?6? Tit i NSCBSTA? TIATIOlq. tBooz I[. sacrament eats Chrlst's flesh and drinks his Mood: the natural con- cluaion is, that every one who receives the sacrament shall have eter- nal life, and Christ shall raise him up at the last day. But is this true conclusion ? No, certainly; for St. Paul says that a man may eat and drink clamnation or condemnation to himself, as well as life to himself. It is therefore evident, even to a demonstration, that what is eaten and dr?_?k in the sacrament is not always the body and blood of Christ which he 8peaks of in the passage; and consequently' it is far from proving transubstantiation. The sacrament was eaten by Judas, and continually is eaten by millions who axe both wicked here and will be lost hereafter. This, therefore, cannot be the import of our Saviour's words. For here observe, 1. That our Lord speaks in the general, ??,' eats, &c.; 2. That he speaks not by way of promise, which might be conditional, but by way of certain declaration; and, 3. That the text shows the eating here can never be employed unpro- fitably, nor without the greatest benefit. (12.) Our Lord's discourse here is, in style and manner, similar to other figurative expressions, as when, under the figure of mzt?, he taught the Samaritan woman, (John iv ;) like the apostles themselves. as when they ungerstoo? Christ as meaning lem,'en and not ?c?r?. (Matt. xvi, 7-11.) And so, in John vi, the loaves and fishes were the figuree under which he directed them to seek for the bread of life. (13.) The ancient fathers interpreted the words in the flgurati?'e manner as the Protestants do. Our limits would not allow us to en- large here: but Roman Catholics cannot deny that the fathers give Protestant interpretation.* Having shown the inconsistency of the Roman Catholic exposition. we will now give an account of the passage by which we will avoid their absurdities, and which will agree with the whole tenor of our Saviour's discourse. We think our Saviour gives a key to the passage, and hath in ex- press words forewarned us from taking his words in a gross literal eense, in place of a mystical and si)iritual one. The passage is re- markable. In vet. 60 we are told that many of his disciples, when they heard this severe command of eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, (taking the words in a carnal sense, as the Roman Cathohcs now do,) "were much offended, and said, This is a hard saying, who can hear it ? Now (ver. 61) when Jesus knew this in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said, Doth this offend you ?" In these words our Lord seems to chide their dulness, and to rectify their mis- take about what he had spoken. And lest this should not give them light enough to understand the allegory he had all along been pursuing, he farther adds, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh proflteth 11othlng." That is, though you could really eat my flesh, yet it would do you no good as to the spiritual life of your souls; but it is the Sp/rit of God that must quicken you at the last day. And then concludes, "The words that I have spoken to you they are spirit and they are life." _* Those who have not time and opportunity to peruse them will lind this assemon of ours fully established by consulting the quotations in Vvrhitby on John vi; Bmck?n- ridge and Hughes, p. 9,30; Usher's Anaw. er, p. 48, London, 1631; Fnber's Dif. of Rout., ? 91, where this subject is tn?tod at tarBe. 1
�
