figurative expressions of the Fathers, and began to ground on them the doctrine of transubstantiation. The growth of error and superstition was rapid in the fifth century-by the invasion of uncivilized nations, Europe was plunged into a fearful state of barbarism and ignorance. Learning was banished, the Scriptures were almost neglected; the consequence was, the growth of superstition and error ;this state of things continued to advance for several ages. In this long night of darkness, we must look for the origin of many of the errors and superstitions of the Romish church. Every thing which went to establish the authority and ascendancy of the priesthood was encouraged by them, and submitted to by a credulous and superstitious people. "The doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ," Archbishop Tillotson observes, was first started upon occasion of the dispute about the worship of images, in opposition whereto the synod of Constantinople, about the year 750, did argue thus: that our Lord having left us no other image of himself but the sacrament, in which the substance of bread is the image of his body, we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In answer to this argument, the second Council of Nice, in the year 787, did declare, that the sacrament after consecration is not the image and antitype of Christ's body and blood, but is properly his body and blood. So that the corporeal presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament, was first brought in to support 66 the stupid worship of images. And indeed it could never have come in on a more proper occasion, nor have been applied to a fitter purpose." Notwithstanding the declaration of the Council of Nice in favour of this doctrine, it had to encounter the opposition of many learned men; it was not till the Council of Lateran, under the pontificate of Innocent III. in the twelfth century, that it was decreed and enforced as an article of faith. The following observations of Bishop Burnett are of sufficient importance to justify the lengthening of this chapter by their insertion. "That which makes the introduction of this doctrine appear the more probable is, that we plainly see the whole body of the clergy was every where so influenced by the management of the popes, that they generally entered into combinations to subject the temporality to the spirituality; and therefore every opinion that tended to render the persons of the clergy sacred, and to raise their character high, was sure to receive the best entertainment, and the greatest encouragement possible. Nothing could carry this so far as an opinion that represented the priest as having a character by which, with a few words, he could make a god. The opinion of transubstantiation was such an engine, that it being once set on foot, could not but meet with a favourable reception from those who were then seeking all possible colours, to give credit to their authority, and to advance it. The numbers of the clergy were then so great, and their contrivances were so well suited to the credulity and superstition of those times, that by visions and wonderful stories confidently vouched, they could easily infuse any thing into weak and giddy multitudes. Besides, that the genius of those times led them much to the love of pomp and show; they had lost the true power and beauty of religion, and were willing, by outward appearances, to balance or compensate for their great defects." The doctrine of transubstantiation, as held by the Romish church, having been shown to be unscriptural, and a novelty unknown to the church in the early ages, and one which sprung up in times of great ignorance and superstition; we might here be content to leave the subject, did not the tenacity with which the church of Rome cleaves to this doctrine, and the anathemas which she pronounces against all who reject it, render some further remarks expedient. We observe, then, in addition to what has been already advanced, that the notion of the literal conversion of the bread and wine into the real body and blood, the soul and divinity of Christ, is in itself absurd, opposed to our senses and to right reason: it is a horrid impiety, and has occasioned superstition and idolatry in those who believe it. That what our senses assure us is really bread and wine, should, by the repetition of a few words, be converted into a totally different substance -- into the body and blood, the soul and divinity, of the glorified Saviour,--that thus "the whole Christ is contained in each element, and in the separate parts of each," wherever, and whenever the Eucharist is celebrated; and that each person receiving the consecrated wafer, actually receives and eats "the whole Christ," his body and blood, his soul and divinity, is an absurdity so great, that one wonders that it could ever have suggested itself to a rational mind. Cicero asks, "Was any man ever so insane as to believe that to be a god on which he feeds ?" * The invention and belief of that which appeared to the Pagan Tully so absurd and monstrous, was reserved for the church of Rome. It is not then surprising that Averroes, a heathen Arabian philosopher of the eleventh century, when he heard of this doctrine being held by the Christians, should say, "I have inquired into all religions, and have found none more foolish than that of the Christians, (meaning the western church,) because that very God they worship, they with their teeth devour:-because the Christians eat what they worship, let my soul be with the philosophers." ↑ * Ecquem tam amentem esse putas, qui illud, quo vescatur, Deum credat esse? (de Nat. Deor. 3.) "How many gods are there?" said a Popish missionary to a heathen convert. "None," replied the convert. "None! what do you mean?" "I mean," said the convert, "that there is no God, for you told me that there was only one, and I ate him yesterday!" The notion of transubstantiation is opposed to the evidence of our senses, and is repugnant to right reason. There are some of the mysteries of our holy religion above the full comprehension of our reason, but none are contrary to right reason. This distinction is overlooked by the advocates of Popery, who say that the mystery of the Trinity is equal to that of transubstantiation. It is sufficient to reply to this subtlety, that the doctrine of the Trinity is a truth revealed in the Scriptures; but transubstantiation is not revealed, but is contrary to the Scriptures. The doctrine of the Trinity of persons in the unity of the Godhead, though a great mystery, is not repugnant to reason; but the notion that bread and wine, which reason and the senses tell us to be really bread and wine, are converted into the real flesh and blood, soul and divinity, of the Saviour that every consecrated wafer, and every part into which it may be divided, contains "the whole Christ,"-and that every person in every part of the world eating the wafer, receives and eats "the whole Christ," his body, blood, soul, and divinity; this is a notion which, as one observes, "overturns the foundation of credit in the testimony of our senses, disarranges the entire physical constitution of our nature, and most egregiously insults the dictates and convictions of the understanding, under the venerable sanctions of faith and religion." And yet the denial of this irrational dogma, according to the decrees of the |