. St. Paul, in the 
 Hebrews, tells us that they were a shadow of good things 
 to come — that is, they foreshowed the redemption of the 
 world as fully and truly as it could b(; foreshown by any 
 earthly types. They also educated the world, and 
 especially the Jewish nation, in certain great principles 
 and doctrines. They were, moreover, we cannot doubt, 
 
 • Freeman's Principles of Diviuo Service, toI. ii , pt. ii., ^^4. 
 
 
73 
 
 ♦he means of actually conveying real spiritual blessings 
 and gifts of Ood's grace to those who faithfully used 
 them. 
 
 The uacriiice.s of the old world trained the men of 
 those days into u fitness to receive Chriyt when He 
 should come, and to understund the nature of His salva- 
 tion. Those ever-smoking altars and the ever-flowing 
 blood could not but teach them that in God's sight they 
 were sinful and polluted — that they were guilty of death 
 and exposed to its curse and penalty — that death could 
 only be undone by deaths the death of the guilty by the 
 death of the innocent — and that by means of the death, 
 and blood shedding of some Innocent Ont', lo come in 
 due time, a full and sufficient and reali\ satisfactory 
 atonement for sin would be mude. 
 
 All this was taught us well by the llcatiieii altuis and 
 sacrifices as by thf Jewish, buttlu^ natLuo of the coining 
 *ialvation was mvicli more fully and (-Icaily signified by 
 the Jewish Temple worship. The om' Altar, and le 
 only, lawful for the Jews in the whole world — the om 
 only High Priest, — the one only Fiic sent down ijy God 
 from Heaven, — the one ever repeated Daily iSaerifice of 
 n lamb without blemish— all this plainly trained them 
 into a fitness to understand that the One Christ the Son 
 of God, * by His one oblation of Himself once oftbred on 
 the Cross, made a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, 
 oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole 
 world.' 
 
 i. There was one feature of the Mosaic ritual, which it 
 is important here to remark upon — I mean ihe sacrificial 
 
 feasting. I hope that what I am now explaining is not 
 new to you. If you are accustomed carefully to read 
 
 your Bibles — your whole Bible — you will remember 
 that in certain sacrifices fhe offerer and his household, as 
 well as the officiating Priest, were U} feast u^jon the 
 
 flesh of the sacrifice. These were, first and chiefly the 
 Peace-ofterings, * and the oflerings made at the three 
 irreat annual Jewish feasts,f the Passover, the feast of 
 Pentecost, and the feast oi Tabernacles. All vows,J 
 
 • Lev. iii., especially verseb II — 19. 
 
 t Bxod. xii. Ler.xxiii. Deut.xvi. 
 
 X Ler. vii. IC, 17. Deut. xii. 6, 7, 17, 18, 27. 
 
i ^i 
 
 
 #1 
 
 74 
 
 besides voluntary free-will offerings,* were also of this 
 kind. 
 
 In the peace-oli'eringis the most important ceremonies 
 used were the^ie.f — The animal was presented to God 
 and slain by the ofTorer, its blood received and sprinkled 
 round the altar by tlie Priest, a part of the sacrifice 
 burnt upon the altar, and the rest solemnly and joyfully 
 t-aten by the Priest and by the offerer and his family. 
 
 Now, there is no Christian but must see at once that 
 this feasting upon \nv Passover Lamb and the many 
 other Peace-offerings was a most expressive type, first, 
 indeed, of our spiritual feeding upon Christ our Saviour 
 by faith with thanksgiving continually every day, but 
 more especially of our spiritual feeding upon Him in 
 ihe Holy Sacrament oi \hv Lord's Supper. The in- 
 tended rdfercp.ce to the irretit Gospel Feast of the 
 Kucharjsl mus' be especifilly plain, when w*e remember 
 the remavkablr iact, tliat, by God's appointment,^ offer- 
 ings of bread and wine w-ere an indispensable part of 
 those sacrificial feasts. With a part of the sacrificial 
 bread and wine on the table, at which He was celebrat- 
 ing t!;e Passorer did the Lord Jesus institute the Lord's 
 Supper, liius evidently putting it in the place of the 
 sacrificial feasts and sacrifices of llie Jews, for the use 
 of His Church to the end of tinif. 
 
 5. The question, then, whether the Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper can properly be called a sacrifice, seems 
 here to be answered. If it b(;ars the same, or a strik- 
 ingly similar, relation to the one-atoning and all-sufficient 
 Sacrifice of Christ ever since the d-ath of Christ, that 
 the Jew^jsh offerings bore to His sacrifice before His 
 death, then it evidently may be and is properly called a 
 sacrifice. 
 
 6. That tiie bread and wine — or rather, the whole ser- 
 vice of the Eucharist — completely and exactly answers all 
 liu purposes of the legal sncrifiees, every one can see. 
 Those sacrifices, .-^t. Paul 'ell^ ns, could never take 
 away sins — ihey kept up n remembrance of sins, which 
 tliev could never cancel. In themselves, they had no 
 value — no real, inlrinsieal value in God's sight. Their 
 
 • Lev. xxii. 19— -30. 
 
 r Lev. iii. ; yji. 11— 2S : xxii. 17- 
 
 :;: Num. sy. i — 12. 
 
 -33; Xiim. iv. 8 — 14, 
 
75 
 
 whole worth, as sacrifices, consisted iu their typical 
 relation to the one only propitiatory and all-sufficient 
 sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. They may have 
 served, and doubtless did serve, other blessed and 
 iniirciful purposes ; but in themselves, as sacrifices, they 
 were but types and shadows. They pointed forwards, 
 they did no more. — Do not the symbols of bread and 
 wine in the Lord's Supper answer the very same end ? 
 Are they not ordained for the continual remembrance of 
 the sacrifice of the Death of Christ ? And as represent- 
 ing, equally with the older sacrifices, the one sacrifice 
 of Christ, and pointing back to it and proclaiming it, 
 may they not bf as properly called a sacrifice ? 
 
 Many persons who have never really examined this 
 subject, have a vague general idea tliat ihere can be no 
 sacrifice, properly so called, unless thero is also the 
 sacrificial death of some living creaturo. Hut this is 
 altogether a mistake. L'nder \bv lav*- the meat-oflering, 
 which was m oftering of fine flour, oil, frankincense 
 aiid salt, or, of green ears of corn — the drink ofTering, 
 which was of wine — and o^her similar offerings, where 
 there v;as no living vielini, and no blood shed, were also 
 called sacrifices. A sacrifice is simply anything offered 
 to God.* Our prayers and thanksgi' ings are called 
 sacrifices in scripture ; so also a broken and contrite 
 h>?art, our own souls an J bodies, our good deeds, are 
 called and prop-rly are sacrifices. '• By Him let us offer 
 the sacrifice of praise to God continually. "' And again : 
 '*To do good and to communicate (or give alms) forget 
 not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased ?" 
 
 There can be no possible objection, then, to our call- 
 ing the Lord's Supper a sacrifice — and in point of fact 
 it has been so called universally from llie beginning, 
 both in ancient and modern times, in our own Prayer 
 Book we are taught tiiat the Lord's Supper was J' ordained 
 for the continual remembrance oi' \\u' saerifiop of the 
 death of Christ," that is, for the remembrance of 
 His death considered as a sacrifice, wiiieh was exactly 
 the purpose served by the sacrifices of the old law. In 
 
 • A kind and valued friend, who tlid me the favor to read over these 
 shec's, suggests the foUowiug as r moio complete definition :—•• A 
 sacrifice is simplj an offering to God, which to be accepted as u 
 lacrifice, needi onlvto be pprfect nnd completo of it3 kind." 
 
76 
 
 « 
 
 
 11 
 
 |i 
 
 1 ' 
 
 1 
 
 U ' 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 
 1 < 
 
 i: 
 
 J ' 
 
 !i 
 
 li i 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 . ^ 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 
 the Communion Ofliue, \vc expressly call the KuchariM 
 a sacrifice, whr3n wc pruy God to "accept this our boun< 
 den duty and service" — " our saerifice of praise and 
 thanksgiving." 
 
 7. Now, let Uic briefly «'xplaiii to you the sen»eii in 
 which the Holy i.'ouiiuunion may be rightly called a 
 Hacriiice — and this is the only way of showing how false 
 and unreasonable and unscriplural is ihc Roinish doc- 
 irine of the saciilice of tiic Mass. 
 
 The Eucharist may be called a sacritice. 
 
 1st. Becaust' of the alms always ollered to God in thi.i 
 service ; 
 
 2ndlv. Because of the saerifi( c of i)raver then offered 
 
 3rdly. Be ause of the >a(iili:'(' of praise and thanks- 
 giving then especiully pr"s.en!).v{ ; 
 
 ■Ithly. Beeau^ie oi the ^K^ifico oi tmr >oaL< and bodies, 
 whicii we iIkmi oiler a.ul preseiil to Go'.! ; 
 
 But lastly, and <;iiit'lly hecunsi' of the eommeiuoratioa 
 through the creatures of bread aiiti wine, of llie sacri- 
 liee of the death of Christ, wliich He Himself commands 
 ns then to make. 
 
 Into this last point i must enl'.r a little miir;; tuily, 
 because if yoti do nol quit<; luidersland it, you lose a 
 large part of tlu; spiritual benelit of the Lord's Supper, 
 and besides, without a knowledge of this, you never can 
 vmdersland hov/ the Romisli «U)Clrine of the Mass is a 
 coj-rnplion of the (,'ju'istian doctrine of the Lord's Sup- 
 per. Give me, thou, licre, your most careful attention. 
 
 For this purpose; I must ouee move ask you lo look 
 back to the Grand Saeriiicc itseli'. 
 
 What was the essential nature of the sacriiice which 
 Christ oliered to God in our behalf? It was, that for u» 
 He underwent death, by the shedding of his blood. It 
 was by the fact of that death that the redemption of man- 
 kind was effected, and man's own inevitable natural 
 death hindered from being everlasting. By His death 
 the curse was removtid from the world — from every 
 man. God wa.s brought back to a world alienated frora 
 Him as consciously unholy, and offensive to him as dead 
 in sin ; and man was restored to a capacity both for 
 life and holiness. AH this was effected, once for all, 
 
77 
 
 fully, perfectly, sufficiently, by Christ's death. When He 
 bowed His sacred head and said ^' It is finished," and 
 gave up the Ghost, that work was (jonipleto forever. 
 
 Yes, Chri!<t's sacrifice was then complete and finished, 
 but His Priestly work was but begun. For mark thf 
 words of the Apostle: "This man, because He con- 
 linueth ever, hath anunchangea]>le F'rieslhood ever 
 living to make intercession." " (Christ being 
 
 come an High Priest.... by hin own blood entered in 
 once into the Holy Place.-' " Christ is entered 
 
 into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of 
 God for us" * These verses clearly unfold to us the work 
 in which Christ, as our Plii-h Priest, is continually 
 engaged in the presence of God in Heaven. He appears 
 there /or us — making intercession for us — and that too 
 with His own blood — a work typified and foreshown by 
 the yearly entrance of the High Priest inio the Holy of 
 Holies. On that one day of rdl the year, the Jewish 
 High Priest, filling his hands with the specially prepared 
 incense, and taking with him also a censor full of coals 
 from off the Altar of meat-offering, entered into the 
 holiest of all, to sprinkle upon the very mercy-seat 
 covered with the cloud of incense, the blood of atonement. 
 Then was seen the perfect type upon earth of " Christ 
 entering into the Holy places not made with hands, 
 i!ven into Heaven itself with His own blood, now to 
 appear in the presence of God, making intercession for 
 us," — * True Priest, Tnie Sacrifice, presenting His 
 Church in Himself, through His all prevailing interces- 
 sion !' 
 
 This is what is ever going on in Heaven. The Throne 
 of God, the True Mercy-Seat, is ever covered with the 
 incense of Christ's intercession ; and the Blood, once 
 for all shed, is ever presented by Him for ns unto the 
 Father. He pleads ir on our behalf in Heaven ; and 
 we on earth in our own behalf, but in His name and 
 according to His appointment, plead before God the 
 same sacrifice, the merits and attoning efficacy of the 
 same blood. We plead it in our prayers, but we plead 
 it in the highest ol all senses, and in the most solemn 
 
 '^1 
 
 •Heb.Tli. 24,25; ix. 11, 12,24. 
 
78 
 
 hi f 
 
 m 
 
 Mi'.n tlio atoning death o\' His weil-bt'loved Son. 
 liien, in ihe assuranet 
 
 way in tiio Holy Eucharist. Then, in act, as well as in 
 words do wo pleaa it, when we place the appointed 
 memorial of th»» Oiie Sacrifice before God. There i» 
 I he bread and wine, Hia own ciiosen symbols of His 
 sacrificed Body and Blood. The Bread is presented to 
 Hira — Jt is consecrated and solemnly set apart for that 
 use — it is broken — the wine is poured out and placed 
 before God — and by those Hi?> own appointed acts, vvt, 
 do " sliew forth" — we remind God of, and plead before 
 
 And 
 ihui we have attained the for- 
 giveness and grace we souglit for, we feast together upon 
 I he symbolic'il bread and wine, feeding by faith with 
 thanksgiving la o^n- soni^ U|jo/> the Hesh and blood of the 
 Son of God. 
 
 Thus we ha\e ti;e iinaga on earth, of the perpetual 
 Priestly intercession of Christ our Lord in Heaven. 
 
 This is the sense in which -h'^ Holy Eucharisi was call- 
 (h1 a sacrifice by the old fathers, in the firsi ages of Ciiris- 
 tianitv : in this MJiise ali the great divines of onr own 
 ' 'hurch, ;aid the Protestant Divines of the Continent, 
 vviilingiy grant, and constantly teach that it is a sacrifice. 
 Vot a pnrpiiiatory sacrifice — for there can be but 07ip. 
 propitiatory -^icrilice for. sins — but a representative 
 sacrifice,) — a divinely appointed image oi the one great 
 sacrifice of Christ .)n the Cross and of His continual 
 ;^riestly int'irccs::;ion by His continual presenting lhat 
 .-ucrifice tbr us in Kei'V<'ri. 
 
 in 
 
 Refutation of tht pntendcd Projniiator>j Sacrifice 
 of the. Mass. 
 
 U 
 
 W' 
 
 : >' 
 
 " > 
 
 11. 1 must pass, now, from litis view of Christ^a 
 glorious and blossed work in Heaven, and His own ap- 
 pointed image of it on earth, to ihM fearful corruption 
 ■m<\ perversiou of it all. tlie Kornish sacrifice of iho 
 Mass. 
 
 The Mass is, ceriaiaiy, the lo t.d o: Ronie'>: covi-up. 
 tions — the most openly and Magranily -ind contemptu- 
 ous!} eontradietorv oi the p-jLitivcr dcciaraliiUi o' the 
 word of God. besides that it is an entire turning aside 
 of the institution of Clirist f*om its intended purpose. 
 
79 
 
 The Romish Doctrim of the Maaa Stated. 
 
 I shall begin as heretofore with a statement of the 
 doctrine to be examined, as it is laid down by the 
 Council of Trent, and the authorized books of the Church 
 of Rome. 
 
 The Council of Trent declares as follow.'?: 
 
 '' Because in the divine sacrifice which i^^ pcrfonued 
 in the Mass, the selfsame Christ is contained, and un- 
 bloodily oiaied, that oflered fiimself once upon the 
 Altar of the Cross ; the holy Synod doth leach, thai 
 this sacrifice is truly propitiatory. 
 
 " It is rightly offered, not only for the sins, panish- 
 nients and satisfactions and other necessities of the 
 faithful living, bat also for the dead in Christ, not as yet 
 luUy purged."* 
 
 The Catechism of the Council oi' Trent Utaciies as 
 follows: — "We conU;8s tiiat the Saeviiice of the Mass 
 is one and the same yacrifice ".vith thai upon the Cross, 
 since the victim is one and the same, n:;»uely, Christ our 
 Lord, who oflered Him'self once only, a bloodv sacriiicc 
 on the Ahar of the Cross. Tiie bloody and unbloody 
 victim is not two victims but one only, 'Aho.'*e sacrifice 
 is daily renewed} in the Eucharisi. f he Priest 
 
 is also the same Christ our l^ord ; the aiin inters who 
 oifer tlie ."Sacrifice, cons^cra.e the mysteii<»s not in their 
 
 own person but in the person of Christ, and thus 
 
 invested with the character of (.'hrist, the Priest ciianges 
 the substance of the Bread and wine into the substance 
 of Christ's real Body and BI:)od. The Holy Sacramen* 
 of lh(^ Mass, therefore, is not only a saciitico of praise 
 and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration oi" ihe Sacri- 
 fice of the Cross, but also a sacnfice of propitiation, by 
 whicli God is appealed and rendered propiious \ to us 
 The same Catechisiu, speaking of the causes ior which 
 the Encharist was instituted by Christ, as.signs ^hii< os 
 one, viz:— " That the (.'hurch might have a perpetual 
 sacrifice, by which our sins might be exp'aled, and our 
 
 * Ses3. xxil. cap. 2. 
 
 t " lastaiiratur." And again. (Ca:. Trid. cuij. xx., §7) " N'obU 
 visibile sacrificium reliquit, quo cnientjni illud, aomel in cnicp pftu^j 
 post immolandum, iiistauraretur." 
 
 * Catechism. Trident, cap. xx., §8. 
 
80 
 
 i;; ' 
 
 u 
 
 »■ : :i i 
 
 1 1 
 
 Heavenly Father, being often very greatly offended with 
 our siins, might be brought from anger to mercy ^ and 
 from the severity of a just punishment to clemency.^''* 
 
 The Council of Trent farther declares that "Masseji 
 sire to be celebrated in honour of the Saints in order to 
 obtain their patronage and intercession with God."f 
 
 I may here add Bellnrmine'.s definition of a sacrifice. 
 He declares that, " Ir every sacrifice there must be « 
 destruction of the thin^' offered. The consumption or 
 manducation whicJi is done by ti'c Priest is an essential 
 part of this sacrifice ; for in the whole action of the 
 Mass there is no other real destruction but this."| 
 
 The Rornish doctrine of the Mass, then, is this : — 
 
 J. It is all irroundod upon the Transubstantiation of 
 the Bread and wine into the very natural substance oi 
 the Body and Blood of Clirist — " their own literal and 
 proper physical selves." 
 
 They teMcij 
 
 2. That the cleiaents consecrated by the Piiest and 
 offered to God are a true and proper sacrifice. 
 
 3. That this sacrifice is, in the proper and fullest 
 sense, propitiatory ; by it God is appeased and rendered 
 propitious, is brought horn His anger to mercy, and from 
 the severity of a just punishnu^nt lo (demency ; and by 
 it our sins are expiated. 
 
 4. That it is offered for the sins, punishments and 
 satisfactions, not only of the faithful living but also of 
 the dead in Christ who are in Purgatory. 
 
 5. That it is also rightly offered up to the honor of the 
 saints, in order to obtain their patronage and intercession 
 with God. 
 
 G, Thai this .^arrifice i^; one and the same sacrifice 
 with thar upon the Cr as ;— and this is explained as fol- 
 lows :— The victim is the same Jesus Christ, the offerer 
 the same, Jesus Christ in the person of His Priests; and 
 the oh fail on oj ikr C'rufiH *> daily RENKWirn in the 
 Eucharisflc Mtcrijir >.'''' 
 
 7. Bellarmine teaches that the consumption or man* 
 ducal ion of the Priest is a real part of the sacrifice, for 
 by it the thmg offertd is desthoyed." 
 
 • Ibid., cap. IX. §7. 
 
 \ Sens, xxii., cap. 3, aud Canua ft. 
 
 \ B«llarm. de Missa Lib. i. c. a.* 
 
81 
 
 8. It is held lobe a completion of the sacrifice if the 
 Priest alone communicates, and thus private Masses are 
 continually offered by the Priests alone for the living and 
 the dead. 
 
 Protest of the Anglican Church against the Mass. 
 
 This is the Romish doctrine of the Sacrifice of the 
 Mass ; and now, in contrast with it, I place before you 
 the doctrine of the Church of England on this point, as 
 contained in the 31st Article : 
 
 ARTICLE XXXI. 
 
 " Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the cross. 
 
 " The offering of Christ once made is that perfect 
 redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for the sins of 
 the whole world both original and actual ; and there is 
 none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Where- 
 fore, the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was com- 
 monly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick 
 and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were 
 bhisphemous fables and dangerous deceits." 
 
 This protest of the Clmrch of England was first 
 adopted in .he spring of A. D. 1553, more than nine 
 years before the Session of the Council of Trent in 
 which the decrees concerning the mass were set forth ; 
 and it has bf -n maintained by her unchanged in all the 
 many n; views and revisals of our Prayer Book during 
 tlie last 300 years. The Romish " Masses for the quick 
 aad dead to obtain remission of pain and guilt," she 
 declares to be " blasphemous fables and dangerous 
 (h;ceits." Her teaching, as a loyal son of the church, I 
 am bound to maintain ; I shall therefore, now, make 
 every word of the above Protest good. 
 
 The Muss is built upon Transubstanliation, which has bcen^roved 
 
 to be False. 
 
 i. Now, in the firsi place, you will already have 
 noticed, that this whole doctrine of the Romish Sacrifice 
 of the Mass is built upon Transubstantiation. If Tran 
 substantiation were not supposed to be true, Rome 
 would newer pretend tlitil ilie Mass was a propitiatory 
 sacrifice, or that Christ was really offered in it for the 
 i|uick and the dead. 
 
 The decree of the Council ol Trent begins with thcic 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 words, " Because in tliis divine yacrific(! which is per- 
 formed in the Mass, the aelf same Christ is contained 
 that offered Himself once upon the Altar of the Cross, 
 the Holy Synod doth teach that that sacrifice is truly pro- 
 pitiatory." If then, Transubstantiation is laken away — 
 J it is proved that there is no such substantial change 
 of the bread and wine into the self-same Christ that died 
 on the cross — the pretended sacrifice of tne mass 
 falls to the ground. But I have already demonstrated 
 the falsehood of Transubstantiation ; nothing more, 
 therefore, remains 1o be done . The pretended founda- 
 tion of the Mass, wiiich is Transubstantiation, being- 
 proved to have no existence, the Mass itself is at once 
 seen to be fabulous. If there is no corjwral presence 
 of the Body of Christ, no substantial change of the 
 Bread into tlie substance of His physical Body, there 
 can be no trm; and proper ollrring again of that body. 
 Transubstantiation being overthrown, all the vast pile 
 built upon it falls too ; — Masses to make God propitious 
 and to expiate our sins — Masses to take thv dead out of 
 Purgatory — Masses in lionor of Saints and Angels to 
 obtain their patronage and intercession with (iod — all 
 these fearful and heatlienisli superstitions tumble into 
 the dust together. 
 
 ii. Nevertheless,! shall proceed to show that this doc- 
 trine of the Mass is, by itself, uiiscriptural, unreasonable, 
 and uncatholic ; that like the rest ef llonic's own peculiar 
 doctrines it positively eontradictl^ the plain h'tter ol 
 scripture, was utterly unknown to the Church for ages, 
 and is, in fact, altogether an invention of modern times. 
 
 TVie Mass is S elf -contrd dietary and Unreasonable. 
 
 I. Let me ask you to glance, in the first place, at the 
 perplexities and inconsistencies of the doctrine itself. 
 
 And at the outset, does it not seem to be a most 
 blasphemous and revolting thiiig, to say, that a mortal, 
 sinful man can first make his God, the glorious and 
 Almighty God, out of Bread, and then eat Him, or — as 
 Bellarmine hesitaies not to say- -f/cv/?")?/ Him ? Is this 
 reasonable, or is it utterly abhorc nt to our reason ? If 
 this had b(>cn the doctrine of the early Church might 
 not the heathen have retorted upon them, — " You reprove 
 us for worsliipping gods which can neither see, nor hear, 
 
 Ml 
 
83 
 
 nor taste, nor smell ; — why may not we, as well as you ^ 
 You first make your God, and that of bread — you then 
 worship Him — and then devour Him !" And what 
 wc'uld the Christians have had 1o answer ? 
 
 Then, next, they call iheir sacrifice, an unbloody 
 sacrifice ; but how can it be an unbloody sacrifice, if 
 the very, natural blood of Christ which was shed is 
 literally there ? This is a contradiction. 
 
 Again, it is said that the sacrifice of the Altar is the 
 same with that of the cross. But how can that be, when 
 Chri?'.'s natural deatlr was the very essence of the 
 Sacrifice of the Cross ; when the blood-shedding and 
 death was that which gave His Sacrifice all its value, 
 so that, as Rome confesses, without it there would have 
 been no propitiatory sacrifice at all ? It is not pretended 
 that in the Mass tiicre is a repetition of the death of 
 Christ. Is it not, then, a plain contradiction to say that 
 it is a renewal or repetition of the very same sacrifice 
 which was oftereu on the Cross, when the most essen- 
 tial part of that sacrifice, namely, the death of the 
 Victim, and the shedding of blood, are wanting? Even 
 granting Transubstantiation, for the sake of argument, 
 it is contrary to all sober reason to say it is the ; arae 
 sacrifice. Look at the dilferenee which Rome herself 
 grants to be between the two. The One Great Sacrifices 
 was ofibred by Christ; it was a bloody sacrifice — its 
 very essence was the shedding of blood, and the pouring 
 out of Christ's soul unto death, as the price of our 
 redemption. Bui in the Mass, according to Rome's own 
 teaching, there is no shedding of blood, no suft'ering, no 
 death, no redemption. The; most essential, the all im- 
 portant parts of the Sacrifice of llie Cross are not there. 
 How, then, (;an it be the same sacrifice'^ — How can ii 
 be reason to say so ? 
 
 Again, Rome teaches that the Sacrifice" of the Mass is 
 a perpetual sacrifice to expiate our sii;-, and to turn 
 away God's anger; and yet she says au'ain, liiat Christ 
 by His death paid ^he, full prie;' of our redemption, and 
 bore all our sins in Hi-^ own body.' — Here, again, is a 
 plain contradiction. If it is \\\v. very same sacrliicc as 
 
 • " By tliat oue Sacrilico upon the Cross Christ haa furnished the full 
 rausoiti, rcdemiition and remedy for all the sing of tlie world." — Xote in 
 Douay Bible on Hch. i.x. I'J. 
 
84 
 
 that of the Cross — a renewal ol that sacrifice — then it 
 must be for the same purpose. But if the death of 
 Christ on the Cross was the full price of our redemption, 
 what more is needed ? Then, the sacrifice of the Mass 
 is utterly useless. 
 
 Finally, — it is said that this sacrifice is to be offered 
 up " in honor of the saints to obtain their patronage and 
 intercession !" What ! The crucified Redeemer, the 
 f^ord of glory, the glorified Godman Christ Jesus, offered 
 up as a sacrifice by human beings to the honor of other 
 human beings — the Saints, 1o obtain their patronage and 
 intercession! Is this Christianity? Can it be possible 
 tliat these words were spoken by Christians — or is not 
 this rather a pagan speaking of the sacrifices he offers 
 up to appease his gods many and lords many ? — My 
 Brethren, is this agreeable to reason ? Is it possible to 
 believe that Cod ordains tliat He Himself should be 
 offered by us, as a sacrifice in lienor of saints — dead 
 men — 1o obtain their patronage and intercession ? Is it 
 not, rather, rightly styled a blasphemous fable 9 
 
 This, then, is not a reasonable doctrine. Here agaij, 
 as reason is utterly irreconcileable witli Trarisubstantia- 
 tion, the foundation, so it utterly revolts against the super- 
 slrueturcjthe pretended propitiatory syerificeof the Mass. 
 
 Tae propitiatorij sacrifice of the Mass has no foundation in 
 
 Hoi II IScrijdurc. 
 
 II. Let us proceed to examine the Mass by the light of 
 Holy Scripture. The dclcndj^rs of Ihe doctrine bring 
 lorwaid several pa-sages to prove it ; but some of them 
 are nothing to the point, as many of their own doctors 
 t^Uow ; and others, if they can be understood to speak 
 of a sacrifice under the Gospel at all, do certainly not, 
 (nor is it j)r('lended), assert that it is the same identical 
 sacrifice with that ol Christ on the Cross. Indeed if 
 we grant them every text they <t!aini, those l(,'xts would 
 make nothing at all in their favour..* I shall, therefore, 
 
 * I have been requested to refer briefly to those passages, that it may 
 be known exactly what testimony of Scripture is offered to us in siip- 
 jiorl of the Mass. 
 
 1. The first place of Kcri))tiire wiiich tliey allege is Genesis, xvi. 18, 
 compared with lleb. vii, I. " Melclii/eilek met Abraham and blessed 
 him, and broiiffhl lorlli Ureud iiud Wiuo, and he was the Priest of 
 
85 
 
 not waste your time with looking into those passages, 
 one by one, but shall lake the more summary mode ol 
 showing that the pretended sacrifice of the Mass is 
 utterly contradicted and overthrown by plain opposing 
 testimonies of Holy Scripture. 
 
 The Mass is flagrantly contradictory to the plain letter of the 
 
 Word of God. 
 
 Above all the other corruptions of the Church of 
 Rome, the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice of the 
 Mass is unscriptural. It is not as if Holy Scripture 
 were silent on the subject. It is not that a few express 
 
 the most high God." Hence they argue that Melchizedek offered sacri- 
 fice of Bread and Wine, typifying the sacrifice of the altar ; and that 
 therefore the Lord's Supper must be a true sacrifice. — Supposing we 
 grant this, it proves nothing, except that the Holy Eucharist is a sacri- 
 fice, which we do not deny. They do not pretend that it proves that 
 the Eucharist is a real offering again of the Body of Christ for sin. 
 That must be proved separately. However, that this was no sacrifice at 
 all, but only bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham's army, 
 is the opinion of many eminent Romanists, among others Cardinal 
 Gajetan, and Cassander. Another Portuguese divine, Georgius do 
 Atarde, in the Council of Trent, argued strongly against trying to prove 
 the Mass from this and other Scriptures. Saliaerun, another divine of 
 high standing among them, gives up the Scriptures, and places the 
 Mass among those apostolical traditions which wero not committed to 
 writing. 
 
 2. They next produce this passage from the prophet Malachi, (i. 11.) 
 " My name shall be great among tlie Gentiles, and in every place incense 
 shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering." But, granting that 
 this is a prophecy of the Holy Eucharist, what does it prove ? Nothing 
 to their purpose. It simply would i)rove that il fs- a sacrifice, which we 
 do not deny, but it says not a word of a real offering in the Eucharist 
 of the natural Body of Christ, for the sins of the quick and the dead. — 
 However, TertuUian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Theodoret and others of the 
 Fathers, expound this place of such spiritual sacrifices as prnyer, and 
 praise and good works, witiiout a single word of reference to the Holy 
 Eucharist ; and thus Rome, by her own rule of interpretation, is exclu- 
 ded from alleging the passage at all. 
 
 3 They allege the words of Glirist to the woman at the Well of 
 Samaria, " The hour cometh Avhon ye shall neither in this Mountain, nor 
 yet at Jerusalem, worship tho Father." — It re(|uire3, .as you may well 
 imagine, a great deal of e\ plana' ion indeed, to find the sacrifice of the 
 .Mas?, in this passage. It is not so plain a proof of it as to convince us. 
 
 4. They produce the words of Christ in instituting the Eucharist. 
 But the whole value of the argument depends upon whether we arc to 
 find Transubstautiatiou la those words. If not, they can prove no 
 more than a commcnioralivc sacrifice, wliich we do not deny. 
 
 From this it is plain that they are not able to bring forward anything 
 to the purpose from the Scriptures ; and accordingly, as 1 showed .above, 
 some of their learned men candidly confess that the sacrifice of the 
 Mass is not to be found in the Scriptures at all . 
 
86 
 
 Cc 
 
 If. 
 
 passages onli/ contradict it, a.s in the case of Transub- 
 stantiation and Purgatory. But the Mass is as openly 
 and plainly opposed to the principal argument of at 
 least one entire Book of the Bible, as if the writer of 
 that Book had set himself to confute it. The whole 
 argument of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews is as full 
 and complete a refutation of the Mass as it could have 
 been if the Apostle had written the Book for that very 
 purpose. 
 
 Mow, tliere are some points in religion about which 
 we are but scantily informed in the Holy Scriptures. 
 We liave to gather the scripture doctrine, on some points, 
 irom a careful weighing and comparison of disjointed 
 passages, and hints lot droj) undesignedly as it were. 
 This is lio blemish in Ploly Scripture, it is only an addi- 
 tional proof of their genuineness. When the design of 
 the sacred writers did not lead them naturally to speak 
 unon a particular doctrine at any length or with precision, 
 we do not cxpecl clear and full instructions. 
 
 But, on ilie olhor hand, in some cases the sacred wri- 
 ters set themselves jn'ofessedly and earnestly to the task of 
 giving us Jnsruciion on a particular subject; and when 
 tiiey do, it will be hard to persuade us that the most 
 important j)arl of that subject can have becm left entirely 
 unnoticed. 
 
 Now remember the ])kice which the Mass occupies 
 in the present Churcli of Rome. It is by far the most 
 ])romiuenl ])ortion of her religious system. The great 
 distinguishing work of her Priests is to offer up this 
 sacrifice. Can we, ihcin, believe, tliat,if the Romish doc- 
 trine were true, and the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass 
 held tlie same ])lace ctf prominence and importance in 
 the Apcxsloiic Church which it does in the modern 
 Church of Rome, th<' Apostle Paul, when teaching 
 t'xpressly, and in no less than six successive chapters 
 of iiis Kpistle to tiie Hebrews, of the Priesthood and 
 aacriiice of Christ, could have been entirely silent on the 
 subject? No, that would be impossible. Much less 
 could he — if the Mass were true — plainly, and pointedly, 
 and repeatedly contradict and oj)p»)se it. 
 
 Let MS look into this argument, and consider what he 
 says : 
 
 
8: 
 
 St. Paul's Argument against any more Offering for Sin. 
 
 He saith : — " Christ, by His own blood, entered in 
 once into ihe Holy place, having obtained eternal re- 
 demption for us," Hcb. ix, 12. If He obtained eternal 
 redemption^ He ncod not be offered daily to " expiate 
 our sins." So the Apostle argues : — " Nor yet," says 
 he, " that He should oflbr Himself often, as the High 
 Priest entereth into the Holy place every year with the 
 blood of others ; for then must He often have suflered 
 since the foundation of the world ; but now once (for 
 all) in the eyd of the world liath He appeared \o\put 
 away sin* by the saciitice of Himself," ix. 25, 26. Here 
 we are expressly told that there is no need for Christ to 
 offer Himself often; for then, argues the Apostle, "He 
 must have often suifercd." It is plain from this that 
 Christ cannot be offered as a propitiatory sacrifice with- 
 out suffering. Therefore he must either suffer in the 
 Mass,which Rome denies, or else not be offered there as 
 a propitiatory sacrifice at all. 
 
 Next, we are expressly told that His offering of Him- 
 self is once and once only. " By one offering He hath 
 perfected for ever them that are sanctified," x. 14. 
 '* As it is appointed unto men once to die, so Christ was 
 once offered 1o boar the sins of many," ix. 21, 28. 
 "• Christ offered one sacrifice for sins for ever," x. 12. 
 
 Finally, as the conclusion of his argument and as if 
 to exclude all possibility of such a corruption as this 
 of the Mass, the Apostle says, "there is no more 
 
 OFFERING FOR SIN," X. IS. 
 
 H 'v amazing, how dreadfully presumptuous is the 
 llomisi. contradiction of these words of Holy Writ ! 
 Thus saith the Holy Ghost, " /^ere is no more offering 
 for siny But what saith Rome?— "If any one shall 
 say that the Sacrifice of tfie Mass is not propitiatory, 
 and that it ought not lo be offered for the living and the 
 dead for sins^ let itim be accursed !" Ought we not 
 to tremble as we hear this blasphemous anathema, — so 
 evidently directed against the very wo^ds of the Holy 
 Ghost Himself ! 
 
 But listen again to the Apostle, — " We are sanctified," 
 saith St. Paul, " by the offering of the Body of Jesus 
 
 * "Fortho deatruction of siu,'' Douay Version. 
 
88 
 
 . >• 
 
 Cliriai once for all," x. 10. And llion, in lliu very nexl 
 worcli^, the Apostle contrasts this one all-sntiicieni sacri- 
 fice, with the daily sacrifice of tiie Mosaic economy ; — 
 " And every priest standeth daily ministering, and offer- 
 ing oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take 
 away sins; but this man, after he had otUred one sacri- 
 fice for sins for ever, sal down on the right hand of 
 God,'*- X. 11, 12. — Now, could anything in human 
 language, be a plainer contradiction than this is to the 
 Romish Sacrifice of the Mass? Christ offers "one 
 sacrifice for sins for ever" — and then — what then? 
 Then, says Rome, He offers the same sacrilec again and 
 again, thousands and millions of times, — Himself, in 
 the persons of His priests, renews and repeats the Sacri- 
 fice of the Cross — Himself offers Himself — the same 
 victim, the same Priest, liut so saith not the Apostle. 
 *' Then," says St. Paul, " He sat down on the right hand 
 of God." — He sal down^ resling from the work of offer- 
 ing, because the work was done. And the Apostle's 
 final conclusion is, " wliere remission oj sin is^ tueui: 
 
 IS NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN 
 
 r 
 
 Could anything, my lircthron, be more satisfactory 
 than this ? Here is a long, elaborate argument, to prove 
 that the one sacrifice of Clirisi was full, perfect and 
 sufficient — that it put away sin once for all — that (in 
 the words of the Douay Vesion) it destroyed sin, and 
 exhausted the sins of many — tliat it perlecled for ever 
 them that are sanctified — that it needed not to be 
 repeated, and that if i1 were to be repealed, Christ must 
 often have suffered — that by His own blood He entered 
 in, once for all, into the Holy place and then^ sat down, 
 thenceforth waiting till His enemies be made His foot- 
 stool — that He offered one sacrifice for sins for ever — 
 and that there is no more sacrifice for sin. Is not 
 each one of these sentences utterly contradictory of the 
 Romish Mass? Can it possibly be believed, by any 
 reasonable person, that th(? Apostle himself, who thus 
 wrote, was a Romish Priest, and was himself daily 
 offering up to God, as a pro})itiat()ry sacrifice for the sins 
 of the living and the dead, the very same sacrifice thai 
 Christ offered on the Cross ? — The absurdity of such a 
 supposition is altogether too glaring. 
 
89 
 
 
 Thus Uomo is lound direclly and deliberately con- 
 liadicling the Word ol" God. 
 
 But, it may be said, Rome musl have some way of get- 
 ting over this diffieulty ; how does she do so? She gets 
 over it, Brelhnm, by setting hersedf deliberatily to 
 destroy the supreme authority of God's word. 
 
 Rome loves not Christian Antiquity, 
 
 But if she destroys the supreme authority of God's 
 word, what does she leave us, as tiie foundation of our 
 faith and hope ? Does she leave ns the testimony of a 
 pure ehristian anticjuity ? 
 
 Rome loves not Christian antiquity, much as the un- 
 learned crowd of her defenders boast that the Romish 
 is the old religion. Rome in modern times has been 
 (juite driven out of antiquity and her most able defenders 
 have openly given it up. They have abandoned anti- 
 quity as they have abandoned scripture, and have 
 invented a new theory to explain to us how it is that we 
 do not find the modern Romish system in either Holy 
 Scripture or Christian antiquity. This is called the 
 theory of develoj)ement, by which everything is made 
 smooth — or rather, to speak the truth, by which con- 
 fusion is made worse confounded and the way to utter 
 infidelity is made plain. 
 
 h the Doctrine of the Mass found in the Fathers 
 of the Early Church ? 
 
 III. Let us, however, look into anticjuity for the Romish 
 Sacrifice of the Mass. " Transubstantiation," says the 
 great Romish Schoolman, Duns Scotus, " is not very 
 ancient." — How then, I add, can the Mass be ancient, 
 which is, by Rome's own showing, built on Transub- 
 stantiation ? — Here the anti(}uityof the Mass is given up. 
 
 But there is another test of the opinion of the ancients. 
 Among the t)ld pagans, as 1 told you at the beginning of 
 Ihis discourse, sacrifices were universal. It was, there- 
 fore, a great stumbling-block to them, that the Christian 
 Religion had no visible sacrifice, and they constantly 
 cast it in the teeth of Christians, "that they must be 
 atheists because th(\y had no sacrifices." 
 
 this objection .'' — The 
 
 How did the Clirislians answer 
 Church of Rome would have known Jiow to answer it 
 had she been then what she is now, for that is the 
 
 very 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 K 
 
 I.I 
 
 -1^ |Z5 
 
 Hi 122 11' 
 
 12? 
 
 no 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.25 i 1.4 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 '/ 
 
 >!^ 
 
 Hiotographlc 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 33 VVIST MAIN STREET 
 
 V'EBSTER.N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 4^ 
 
•^<Sf 
 
 K^ 
 
 ""^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 1^0 
 
 vV 
 
 !^ 
 
90 
 
 question with which she seeks to silence us. ' You 
 have no Priest, no altar, no sacrifice, and therefore no 
 Church.' All she woul have had to do would have 
 been to explain, that in the Mass there was a true propi- 
 tiatory sacrifice of the Godman, Christ Jesus, continu- 
 ally madeupon the altars of the Churches. If Rome had 
 been then what she is now, it is evident that such an 
 objection never could have been thought of, Priests, 
 altars and sacrifices, being the most prominent part of 
 her religious system. 
 
 But how did the early Christians answer the objec- 
 tion ? — They answered it just exactly as we, my Breth- 
 ren, answer the Romanists now, by asserting that they 
 had sacrifices, true sacrifices, and far better and more 
 acceptable to God than any mere material sacrifices, 
 namely, spiritual sacrifices — the sacrifices of prayer and 
 praise, and alms-giving, and pure hearts and holy lives 
 This was tl\eir answer to the Pat ans — but of the Propi- 
 tiatory Sacrifice of tlie Mass, we find not a word among 
 them. * 
 
 The Ancients did all of them speak of the Holy Eu- 
 chaiist as an offering and a sacrifice — but then it was 
 always in such a way as to show plainly that they knew 
 nothing of the Romish sacrifice of the Mass. They 
 spoke of it as a sacrifice of praise — as a sacrifice of 
 alms and thanksgivings — as a commemorative sacrifice^ 
 a memorial of the one sacrifice of Christ on the Cross — 
 but never as a repetition or renewal of the one great 
 sacrifice, and they never spoke of it as propitiatory. 
 
 And here 1 shall cile one testimony, and one only lo 
 conform this point. 
 
 Theodoret, (A. D. 430), writing upon tlie Epistle to tlic 
 Hebrews, i^ays : — " But here the following questions 
 may be asked : Since the Levitical Priesthood has now 
 come to an end, — and since He who is t lie High Priest 
 according lo the order of Melchiezedek, has offered His 
 sacrifice, and has made otlu^r sacrifices to be needless, 
 how is it that the Priests of the New Covenant perform 
 the mystical ministration, (that is of the Holy Eucharist) ? 
 The answer is Ihis. It is well known to all that are in- 
 structed in divine things, that w(^ do nol offer any other 
 
 •See this proved at length in Wntcrlarul, on tho Kucii., cap. xii,and 
 his Distinctions of Sacrifices, sect. f). 
 
91 
 
 sacrifice, but we execute the commemoration of the one 
 sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross. For the 
 Lord commanded us to do so, saying, Do this in remem 
 brance of Mc." Now, mark what follows, my Brethren. 
 " And this we do, in order that by contemplation we 
 may call to mind the figure of the sufferings which He 
 underwent for us, and may stir up our love towards our 
 Benefactor, and await the fruition of the good things to 
 corned I could easily cite passages to this same effect 
 from every Christian father for nearly 1,000 years after 
 Christ ; but this one will suffice ; for it affords abundant 
 proof that the Church of that day knew nothing what- 
 ever of the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. 
 
 Bislwp Jewel's Challenge. 
 
 Antiquity, then, knew nothing of the M ass. Antiquity 
 
 has been well searched by Romanists to find mention of 
 
 the Mass ; but there is none, and so none can be found. 
 
 More than 300 years ago, our great champion Bishop 
 
 Jewel, made the Romanists this public challenge at 
 
 Paul's Cross in London : 
 
 " If any learneA men of our adversaries, or if all the learned men 
 that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any 
 Catholic Doctor or Father, or out of any old general council, or out of 
 the Holy Scriptures of God, whereby it may be clearly and plainly 
 proved, that there was any private Mass in the whole world at that 
 time for the space of 600 years after Christ — or, that there was then 
 any communion ministered unto the people under one kind— -or, that 
 the people was then taught to believe that Christ's Body is or may be in 
 1000 or more places at one time— or, that the Priest did then hold up 
 the sacrament over his head — or, that the people did then fall down 
 and worship it with Godly honor — or, that it was lawful then to have 
 30, 20, 15, 10 or 5 Masses said in one Church in one day, &c., &c., Ac, I 
 promise that I will give over and subscribe unto them." 
 
 This challenge never has been answered, and never 
 will be, for it cannot ; there is no mention of any one 
 point of Popery in any one writer of ail sincere Chris- 
 tian antiquity. 
 
 The destructive character of the Church of Rome. 
 
 The Holy Scriptures, Rigiit Reason, Cliristian Anti- 
 quity all failing — on what ground does Roiue now invite 
 us to enter her pale ? 
 
 What ground, — can there bi^ any other? Can it 
 be that she is not willing to leave to us the solid 
 foundation of these three great pillars of the Chris- 
 
92 
 
 tian Faith, — llio Scriptures, Reason, and the testi- 
 mony of Antiquity? No, none of these. Reason's 
 eyes must hi put out, if Rome is to stand. The Holy 
 tjcriptures must be silenced, because those sacred 
 oracles refuse to be in her hand, what her most honored 
 sons have profanely called them, " a nose of wax," and 
 " a flexible rule of lead." Thewritings of the Fathers 
 must be corrected, or rather corrupted, and when tuat 
 fails, through the progress of learning, the Fathers them- 
 selves slandered and depraved as ignorant and heretical.* 
 What then remains to us ? The present voice of the 
 so-called infallible church — between that, she tells us, v/e 
 must choose and infidelity. Is it any wonder then, 
 that, when that voice is itself so inconsistent and con- 
 tradictory, when its utterances are so monstrously 
 unreasonable — when nothing less is demanded that that 
 man, believing what is contradicted by his senses, his 
 reason and his conscience, shall cast himself down be- 
 fore the feet of men altogether like himself, and receive 
 their every word as infaUibie truth — is it any wonder, I 
 say, that, when this is demanded, in the name of God 
 and His Christ, all failh in God and Christ should be 
 thrown away, and a refuge sought in utter unbelief ? 
 For, is it not known that the great mass of the intel- 
 ligent men among the laity in all Roman Catholic 
 countries are unbelievers ? 
 
 77ie Security of the Anglican Church. 
 
 But, thank God, Brethren, we are not left to choose 
 between Rome and infidelity. We have the pure and 
 undefiled Gospel of Christ — scriptural, reasonable and 
 Catholic — in a Church truly Catholic and Apostolic. 
 What has Rome to offer us that is good, which we have 
 not already ? We have the pure Gospel, which Rome, 
 unhappily, has not to offer us — would to God she had ! 
 — the true Catholic Faith, in all its original simplicity 
 and beauty, as it is proposed to us in the Holy Scriptures, 
 as it is set forth in the throe Creeds, and as it was held 
 and taught by the Catholic ('liurcli throughout the whole 
 world for many hundreds of years — yes, Rome's best and 
 ablest champions being llie witnesses. We have the 
 
 * See this abundantly i)rovcd in Wordsworth's Letters to Gondon, 
 Series i. and ii 
 
93 
 
 Sacraments, duly administered, by a lawful Ministry, a 
 Ministry purely derived from the Apostolic Church — 
 which Rome does not, as she cannot, deny. We have a 
 pure and noble Liturgy, which our Church received in 
 the earliest ages of Christianity, from the East, from 
 Asia, neither from nor through Rome. We have the 
 rites, ceremonies and usages that were in the Church in 
 her earliest and purest days. We have in our hands iht; 
 Holy word of God, in our own mother tongue, and v o 
 are so far from being cautioned against it as a dangt; /us 
 book, that in nothing do the clergy labour moro im to 
 induce us to search it and study it. We have tims a 
 well-grounded, reasonable belief of all the nrticles of 
 the Christian faith. We believe them on the authority 
 of the Hbly Word of God, and on the testimony of a 
 pure Christian Antiquity ; we believe them, also, because 
 they are most agreeable to the principles of Reason, and 
 the voice of Conscience. We have, thus, the utmost cer- 
 tainty of faith, which brings with it an assured peace of 
 mind. We have peace and joy in life, and a hope full of 
 immortality, a hope which sustains us and takes out of 
 death its sling, because we know Whom we have 
 believed, and are persuaded that He is able to keep that 
 which we have committed to Him — our souls, which, if 
 we must die before He comes, we ommit at death into 
 His hands without fear — we know that He is able to 
 keep them until " that day." To give up all this our pre- 
 cious and glorious -inheritance — of which we confess 
 ourselves most unworthy, and that we have indeed come 
 short in the use of it, of the glory of God — to give it all 
 up for what Rome has to offer us — would be to give up 
 light for darkness — hope for despair — peace for perpet- 
 ual doubt, unrest, and the fear of death. 
 
 Do I then claim infallibility and perfection for the An- 
 glican Church ? No, far from it. If one member suffer, 
 all the other members suffer with it. We cannot be so 
 ungrateful as to forgot the wonderful practical reforma- 
 tion which our own day has witnessed in our Church, 
 and the immense growth and progress which God has 
 vouchsafed her. But still, with sorrow we confess that 
 within the pale of the Anglican Church there is yet 
 much ungodliness of life, too little zeal, too often dis- 
 putes in which charity is broken ; and, worst of all. 
 
94 
 
 that men do arise among us saying perverse things, 
 whom the Church is obliged to cast forth from her pale. 
 But when was any ln-anch of the Church militant on 
 earth ever entirely free from these evils ? Are not these 
 the very things that prove and confirm our faith ? 
 
 Is Rome free from evils of this sort? Are there within her 
 pale no doubts and disputings, no differencesof faith, no 
 unsettled questions of religious controversy ? With a 
 terrible iron hand she crushes out the light of reason and 
 the exercise of thought, silences the voice of Scripture, 
 mangles and vilifies the writings of the Christian Fa- 
 tiiers. — Well may we say of her, 'They make a wilder- 
 ness an I nil it peace.'' — But after all is there peace in 
 },„..%.. ; -..;^ No, far from it. The principle lure they 
 Liv.d out to us is, certainty oC faith, grounded upon their 
 doctrine of an infallible judge. But where is this infal- 
 lible judge, and how are we to get from him an infallible 
 decision? On this capital point they cannot agree among 
 themselves. Some few say it is the Pope ; others say, 
 no, but the Pope with his Cardinals ; others deny this, 
 and say the Pope and a Provincial Synod ; others again, 
 nothing less than the Pope and a general Council ; others 
 a general Council alone, with or without the Pope. — 
 They hold to the word Transubstantiation, but what the 
 actual change is, or how it is brought about, they differ 
 and dispute to this very day. — They believe in the Mass, 
 but they cannot agree in what the sacrifice consists. 
 They assert a Purgatory, but as to where it is, or what 
 are its pains, their nature and duration, they have end- 
 less disputes. — Many yet strive and even write against 
 the Immaculate Conception. In short, there is scarcely 
 a single point of divinity fbout which her doctors do not 
 yet dispute and differ.* 
 
 Rome ofl'ers us unity ^^ What unity? The unity of 
 death. But who is it that has broken up the once glori- 
 ous unity of Christendom ? Rome, and Rome only. 
 Rome alone is responsible for this. Nay, more, by cut- 
 ling off from hor Communion all who will not submit to 
 
 * See this proved in Edgar's Varialiotis of Popery, Bp. Hall's Peace of 
 Rome, Wordsworth's and Palmers Letters, and Bp. Bull's Corruptions 
 of the Church of Rome. This last admirable little Treatise is published 
 as a tract by the S. P. C. K., and ought to be in o very Churchman's 
 hands, and read, and read, and read again. 
 
 i 
 { 
 
 I 
 
95 
 
 her usurped dominion and her corrupted creed, she in 
 fact cuts herself off from the one body of the Church of 
 Christ, and is the only branch of the Church which is 
 really guilty of the sin of schism. 
 
 Tke duty of English Churchmen towards members of the 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 I speak not of the individual members of that Body, 
 whom, for their zeal, and devotion, and good works 
 and many virtues, we must all esteem and love. I speak 
 of the system., to which they, in all sincerity, invite us 
 to submit. With respect to our dear brethren entangled 
 in the evils of that system, our duty is plain. It is, 
 calmly and trustfully to wait the course of God's Provi- 
 dence ; and, whenever an opening is offered, to be always 
 ready, with patience and love, and meekness and long- 
 suffering, to shew them the light of the truth entrusted 
 to us ; to shew them, thai, while Rome holds all the Truth 
 — quite covered up, and lost to a great degree, amidst 
 a vast mass of superimposed human additions and cor- 
 rupting traditions of men — the Anglican Church holds 
 the same Truth, in all its original lustre and purity, 
 uninjured by human additions, unimpaired by any 
 losses. 
 
 The responsibility involved in our possess^ion of the Truth. 
 
 For ourselves, my Brethren, ought we not to thank 
 
 God every day for this great and blessed privilege.^ 
 Ought we not to think more than we do of the responsi- 
 bility il involves ? Is it not — must it not be the bounden 
 duty of every one of us to acquaint himself with the 
 faith as held and taught in our own Church, and to be 
 always ready with meekness to give, to every one that 
 asketh us, a reason of ihe hope that is in us — a reason, 
 which, coming up warm out of the deepest convictions 
 of our iiearls, will carry conviction to the heart of him 
 that hears us ? How does the zeal of the members of 
 that fallen Church in this respect put us all to shame ! 
 For we never meet one of them, who is ashamed to own 
 himself a son of the Church of Rome, or, unable or un- 
 willing to tell why he is so. 
 
■^5»P«Ii»!»^»W 
 
 96 
 
 My task — an iingraleful one to me, so far as it has 
 been a work of controversy — is done. Controversy, how- 
 ever at times unavoidable, never can be otherwise than 
 distasteful to the Christian Pastor. Controversy is not 
 the food of the soul, but truth — the sincere milk of the 
 word. Remember this. If you know the truth, the 
 truth will make you free. 
 
 If I have succeeded in awakening in you a desire to 
 know more ol the teaching of your own Church, — which 
 is the teaching of the true Catholic Church — on the 
 great subjects we have been considering, my labour is 
 not lost. The state and place and condition of the soul 
 after death and in eternity — the communion of the 
 believer with Christ His Saviour, in the Sacrament of 
 His Body and Blood — the nature and efficacy and suffi- 
 ciency^of the one Sacrifice for sins — the eternal Priest- 
 hood of Christ, and His continual intercession for us on 
 high, — these are subjects well worthy of our deepest, 
 most careful, most persevering study and meditation. 
 Without some intelligent, living, practical faith, respect- 
 ing them all, no Christian can ever be fitted for his 
 duties in this life, or to meet his Lord in peace at His 
 coming. 
 
 That Coming is drawing on. The joyful Festival of 
 His first coming is close at hand. On that day we go to 
 the House of God to meet our Saviour, and to feast at 
 His Table. Let me earnestly express the hope that not 
 one here to-night will turn his back on Christmas day 
 upon his Lord, and refuse to keep the Feast. For no 
 one " keeps the Feast" who refuses to share in feasting 
 upon the Commemorative Sacrifice of Christ's death. 
 
 Come, then, to this feast, with pure and clean hearts, 
 with Christian joy and gladness, with adoring love to 
 " the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the 
 world," And this year, let it be a part of our sacrifice 
 of thanksgiving that our Church and Nation have been 
 delivered from the terrible iron bondage of the Romish 
 usurpations and corruptions — that to us tliiit " darkness 
 is past, and tiie true light now sliineth." 
 
 Now " TNTO Him that i.oveu vs and wasueu vh kuom our sins in 
 His Own Blood, and hatji made ls Kings and Priksts unto God 
 AND His Father ; to Him be oi>ouv and dominion for ever and 
 KVKK. — Amen."