CHq. 1�3 TRAN SUBSTA,??IATION. 261 . (8.) Supposing the words must be taken literally, as they contend; yet 8o far will it be from faycuring them, that it overthrows their doc- trine. Th.ey say that the bread and wine are changed into the very Christ. But our Saviour'a words, ff taken literally, will rather prove that his body and blood are turned into bread and wine, than that the latter are changed into the former. He says, (yet. 48,) "I am the bread of life ;" and, (ver. 51,) "I am the living bread that came down from heaven." Then he says, that "they must eat his flesh and drink his blood." There is some colour in the literal form by this change, but none for the change the RomanJars contend for. (9.) But taking no advantage of this, let us permit them to hold their contended literal sense; but then they must allow us that Christ's body is true/,w.d, and therefore, though we eat his body in the sacrament, yet we eat truz bread also. Now, how can we eat Christ's very body and eat true bread at the same time ? This cannot be answered with- out overthrowing transubstantiation; for that doctrine will not allow us to believe that we eat Christ's very body and bread at the same time: but, on the contrary, lays it down as an article of faith, that after the bread is made Christ's body it is no longer bread, but the appearance of it. (10.) According to their interpretation, the laity among them are in ? miserable condition, because they are not allowed the necessary means of salvation, since they receive the one part only. For Christ has made the blood as necessary as the flesh: "Except," says he, "ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink hi8 blood, ye have no life in you." He does not say, Except ye eat my flesh or drink my blood, ye have no life in you; but, Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood. Both are necessary if the one be so; and yet every person knows that the cup is denied to the lay people in the popish com- mtmion. Their doctrine of concomitancy which they have invented will not i?!p them to get over this difllc.ulty; it is this: That the blood of Christ in the sacrament is so essentially united with the body, that whosoever communicates in one element, whether bread or wine, doos, on account of that union, partake of both. But Christ here says ex- pressly, if they do not both eat his flesh and drink his blood, they have no life in them: and they will allow no other interpretation of those words but this, th? the flesh of Christ here spoken of is that which formerly was the bread in the sacrament; and the blood of Christ is that which was formerly wine in the sacrament. Admitting this sense to be true, we appeal to all men, if it is not as necessary to partake of the cup, that is, the blood, as it is to paxtake ol' the bread, that is, the body; and consequently, what will become of the people that are denied the cup ? � (11.) There is another thing to be taken notice of in the passage, which, if what has been said will signify nothing, would alone over- throw the doctrine of transubstantiation, so far as it is grounded on this text. As our Saviour says, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you ;" so he says in the next verse, "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eter- nal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." The Church of Rome not only confesses, but contends, that every person who receives the
�
